I can't get any work done. It seems all I ever do is patrol New Pages. I can't count the number of times I've typed an edit summary of "Speedy Delete tag -- obvious test page." I'm all for stubs becoming short articles becoming articles to be proud of, but can't we at least place a lower limit on the byte count allowed for new articles?
I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. Under 200 bytes gets you a message about needing more substance (or some more tactful word) before an article can be created, along with a link to the sandbox for those who want to practice editing.
That would eliminate almost all tests in the article space and increase the likelihood that an article has at least some useable context to it. It would also decrease the number of dicdefs posted, making it more likely that the original author expands it, if possible.
There are so many people, most of them well-intentioned, posting unuseable content to the Wikipedia, and so few dedicated regulars trying to clean up after them. We're being deluged with fluff, and we don't have to be. I think a reasonable minimum byte count would reduce the workload of those trying to maintain the Wikipedia, while simultaneously improving the quality of the articles.
Anyone who is really interested in a topic will write more than 200 bytes without being told they need to. Well over 99% of all tests in the article space are far less than 200 bytes. Most dicdefs are under 200 bytes. Many Candidates for Speedy Deletion are under 200 bytes. I love the Wikipedia, but I strongly dislike the *unnecessary* workload.
Your thoughts?
Stephen W. Adair
--- Stephen Adair SWAdair@computermail.net wrote:
... I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. Under 200 bytes gets you a message about needing more substance (or some more tactful word) before an article can be created, along with a link to the sandbox for those who want to practice editing.
This sounds like a good idea. Another idea would be to not allow anons to create new articles (editing existing articles would still be allowed). They would get a message after following a red link that invites them to create a user account so that they can create a new page (and list some advantages of being a logged-in editor).
With 300K+ articles I think we should start more concerted efforts to encourage expanding the articles we already have and somewhat de-emphasize the creation of new articles (esp stubs).
There are so many people, most of them well-intentioned, posting unuseable content to the Wikipedia, and so few dedicated regulars trying to clean up after them. We're being deluged with fluff, and we don't have to be. I think a reasonable minimum byte count would reduce the workload of those trying to maintain the Wikipedia, while simultaneously improving the quality of the articles.
What we really need is a way to remove articles checked x number of times by x user type (non-new users or Admins) from RC, newpages and similar special pages. Much duplicated effort occurs as-is, making the problem seem worse than it should be.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
We don't need this. Cleanup is way overrated as compared to the athmosphere of freedom and participation which a wiki fosters.
Fred
From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 01:57:43 -0700 (PDT) To: SWAdair@computermail.net, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sub-stub city
This sounds like a good idea. Another idea would be to not allow anons to create new articles (editing existing articles would still be allowed). They would get a message after following a red link that invites them to create a user account so that they can create a new page (and list some advantages of being a logged-in editor).
With 300K+ articles I think we should start more concerted efforts to encourage expanding the articles we already have and somewhat de-emphasize the creation of new articles (esp stubs).
Why don't you just leave stubs alone and let them develop into articles through a natural process?
Fred
From: Stephen Adair SWAdair@computermail.net Reply-To: SWAdair@computermail.net, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 22:03:54 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Sub-stub city
I can't get any work done. It seems all I ever do is patrol New Pages. I can't count the number of times I've typed an edit summary of "Speedy Delete tag -- obvious test page." I'm all for stubs becoming short articles becoming articles to be proud of, but can't we at least place a lower limit on the byte count allowed for new articles?
I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. Under 200 bytes gets you a message about needing more substance (or some more tactful word) before an article can be created, along with a link to the sandbox for those who want to practice editing.
That would eliminate almost all tests in the article space and increase the likelihood that an article has at least some useable context to it. It would also decrease the number of dicdefs posted, making it more likely that the original author expands it, if possible.
There are so many people, most of them well-intentioned, posting unuseable content to the Wikipedia, and so few dedicated regulars trying to clean up after them. We're being deluged with fluff, and we don't have to be. I think a reasonable minimum byte count would reduce the workload of those trying to maintain the Wikipedia, while simultaneously improving the quality of the articles.
Anyone who is really interested in a topic will write more than 200 bytes without being told they need to. Well over 99% of all tests in the article space are far less than 200 bytes. Most dicdefs are under 200 bytes. Many Candidates for Speedy Deletion are under 200 bytes. I love the Wikipedia, but I strongly dislike the *unnecessary* workload.
Your thoughts?
Stephen W. Adair _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Cleanup is way overrated as compared to the atmosphere of freedom and participation which a wiki fosters.
