When I was still editing (before the, ahem, unfortunate circumstances), I found this to be a good way to do things. If I tagged a new article with a generic {{stub}}, often the user who sorted the article into a deeper category also improved it dramatically, in ways that my editing style never allowed me to do. It simply called more human editors to the attention of the article, which is always beneficial so long as they do so in the spirit of collaboration and not in the spirit of combat (which is often the case),
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
My own pet peeve along these lines is articles with no categories other than various subject-specific stub categories added by subject-specific stub tags. Why go to the trouble of sorting and specifying the type of stub it is and not add the actual categories at the same time? Seems like such a trivial extra step, we could even have a bot doing the work.
IMHO it is a mistake to criticise people for not doing work. We can criticise them when they do harm. But doing 10 minutes of work, and not the other 2 minutes...well, that's perfectly valid in the wiki world, imho.
In any case, I frequently create stubs in areas I know nothing about, and simply don't know what the best categories are. So I might end up using something really generic like "Sports" or "People" or something and letting someone else refine it.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l