Carl (CBM) wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
(I happen to think that starting by improving existing articles is probably a better training, and certainly an easier one. The question is how to motivate newcomers, to do that or anything else.)
The difficulty I see for newcomers improving existing articles is that, as newcomers, they don't know which things they can change and which things they should leave alone.
For example, imagine a well-meaning newbie who sees that our article "Logic" starts with "Logic is the study of reasoning." This newbie might change that to "Logic is the art and science of correct deduction", which is a priori reasonable. They would not know that people have argued over the first sentence in detail and that the present wording is a compromise between the many definitions of "logic" available in reliable sources. And "Logic" is not at all a controversial topic, nor rated as a featured article. If a new user were to wade into a featured article on a religious or political topic, they would have even less freedom to edit.
Right. Reading down an article and changing the first thing you happen to disagree with is not an ideal way to work; it happens to suggest itself to many newcomers, though. I suppose the three pillars of improving an article are: fact-checking and referencing anything that appears dubious to you; expanding in areas where coverage seems obviously lacking; and restructuring. All these really matter more than wording tweaks, or at least should be given priority. But they require specific skills (in our terms).
Charles