On 0, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> scribbled:
Gwern Branwen schreef:
On 0, K P <kpbotany(a)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?
3) 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.