On 09/09/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I mean for articles which clearly ARE non-notable; i.e. some vanity band page and the bassist keeps adding new information to the article in an appeal to keep it alive. But needing another user (and not a sockpuppet) to "certify" any requests would probably stop 90% of that sort of "gaming".
Needing a <i>different</i> (non-sockpuppet) user to certify that the each change warrants a restart of the vote would stop 99% of the gaming of the system before the fifth certification, even if each of the band members sets up an account. ;)
Another aspect that could help is reemphasising that VFD is a discussion, not an election; if there are a large number of votes to delete, but all the votes in the last three days are to keep, and aren't sockish, then that is quite likely not actually a consensus to delete.
Well, true. But stubs don't expand by themselves, either. (Of course, I have to admit, I enjoy writing new, uncreated articles in on fell swoop, in part because then I can add it to the "Did you know?" list, and having things on the front page is very satisfying to me; not so much for the vanity aspects, but it's one of the easiest ways to get some attention for your articles from other editors).
YOU'RE the 'rhetorical "someone else"'??? Glad to finally meet you! :D
In all seriousness, I think DYK is one of the best tools we have for encouraging good new articles. Try as we might to downplay vanity, it is a cheering thing to see something you wrote on the front page; I try and ensure that as many articles that I write as possible are good enough to be DYKed - plus, as FF says, it's a guaranteed way to get people to come and edit your work, to link it into things you wouldn't have thought of...
Even if it's anonymous, we all like the egoboo of knowing people are reading our work. It's one of the hidden advantages of the wiki system, being able to see this so clearly.