On 0, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl scribbled:
Gwern Branwen schreef:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled:
Could it have been left alone after the copy vios were deleted if you simply didn't know enough about the topic?
- As a blank page or sub-stub at best, I guess. Doesn't sound appealing.
Blank pages are easier to edit for new contributors, who might be knowledgeable about the subject, but not about wiki-formatting, than redirects. If you suspected that the person might be notable, but that the article was a copy-vio, a blank page would probably have been better.
That's possible. I suspect you may be overestimating the competency/boldness of new contributors - if they see a blank page, for what reason would they think "This is a blank page, and I should obviously write something in it" and not "Hmm. Can one *really* edit? How the heck does one edit anyway?", "Uh-oh. Looks like some vandalism or something special going on here. Better stay away since I don't understand what's going on and why there isn't a stub or *anything at all*, not even a nice stub template encouraging me to contribute.", or even "Huh. Looks like a bug." Forgive my skepticism, but my days on Helpdesk-l taught me not to demand or expect too much of new people.
(On the other hand: since anonymous page creation was switched off, perhaps substubs are even more desirable.)
If the copyvio did not suggest that it would be desirable to have a page on the subject, redirects are of course fine.
Eugene
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.