Andrew Lih wrote:
I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system. That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the Wikimedia projects.
Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's a real article about a real thing."
(references++)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system. That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the Wikimedia projects.
Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's a real article about a real thing."
(references++)
I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
(The other day, when the wiki went slow, someone said suggested disabling editing, serving Wikipedia from one of the static database dumps, and declaring Wikipedia as being version 1.0 ;) )
I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
I don't think that's a good idea. The speedy criteria are purposely limited to specific cases. Most people won't argue the fact there's definitely articles in existence that should clearly be deleted, but don't fit a particular speedy criterion because we couldn't come to an agreeable phrasing of such a criterion.
On 9/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
I don't think that's a good idea. The speedy criteria are purposely limited to specific cases. Most people won't argue the fact there's definitely articles in existence that should clearly be deleted, but don't fit a particular speedy criterion because we couldn't come to an agreeable phrasing of such a criterion.
I agree that we still need to delete hoax entries and copyright violations.
Copyvios are fairly straightforward. We list the article and its source for a few days and then delete it, replacing with the rewrite if one has been made in the meantime. AfD is not involved in this unless a copyvio occurs during the discussion.
There is no reason why hoaxes should not be treated in a similar manner. They're quite rare.
A highly unscientific survey I just carried out suggests that non-notability is the most frequent reason given by the nominators of AfDs, "gamecruft" the next. Neither of these is a reason for deletion; they can be dealt with by redirects and merges.
ads can usually be dealt with by deleting the promotional material within the article.
Alphax wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system. That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the Wikimedia projects.
Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's a real article about a real thing."
I'm starting to think that maybe we should just leave everything in that isn't immediately speediable, let things be merged and redirected at the will of the people, and finally let Wikipedia 1.0 sort it all out.
(The other day, when the wiki went slow, someone said suggested disabling editing, serving Wikipedia from one of the static database dumps, and declaring Wikipedia as being version 1.0 ;) )
Honestly, I really am an inclusionist. :-) I have never believed that "notability" alone should be a significant criterion for deletion.
Putting this kind of problem off onto the backs of those who will be editing 1.0 seems like avoiding responsibility. It will be even harder for them because time will have left them even further removed from the original contributor, who may be the only one capable of answering the questions. If the wiki is having a slow day I see that as a temporary situation which should have no bearing on editorial policy.
Clear objective standards are important to credibility, and what is needed to achieve those standards should also be very clear. Verifiability can be clearly defined; notability cannot.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
I used to tell folks writing for wiki was easy, and the inclusiveness of it has to do with not being like a database or data entry system. That has changed with templating now being extensively used around the Wikimedia projects.
Nowadays I pretty much tell new contributors "just write a few paragraphs and INCLUDE REFERENCES and don't worry about the fancy markup for now. Just INCLUDE THE REFERENCES and people will know it's a real article about a real thing."
Absolutely! Speaking as the one who has been pushing the POV on Wiktionary that even vocabulary needs to be referenced, I am amazed by the people who consider some number of Google hits as evidence. Some of the most common offending terms are those that seek to rename sexual practices, or characterize some kind of on-line activity. A large proportion of these terms may indeed be valid, but that requires some kind of documentation to distinguish them from something that the contributor just made up for the occasion.
Ec