see below :-)
On 9 Aug 2004, at 03:23, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Message: 6 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 18:10:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sub-stub city To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 20040809011009.77996.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- 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)
Couple of points: 1. <AOL>Me too!!!</AOL> -- translation: I agree that an "I'm already looking at it" flag would reduce a lot of work and frustration AND make it very visible that Ed Stubhunter isn't the only poor soul out there struggling against the deluge. This is the best solution to the said problems, NOT a 200b limit. 2. Remember Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap. -- Why am I saying that? Well, 90% of WP articles that are written new are curd. JUST LIKE 90% of everything else is. 90% fluff stubs may LOOK alarming (especially if you're only looking at new articles), but the secret of our success lies in our cycle of incremental improvement, which is what allows us to exceed the 90% rate by far. But looking at the things that stand at the very beginning of that cycle, it just shouldn't alarm or surprise _anybody_ that there's a lotta Mullarkey out there. (Hey, and I /know/ Sturgeon's Law is not a natural law. I'm making a point here.) 3. Have a break. -- Again, if you're sifting through new articles and stubs all day, it WILL get very frustrating very quickly. See point (2). So don't. Don't feel you had to fight the good fight uninterruptedly. You don't. If you're an eager stubhunter, enjoy some mature articles in-between. It will help you and re-adjust your perception. 4. I acknowledge the 200b limit is not a totally insane idea. I can see the sense and rationale in it. I just don't think is the way to go. 5. It still takes people time to discover the Wikipedia and figure it out. It took me months and years after first seeing it, before I finally stopped browsing past it ("Just another webbased definition/article DB. Next.") and finally actually looked at it enough to realize "Hey, I can REALLY EDIT THIS and do great stuff here." On a similar vein, it took me an hour or so to explain the workings (and incredible proposition) of the Wikipedia to an alert and studied intellectual. Why am I saying this? - Well, we need to have _as few as possible_ bars to entry. See next point. 6. Not only is the ad-nauseam repeated point about stubs growing into brilliant articles nevertheless true, but - MUCH more importantly: Fluff _contributors_ grow into valuable and respected Wikipedians. Lets not raise the bar for entry. For the sake of future Wikipedians, who will soon go beyond writing fluff. Their future contributions are worth their erstwhile fluff articles many times over. (And if existing, loyal Wikipedians really do keep writing silly stubs -- that's what Talk pages are for.)
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the ones who watch progress bars. http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683