I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
So far we've had a range from Battleships and miniaturists to Monarchs and a winger. I think we've tested the charge that a new article submitted to Wikipedia will be tagged for deletion in two minutes and is guaranteed not to last seven days. But it would be a Pyrrhic victory to respond to the press that It is still possible for a good article to be added to Wikipedia by a newbie, as we'd have to concede that enough get deleted by over-enthusiasm at CSD to constitute a problem - the press exaggerated the problem, but they didn't entirely invent it. We've also established that neither welcoming nor wikification are currently keeping up with the flow of newbies and their articles.
My own contribution has in the first sentence "was king of ****** from ***** to ***". It has yet to be marked as patrolled and I anticipate it reaching those who patrol the back of the unpatrolled newpages at some point this week.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:52:18 -0400 From: David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 480eb3150910290952i5afcb259qadfdd6751246d1b3@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
It's not hard to do. Mention the unspectacular factor that claims notability in an obscure position in the middle without any details, add some foolish spam about how good they are & how they will change the world, include an email address to contact for more information, and omit references. For models, check CSD.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
The idea is to test the speedy deletion process with articles that shouldn't be speedy deleted.
Links to several of the articles in the process and their fates have been posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie_treatment
Hey, that's really cool. I've made my own lame newbie attempt to join the experiment. It's hard to write a convincing newbie stub article that you think deserves to exist, but could be dissed by a patroller acting in a hurry.
Steve
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an article as you would in your known identity.
I think we've tested the charge that a new article submitted to Wikipedia will be tagged for deletion in two minutes and is guaranteed not to last seven days. But it would be a Pyrrhic victory to respond to the press that It is still possible for a good article to be added to Wikipedia by a newbie, as we'd have to concede that enough get deleted by over-enthusiasm at CSD to constitute a problem - the press exaggerated the problem, but they didn't entirely invent it. We've also established that neither welcoming nor wikification are currently keeping up with the flow of newbies and their articles.
I do, however, strongly suggest a writeup for the Signpost.
I'd also suggest getting the functionaries - which is the group on Wikipedia of people who've had most editorial and administrative privileges for a substantial length of time - to contribute their experiments as well. Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, after all.
[cc'ing to functionaries-en - funcs, you may wish to join the wikien-l thread or contact WereSpielChequers directly.]
- d.
2009/10/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an article as you would in your known identity.
Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
2009/10/30 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an article as you would in your known identity.
Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think about what I was doing!" Really.)
- d.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/30 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an article as you would in your known identity.
Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think about what I was doing!" Really.)
Well, I'm slated to do my regular once-a-month spate of article creation (yes, really, it's that bad), but I do this (and all editing) under my account (the only one I've ever had). But I do try and create the article in the best possible state, drafting and previewing it for several hours. I suppose my version of this test would be to create an article in sub-stub format, and see whether someone jumps on it before I improve it?
But I'm stuck on which of these terms to write an article on:
1) "sword brother" (bit lightweight)
2) "heroic code" (good number of Google Scholar hits)
3) "heroic friendship" (nebulous concept, difficult to pin down)
Any suggestions?
Anyone saying "all three" will get a wet trout slap. I'm leaning towards heroic code, but unlike most articles I start, it is one that I don't really have access to enough sources to flesh out the article enough. The last time I did that was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arctic_expeditions
But it is gratifying to see that article (well, list) continuing to grow and improve.
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Carcharoth
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, after all.
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin?
Charles
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, after all.
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin?
Charles
Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer review an admin's use of sysop tools?
- causa sui
2009/10/30 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin?
That was fatigue from dealing with too many people reacting as I described. It is of course way less than ideal. (I tend to deal with wikidrama by saying "fuck it" and figuring in a year it either won't matter or we're doomed anyway.)
- d.
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote: > Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a > real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just > you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider > below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, > after all. > So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin? CharlesMaybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer review an admin's use of sysop tools?
Which was how the point arose. I'm quite a hardliner in general on the collegiate approach and requirement on admins to do exactly that; as some people know.
The question is what nuances there are. In arguing that undoing a clearly erroneous speedy, post-notification of the action is probably adequate, I came across this idea that one should just do it rather than make an issue; and that this was accepted practice as of 2009. (I then went and spent quite a bit of time on speedy patrol to assess how things were over there.)
This fits into the current debate in the form not of whether reversing a bad speedy is some sort of wheel-warring (which is a kind of reductio ad absurdum); but that not reporting that it has been reversed is actually or potentially causing a lack of feedback to admins with systematic errors of approach. (We're all fallible, but this study raises the question whether there are enough misconceptions out there in the group of admins to make this a serious matter.)
Charles
Yes, there are enough misconceptions to make this worth discussion. In fact, one oft he reasons for not notifying is when one knows the notification will be ignored, or, possibly, start a conflict. Give the official equality of all admins, most of us are not anxious for conflict, and this is always powerful factor for hiding problems. If we brought up all the problems we had with one another, the already combative tendencies of our form of discussion would be overwhelming.
