I wrote this in passing on wikitech-l and thought I might run it past wikien-l as an idea.
Go on new article patrol. You'll see decent stuff from old hands, but a lot of new stuff is awful. Well-meaning awful, but awful.
When the page for creating a new article comes up, would it be useful to include an article skeleton? Something like the following:
'''Article name''' is ...
Detail on Article name ...
Further detail on Article name ...
==References==
*List your sources here.
==External links==
*List relevant external links that are not already references.
The idea is that this isn't compulsory at all - but may be a helpful starter for newbies.
An analogy is writing bug reports in Bugzilla. You can more or less write something freeform, but the avg. quality of Mozilla's bug reports went way up when they started using a default reporting form (Bugzilla Helper) which set out a good bug report step by step.
The above resembles my idea of how to write a short article (see my recent creations [[Federated Naming Service]] and [[LBX]] for how I write new short articles). Others will doubtless have their own ideas.
Is this a useful idea? Do new article patrollers think it will help?
- d.
ps: both articles named above were cases of "I wonder what that actually is, oh! there's no articles yet, I think I'll find out and write them up." Helped by being temporarily stuck on dialup, which gives one more writing time than reading time.
That sounds like a great idea. Since the "well-meaning awful" often comes from people who might not know where to look for such templates, maybe it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name" template, to the edit page, or maybe provide a button that inserts that template (similar to the buttons that help you insert bolded text, italicised text, signatures, and so on).
Cheers,
James
David Gerard wrote:
I wrote this in passing on wikitech-l and thought I might run it past wikien-l as an idea.
Go on new article patrol. You'll see decent stuff from old hands, but a lot of new stuff is awful. Well-meaning awful, but awful.
When the page for creating a new article comes up, would it be useful to include an article skeleton? Something like the following:
'''Article name''' is ...
Detail on Article name ...
Further detail on Article name ...
==References==
*List your sources here.
==External links==
*List relevant external links that are not already references.
The idea is that this isn't compulsory at all - but may be a helpful starter for newbies.
An analogy is writing bug reports in Bugzilla. You can more or less write something freeform, but the avg. quality of Mozilla's bug reports went way up when they started using a default reporting form (Bugzilla Helper) which set out a good bug report step by step.
The above resembles my idea of how to write a short article (see my recent creations [[Federated Naming Service]] and [[LBX]] for how I write new short articles). Others will doubtless have their own ideas.
Is this a useful idea? Do new article patrollers think it will help?
- d.
ps: both articles named above were cases of "I wonder what that actually is, oh! there's no articles yet, I think I'll find out and write them up." Helped by being temporarily stuck on dialup, which gives one more writing time than reading time.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Deathphoenix wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
When the page for creating a new article comes up, would it be useful to include an article skeleton? Something like the following: Is this a useful idea? Do new article patrollers think it will help?
That sounds like a great idea. Since the "well-meaning awful" often comes from people who might not know where to look for such templates, maybe it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name" template, to the edit page, or maybe provide a button that inserts that template (similar to the buttons that help you insert bolded text, italicised text, signatures, and so on).
If they don't know how to format an article, they wouldn't know what a button meant, though ...
The only downside I can see is the possibility for function creep, and idiots using this inappropriately as a hammer to use on others.
- d.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:27:19 +0000, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Deathphoenix wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
When the page for creating a new article comes up, would it be useful to include an article skeleton? Something like the following: Is this a useful idea? Do new article patrollers think it will help?
That sounds like a great idea. Since the "well-meaning awful" often comes from people who might not know where to look for such templates, maybe it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name" template, to the edit page, or maybe provide a button that inserts that template (similar to the buttons that help you insert bolded text, italicised text, signatures, and so on).
If they don't know how to format an article, they wouldn't know what a button meant, though ...
The only downside I can see is the possibility for function creep, and idiots using this inappropriately as a hammer to use on others.
- d.