It was a compromise alternative to outright deletionism, LOL. I kind of like the idea of just using the category alone, but The 'category' namespace should be left to encyclopedic content only. Maybe a 'meta' namespace category track would be cool for the other stuff.
Why don't you just leave stubs alone and let them develop into articles through a natural process?
Bah! By what "natural process" does one expect to simply set up an article about something, and it develop? Will people just come along and edit it themselves? LOL. I dont *think, so...
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Well, look at [[Tucson, Arizona]. Not much there yet, but it grew from "A large city in southern [[Arizona]]." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Tucson%2C_Arizona&oldid=96407
Fred
From: "S.Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:22:14 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sub-stub city
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Cleanup is way overrated as compared to the atmosphere of freedom and participation which a wiki fosters.
It was a compromise alternative to outright deletionism, LOL. I kind of like the idea of just using the category alone, but The 'category' namespace should be left to encyclopedic content only. Maybe a 'meta' namespace category track would be cool for the other stuff.
Why don't you just leave stubs alone and let them develop into articles through a natural process?
Bah! By what "natural process" does one expect to simply set up an article about something, and it develop? Will people just come along and edit it themselves? LOL. I dont *think, so...
S
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi.
Please could you tell your mail software to use word-wrapping? Thanks.
I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. [...] That would eliminate almost all tests in the article space and increase the likelihood that an article has at least some useable context to it.
I doubt that. I think it would only encourage more wordy tests. Instead of "Bush is gay" people will just write "Bush is gaaaaaaaay" (with loads more a's). Or if someone is posting a dicdef I think they're likely to fill the article with newlines at the end to bring it to 200 bytes. It really doesn't help the specific problem you've mentioned.
If we introduced your suggested mechanism, we would be acting against our own philosophies. In loads of places we brag how everyone can contribute, and advise people to "be bold". You are now essentially saying that some contributions should not be accepted, and some people should not be bold. I disagree.
Wikipedia brags about its self-healing abilities. People patrolling RC and NP are valuable because they make this self-healing work. The "correct" way to "fix" this situation is what Daniel Mayer mentioned: Allowing logged-in users (or only admins) to "flag" an edit to show others that it's been looked at. This eliminates duplicate work, but it does not restrict the ability of anyone to post new articles or make any other edit.
Timwi
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
... Wikipedia brags about its self-healing abilities. People patrolling RC and NP are valuable because they make this self-healing work. The "correct" way to "fix" this situation is what Daniel Mayer mentioned: Allowing logged-in users (or only admins) to "flag" an edit to show others that it's been looked at. This eliminates duplicate work, but it does not restrict the ability of anyone to post new articles or make any other edit.
If we did have such a team-based approach to patrol, then we may be able to delay having to start locking things up for some time - perhaps indefinitely.
So yes, that would be the best of all proposed options.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
... Wikipedia brags about its self-healing abilities. People patrolling RC and NP are valuable because they make this self-healing work. The "correct" way to "fix" this situation is what Daniel Mayer mentioned: Allowing logged-in users (or only admins) to "flag" an edit to show others that it's been looked at. This eliminates duplicate work, but it does not restrict the ability of anyone to post new articles or make any other edit.
If we did have such a team-based approach to patrol, then we may be able to delay having to start locking things up for some time - perhaps indefinitely.
So yes, that would be the best of all proposed options.
How about just displaying a count of how many logged-in users (or admins) have looked at an article? If I've looked at an article and done nothing about it, then it's probably an acceptable start. New articles with low view counts will likely benefit from more early attention than ones who've already been viewed a lot.
Stan
Stephen Adair wrote:
I think 200 bytes is a reasonable lower limit. Under 200 bytes gets you a message about needing more substance (or some more tactful word) before an article can be created, along with a link to the sandbox for those who want to practice editing.
Why not have the software add {{autostub}} or [[Category:Wikipedia:Automatic stub]] to every new article below, say, 500 bytes? That would keep track of those and give stubhunters a list of what to look at. If it is a "legimate stub", replace the automated message with {{stub}}.
Magnus
Why not have the software add {{autostub}} or [[Category:Wikipedia:Automatic stub]] to every new article below, say, 500 bytes? That would keep track of those and give stubhunters a list of what to look at. If it is a "legimate stub", replace the automated message with {{stub}}.
Magnus
This would be nice. +sj+
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have the software add {{autostub}} or [[Category:Wikipedia:Automatic stub]] to every new article below, say, 500 bytes? That would keep track of those and give stubhunters a list of what to look at. If it is a "legimate stub", replace the automated message with {{stub}}.
Magnus
This would be nice. +sj+
Absolutely not! Keep the category namespace free from Wikipedia-specific references.
--mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com