That this leads to non-notification is only part of the problem. It also leads to a failure to correct errors. When I see a bad speedy, unless I think it's really important, I leave it alone, and do not revert it, although I know it will result in people coming to that admin's talk page thinking there have been no problems. To a certain degree, that we get along is more important as a practical matter than that we get it right. I'd like to find a way to deal with this.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote: > Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a > real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just > you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider > below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change, > after all. > So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the deleting admin?
Charles
Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer review an admin's use of sysop tools?
Which was how the point arose. I'm quite a hardliner in general on the collegiate approach and requirement on admins to do exactly that; as some people know.
The question is what nuances there are. In arguing that undoing a clearly erroneous speedy, post-notification of the action is probably adequate, I came across this idea that one should just do it rather than make an issue; and that this was accepted practice as of 2009. (I then went and spent quite a bit of time on speedy patrol to assess how things were over there.)
This fits into the current debate in the form not of whether reversing a bad speedy is some sort of wheel-warring (which is a kind of reductio ad absurdum); but that not reporting that it has been reversed is actually or potentially causing a lack of feedback to admins with systematic errors of approach. (We're all fallible, but this study raises the question whether there are enough misconceptions out there in the group of admins to make this a serious matter.)
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
<snip>
That this leads to non-notification is only part of the problem. It also leads to a failure to correct errors. When I see a bad speedy, unless I think it's really important, I leave it alone, and do not revert it, although I know it will result in people coming to that admin's talk page thinking there have been no problems. To a certain degree, that we get along is more important as a practical matter than that we get it right. I'd like to find a way to deal with this.
I think this set of comments provides a possible type of explanation of social phenomena on the site that is at least worth isolating. Rather than the place being too "scratchy" (as is sometimes argued) it may be that socially we prefer a "comfort zone" in which lesser forms of conflict (over things like this) are avoided. So those may be complementary issues, naturally, if people are too broad-brush in attaching the label "drama" to all types of discussion of misuse of admin powers. That certainly accords with my experience. It is sad to think that the culture we have may simply not be compatible with telling the truth about errors made in the application of admin powers.
Charles
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
Charles
The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but keeping the new contributors. This is done not just by refraining from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors to improve them.
What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did it wrong--now I know what to do better." or "Many people left notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after all." The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where expectations are different.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
Carcharoth
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but keeping the new contributors. This is done not just by refraining from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors to improve them.
What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did it wrong--now I know what to do better." or "Many people left notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after all." The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where expectations are different.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Hmm, as for my own experimental article (which I loaded with a few newbie errors, but nothing too over the top), all that has happened was an established user came along and deleted two of the sources, and renamed a (deliberately misnamed) section heading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batu_Niah&action=history
I can't really fathom his thinking. Sure, they weren't high quality sources, but they were the sources of the information nonetheless...
Steve
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria".
Hmm, as for my own experimental article (which I loaded with a few newbie errors, but nothing too over the top), all that has happened was an established user came along and deleted two of the sources, and renamed a (deliberately misnamed) section heading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batu_Niah&action=history
I can't really fathom his thinking. Sure, they weren't high quality sources, but they were the sources of the information nonetheless...
I think you needed to point out which bits of information corresponded with which sources. I see the failed wikilinking for Bintulu was not corrected. Oh, and was the spelling mistake intentional or "interestig"? :-)
Carcharoth
PS. User:Speleo87 for writing an article about a town near famous caves (speleology)? :-)
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
Carcharoth
That would make a good topic for an opinion essay in the Signpost, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Opinion
-Sage
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but keeping the new contributors. This is done not just by refraining from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors to improve them.
What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did it wrong--now I know what to do better." or "Many people left notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after all." The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where expectations are different.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The point of my comment is that if I have the time to do it, the advice is specific to the particular article. Not suggesting looking for sources in general, but suggesting where they might be found, keeping in mind the probable availability to the user. Not saying avoid promotional phrases like this standard list, but just which particular phrases in that particular article look promotional.
That said, I do have a list of boilerplate standard advice, and I will post it. Let me give now the one I use the most often:
"See chapter 6 of [http://howwikipediaworks.com/ the free online version] of ''How Wikipedia Works'' by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in [http://nostarch.com/howwikiworks.htm print])
I once thought of doing a similar book myself, but i quickly saw I could not do better.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
Carcharoth
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but keeping the new contributors. This is done not just by refraining from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors to improve them.
What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did it wrong--now I know what to do better." or "Many people left notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after all." The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where expectations are different.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed to new editors trying to do the same?
Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new editors bitten?
If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I think you needed to point out which bits of information corresponded with which sources.
I sure did! I also needed to use bullet points - but I didn't know that.
I see the failed wikilinking for Bintulu was not corrected.
Yup. Nor was the lack of bold for the first mention of the town. The lat/long coords should also be {{coord|...}}'ed.
(How on earth would a newbie ever figure this stuff out...)
Oh, and was the spelling mistake intentional or "interestig"? :-)
Heh, I think that was actually an accident. I originally wrote "popular tourist attraction", but thought "really interesting" was more appropriate. :)
PS. User:Speleo87 for writing an article about a town near famous caves (speleology)? :-)
Yup, my alterego is a 22 year old cave lover...
Steve