I have noticed that when you create an imperfect article (no stub tag, no categories, or something badly wrong), someone tends to show up and fix it. Often they add something else in the process. But at least you get a tiny bit of feedback.
However, when you create a "perfect" article in one go (referenced, with categories, links and incoming links), you actually get no feedback. No one is drawn there to fix some automatically detected fault. In short, no one even seems to see it.
This strikes me as slightly sad. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.
Steve
If you leave off things that have obvious fixes, people tend to fix those, but writing imperfect articles doesn't often attract new content. If I compare my new articles, the ones that tend to get attention are the ones that have been featured on the main page or in some other high-profile visible spot somewhere.
Mgm
On 1/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I have noticed that when you create an imperfect article (no stub tag, no categories, or something badly wrong), someone tends to show up and fix it. Often they add something else in the process. But at least you get a tiny bit of feedback.
However, when you create a "perfect" article in one go (referenced, with categories, links and incoming links), you actually get no feedback. No one is drawn there to fix some automatically detected fault. In short, no one even seems to see it.
This strikes me as slightly sad. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
However, when you create a "perfect" article in one go (referenced, with categories, links and incoming links), you actually get no feedback. No one is drawn there to fix some automatically detected fault. In short, no one even seems to see it.
You can try putting an {{expand}} tag on it, but it probably won't help much. Your alternative is Peer Review, but it would be nice to have something between "desperate need for cleanup" and "almost ready for FAC". I think there is a page for requesting feedback on new articles... can't remember what it's called though.
On 1/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You can try putting an {{expand}} tag on it, but it probably won't help much. Your alternative is Peer Review, but it would be nice to have something between "desperate need for cleanup" and "almost ready for FAC". I think there is a page for requesting feedback on new articles... can't remember what it's called though.
Ohh, ohh, something I actually know, just this once: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFF
It tends to get a bit backlogged, from what I've seen, but seems a generally good idea.
-Luna
Steve Bennett wrote:
I have noticed that when you create an imperfect article (no stub tag, no categories, or something badly wrong), someone tends to show up and fix it. Often they add something else in the process. But at least you get a tiny bit of feedback.
However, when you create a "perfect" article in one go (referenced, with categories, links and incoming links), you actually get no feedback. No one is drawn there to fix some automatically detected fault. In short, no one even seems to see it.
This strikes me as slightly sad. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.
This makes it easier to understand the purpose of the old rule: always leave something for others to do.
Ec
On 1/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This makes it easier to understand the purpose of the old rule: always leave something for others to do.
Yeah. Maybe I should make a point of making a glaring typo in the first sentence or something ;)
Steve