Indeed. For a start, many new articles are stubs, and for stubs, I prefer the following format, rather than sections on a short article:
:''See also:'' [[Article a]], [[Article b]]
:''External links:'' [[site a]], [[site b]]
For an example of this format, check many of the towns listed on [[List of towns in the Republic of Ireland]] (the talk page to-do list lists the stub ones specifically).
Also, I would consider it optimistic at best to expect references for the more humdrum stub articles. I'm not discouraging the practice of encouraging references - but for stubs - which mostly just relate basic information, contributors shouldn't be beaten with the "provide references" mantra.
Even beyond stubs, to shorter/average size articles, this may be the case.
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
Indeed. For a start, many new articles are stubs, and for stubs, I prefer the following format, rather than sections on a short article: :''See also:'' [[Article a]], [[Article b]] :''External links:'' [[site a]], [[site b]] For an example of this format, check many of the towns listed on [[List of towns in the Republic of Ireland]] (the talk page to-do list lists the stub ones specifically).
It's a matter of taste, yes.
Also, I would consider it optimistic at best to expect references for the more humdrum stub articles. I'm not discouraging the practice of encouraging references - but for stubs - which mostly just relate basic information, contributors shouldn't be beaten with the "provide references" mantra.
If they know what a stub is, they can remove the template. Remember that I'm just thinking of some preloaded wikitext here.
Even beyond stubs, to shorter/average size articles, this may be the case.
That I would question, actually. I don't write a three-para new article these days without at least an external link. The template doesn't force a section to be filled in, it just tries to get across that this is a good idea.
Hmm. How would you write such a preloaded text? I was thinking in terms of an outline for beginners to write something that wasn't crap, not something to be used as a constraint on those who know what they're doing. "The format below is suggested but not compulsory."
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Deathphoenix wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
When the page for creating a new article comes up, would it be useful to include an article skeleton? Something like the following: Is this a useful idea? Do new article patrollers think it will help?
That sounds like a great idea. Since the "well-meaning awful" often comes from people who might not know where to look for such templates, maybe it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name" template, to the edit page, or maybe provide a button that inserts that template (similar to the buttons that help you insert bolded text, italicised text, signatures, and so on).
If they don't know how to format an article, they wouldn't know what a button meant, though ...
The only downside I can see is the possibility for function creep, and idiots using this inappropriately as a hammer to use on others.
A big factor in Wikipedia's success has been the ease of editing. No-one should be discouraged from editing because they are unfamiliar with categories, templates, tables or inter-wiki links, nor should they need to know about special accomodations for math or music unless they are directly involved in those topics. The list of what a beginner needs to know to start editing should fit on one screen without scrolling. Even something as simple as four-tilde signatures doesn't need to be there. It is not essential to basic editing, but when told about it a few days later the newbie appreciates this information that makes his work easier. (One can even say it's a bit like giving him a free joint to encourage him on the road to Wikiholism. :-) )
Pandering to idiots can be a terrible waste of time, and most technical solutions to the idiot problems can be more damaging than the problems they are trying to solve.
And what's so awful about "well-meaning awful"? That lot of people is often willing to discuss and take advice when they are approached politely. Why should we make life more difficult for them?
What could be more simple than that blue means there is a linked article, red means there isn't? When I joined up we didn't have those buttons, so I still don't use them. Is it really ergonomically simpler to take your hands off the keyboard to point your mouse at a button, click, and put your hands back on the keyboard than to type three apostrophes (no shift key required) without moving your hands away from the keyboard?
I personally like to avoid most templates if there is an equally valid way of doing things available. I find it difficult to reconcile the use of complications intended to make my life simpler with making my life simpler.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The list of what a beginner needs to know to start editing should fit on one screen without scrolling.
Exactly. I think David's original proposal was perfect with additions below. Just getting the bold name in the first sentence does a lot.
'''Article name''' is ...
Detail on Article name ...
Further detail on Article name ...
==References==
*List your sources here *or delete this section*.
==External links==
*List relevant external links that are not already references *or delete this section*.