When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum standard from new editors?
Yeah, I do. I believe this helps them acclimate to the Wikipedia community.
Like I've said previously, I often edit articles *before* tagging for deletion. These articles are usually written by people not familiar with Wikimarkup, or people not even familiar with English, period.
Imagine the let-down they feel when they discover that actually, there are loads of good and bad checks and balances in place that actually make contributing quite difficult.
I do imagine they feel let-down. Most if not nearly all the articles I tag for speedy deletion are by barely autoconfirmed people with hardly any edits at all. They just jumped right in the deep end and most of the time, they drown. I think there needs to be two levels of auto- confirmed, the "You aren't Willy on wheels" confirmed, and "You can probably write a non-speedyable article" confirmed.
Is there any way to take out the bad checks and balances without also taking out the good as well?
Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
<snip>
I can't help but notice that the author of this article keeps trying to add articles that aren't to our standards. Maybe make people who are writing their first (or second, or third, if the first or second is deleted) article go through the article wizard? That way, some (or perhaps all) of his articles would've eventually been deleted, but at least they would've been sourced and at least somewhat of a NPOV?
It's not the article that matters here - others can come along and tidy it up later. What matters here is getting people started off on the right footing, and explaining things to them. Forcing someone to go through an article wizard is a "one size fits all" solution. The best approach, in nearly all cases, is personal and friendly interaction, helping people improve.
When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum standard from new editors? If so, then the problem goes all the way back to this:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
That gets people excited when they realise it is true. They really *can* edit it. Imagine the let-down they feel when they discover that actually, there are loads of good and bad checks and balances in place that actually make contributing quite difficult.
And of the two articles mentioned, Kettlebowl seems OK for what it is, and the other one is fine as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Education_Group_Inc.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l