From: geni geniice@gmail.com
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.
-- geni
On 08/12/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.
Killing a lot of the content there as unuseful would probably help. At a glance, much of it is being left as replies to people who'll never see the page again...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/8/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.
-- geni
What articles are sitting there? Are they ones we really need? If not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in the first place.
As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see some more details. How is it working? How is it failing? One place it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text box. This probably isn't even malicious in many cases. Maybe we could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new articles without logging in if they do so explicitly.
I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site. Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to. It also doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new account with each edit anyway. (Note that these points wouldn't apply to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new articles.) The way I see it, this is basically a question of efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles but hinders the creation of bad ones. I still haven't seen enough data to make up my mind though.
Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most persuasive. In the statistics that were given, the number of new articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of deletions. If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a good statistic.
Anthony
I've already seen Articles for creation being useful and weeding out suggestions for which people provided no basic info to include. Those would've ended up as eternal stubs if the anon in question was free to create it.
Mgm
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.
-- geni
What articles are sitting there? Are they ones we really need? If not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in the first place.
As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see some more details. How is it working? How is it failing? One place it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text box. This probably isn't even malicious in many cases. Maybe we could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new articles without logging in if they do so explicitly.
I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site. Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to. It also doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new account with each edit anyway. (Note that these points wouldn't apply to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new articles.) The way I see it, this is basically a question of efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles but hinders the creation of bad ones. I still haven't seen enough data to make up my mind though.
Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most persuasive. In the statistics that were given, the number of new articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of deletions. If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a good statistic.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I've already seen Articles for creation being useful and weeding out suggestions for which people provided no basic info to include. Those would've ended up as eternal stubs if the anon in question was free to create it.
Mgm
You mean if there was no "Articles for creation" the anon would have created an account and then created the stub?
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
Anthony
On 12/8/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
I bet it is a permanent policy change because (a) it seems to be working quite well and (b) it is consistent with our commitment to remain open.
--Jimbo
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is already 62 kb long.
-- geni
The "Requested Articles" pages are longer.
Actually I don't know even how long they are, because they are currently a medium-sized page consisting of nothing but links to a hundred or so medium-sized pages consisting of nothing but article names.
So, what's your point?
[[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is heading towards being unmanageable. It's useing up rescources that could better be spent elsewhere.
-- geni
What articles are sitting there? Are they ones we really need? If not, maybe the problem is that we have an "articles for creation" in the first place.
As for the indication that this change is working, I'd like to see some more details. How is it working? How is it failing? One place it is probably working well is with those one liners that non-logged in users create when they click on a red link and wind up with a text box. This probably isn't even malicious in many cases. Maybe we could try addressing this but still allowing people to create new articles without logging in if they do so explicitly.
I've tried to keep an open mind about this experiment because I agree with Jimbo that it doesn't really change the openness of the site. Pretty much anyone can create an account if they want to. It also doesn't disallow anonymity, since in fact the only way to really be anonymous (to those without CheckUser) would be to create a new account with each edit anyway. (Note that these points wouldn't apply to other changes like not allowing new accounts to create new articles.) The way I see it, this is basically a question of efficiency, what policy best facilitates the creation of good articles but hinders the creation of bad ones. I still haven't seen enough data to make up my mind though.
Oh yeah, I'd like to point out the one data point which I found most persuasive. In the statistics that were given, the number of new articles went down by nearly exactly the same as the number of deletions. If that holds up over a long period of time, damn that's a good statistic.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are expandable, but actually aren't.
Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't see the point in keeping it.
Mgm
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are expandable, but actually aren't.
Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't see the point in keeping it.
Mgm
Your theories on eternal stubs are interesting. I'll leave it at that. But anyway, if "Articles for creation" is wasting a lot of time and not much good is coming out of it, then we should get rid of it, regardless of whether or not we turn back on new article creation for users that aren't logged in.
Anthony
Folks
So far, I think that the articles for creation process is working well after three days.
We also see if there is some interest in the articles created or not. I think it has potential even if anonymous users were allowed to create articles.
Perhaps there is room for a merge between the two processes with the requested articles having room for people to explain why they are requesting the articles.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/9/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition
a
stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are expandable, but actually aren't.
Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't see the point in keeping it.
Mgm
Your theories on eternal stubs are interesting. I'll leave it at that. But anyway, if "Articles for creation" is wasting a lot of time and not much good is coming out of it, then we should get rid of it, regardless of whether or not we turn back on new article creation for users that aren't logged in.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Andrew,
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
Or *can*.
Can God create a permastub not even He can expand?
On 12/8/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Andrew,
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
Or *can*.
Can God create a permastub not even He can expand?
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
There are an awful lot of people confuse short articles with stubs. Just because it's short doesn't mean it's bad.
Of course, just because it's a stub doesn't mean it's bad (compared to nothing) either. After all, most mainstream encyclopedias contain stubs too.
Anthony
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A workflow-based idea: how about auto-marking "eternal stubs" (defined by a year of no edits with a stub notice present) with a template warning that they will be deleted on a given date in another year's time if they have still not been edited? The deletion could be done automatically by the software: the process would be stopped automatically, and the timer canceled, by removing the template, and also removing the stub notice would prevent the article from being marked again.
This would have the effect of removing stagnant dross automatically, whilst keeping anything even slightly controversial, since all that would be required would be to make a single edit to keep the stub.
Category pages could be used by the various clean-up crews to make sure that any article-worthy stubs were expanded and the templates removed.
The same "auto-delete after x time if template not removed" principle could also be used for things like license problems on images.
-- Neil