On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/30 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an article as you would in your known identity.
Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think about what I was doing!" Really.)
Well, I'm slated to do my regular once-a-month spate of article creation (yes, really, it's that bad), but I do this (and all editing) under my account (the only one I've ever had). But I do try and create the article in the best possible state, drafting and previewing it for several hours. I suppose my version of this test would be to create an article in sub-stub format, and see whether someone jumps on it before I improve it?
But I'm stuck on which of these terms to write an article on:
1) "sword brother" (bit lightweight)
2) "heroic code" (good number of Google Scholar hits)
3) "heroic friendship" (nebulous concept, difficult to pin down)
Any suggestions?
Anyone saying "all three" will get a wet trout slap. I'm leaning towards heroic code, but unlike most articles I start, it is one that I don't really have access to enough sources to flesh out the article enough. The last time I did that was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arctic_expeditions
But it is gratifying to see that article (well, list) continuing to grow and improve.
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Carcharoth