On 5/17/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I could go on. Obviously new contributors to articles are welcome - WP:OWN is no good. But, at the same time, fly-bys who know nothing about the subject and are not willing even to stop and think 'what would benefit this particular article? How can it be improved?' - need hit with a cluestick.
Doc makes an excellent point here. We should obviously be welcome to newbies, but if they hit an article they know nothing about with an edit, policy says you should talk towards a concensus, which, with clueless people can be hard to impossible. How are you welcome to people while keeping quality of articles up at the same time?
Mgm
If I have time, I've been known to post in a friendly way to their own talk page (or email if they have it enabled) , making some custom-fitted suggestions about how they can do better edits, in addition to taking care of the immediate problem on the article page. it's sort of an informal WP Adoption. I think it's as important for the growth of WP as anything else we do.
Similarly, for good faith pages of newbie autobio, I sometimes modify the template, or write a message instead, and so do quite a number of other people. (after deleting the article, of course). The wording of many of the templates is quite friendly, but the effect can still be off-putting.
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I could go on. Obviously new contributors to articles are welcome - WP:OWN is no good. But, at the same time, fly-bys who know nothing about the subject and are not willing even to stop and think 'what would benefit this particular article? How can it be improved?' - need hit with a cluestick.
Doc makes an excellent point here. We should obviously be welcome to newbies, but if they hit an article they know nothing about with an edit, policy says you should talk towards a concensus, which, with clueless people can be hard to impossible. How are you welcome to people while keeping quality of articles up at the same time?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 17/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly, for good faith pages of newbie autobio, I sometimes modify the template, or write a message instead, and so do quite a number of other people. (after deleting the article, of course). The wording of many of the templates is quite friendly, but the effect can still be off-putting.
I really hate the templates. Rubber-stamp welcomes aren't welcomes, they're bureaucratic processing. This is newbie-biting in itself, and we should be unsurprised that people then regard Wikipedia as a nightmare of red tape and playing process.
- d.
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Doc makes an excellent point here. We should obviously be welcome to newbies, but if they hit an article they know nothing about with an edit, policy says you should talk towards a concensus, which, with clueless people can be hard to impossible. How are you welcome to people while keeping quality of articles up at the same time?
My way of working on this problem:
Revert to the existing consensus. Post an article and user talk page comment discussing why I did so and what info or edit changes they might make to bring new content or improvements in language in and have them accepted.
"Talk towards consensus" doesn't mean "leave it broken until...". It's reasonable to assume that consensus starts with "Where experienced editors have left it", not the last change by a random newbie.
It's not hostile to fix it back to good condition; it's hostile to do that and not explain to the newbie why you did that and how they can discuss and contribute positively.