Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension?
For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created using the wikitext:
<inputbox> type=create preload=Template:New_page editintro=Template:New_article_intro width=25 bgcolor=#f0f0ff </inputbox>
Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.
- d.
On 11/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension?
Yes. Now, what should text should it generate?
Steve
This would need at least some more planning that what Wikinews offers, since the range of article types is vastly different on Wikipedia. But not at all a bad idea if it can be done well.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension?
For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created using the wikitext:
<inputbox> type=create preload=Template:New_page editintro=Template:New_article_intro width=25 bgcolor=#f0f0ff </inputbox>
Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should probably still kill a lot of unsourced edits. Such a preload template is already in use at AFC and it is routinely ignored, but better to try and convince some people to follow it. It didn't solve the problem, but it cut back on problem cases slightly.
Mgm
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
This would need at least some more planning that what Wikinews offers, since the range of article types is vastly different on Wikipedia. But not at all a bad idea if it can be done well.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension?
For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created using the wikitext:
<inputbox> type=create preload=Template:New_page editintro=Template:New_article_intro width=25 bgcolor=#f0f0ff </inputbox>
Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The AFC template is great. As far as IP users go, it's a surefire way to tell if they're serious about making an article, not serious, or just confused.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We should probably still kill a lot of unsourced edits. Such a preload template is already in use at AFC and it is routinely ignored, but better to try and convince some people to follow it. It didn't solve the problem, but it cut back on problem cases slightly.
Mgm
On 11/30/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
This would need at least some more planning that what Wikinews offers, since the range of article types is vastly different on Wikipedia. But not at all a bad idea if it can be done well.
Ryan
On 11/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than going on a campaign to kill all new articles without sufficient sourcing, would it be time to introduce article prefilling, using the <inputbox> extension?
For an example, go to en.wikinews.org, type something into the "Start a new article" box and hit "Create article". This example is created using the wikitext:
<inputbox> type=create preload=Template:New_page editintro=Template:New_article_intro width=25 bgcolor=#f0f0ff </inputbox>
Presumably we'd need this switched on for en:wp if it isn't already.
- d.
On 29/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
We should probably still kill a lot of unsourced edits. Such a preload template is already in use at AFC and it is routinely ignored, but better to try and convince some people to follow it. It didn't solve the problem, but it cut back on problem cases slightly.
Yeah. The nice thing about a preload template is that it can guide new editors without being a straightjacket on experienced ones - it's just text in the edit box, after all.
Something like (off the top of my head):
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is ... [one-sentence definition]. It is ...
==More detail==
[Put more detail about important aspects of {{PAGENAME}} here. Use ==section-name== around new sections.]
==References==
[List the sources you used in writing this article]
==External links==
[List the most important couple of external webpages on the subject.]
This shows people how to give us the useful content for a good stub article without having to know all about editing wikitext and lovely formatting.
wikitech-l - is it possible yet to do a preload when someone hits 'edit' on a red link? If so, what do we need for this to be switched on for en:wp? It is likely time for such a thing.
- d.
On 11/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Something like (off the top of my head):
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is ... [one-sentence definition]. It is ...
Presumably you mean {{PAGENAME}} will be substituted with the actual name by the time the user sees it. I would suggest using <!-- --> rather than [ ] though. So, they would see something like:
'''Pokemon fan club''' is ... <!-- one-sentence definition -->
==More detail==
Ever seen one of these? I say leave it out. A stub with no sections is plenty for a first go. Maybe just add:
<!-- Add more detail here -->
==References==
[List the sources you used in writing this article]
Not ==Sources== ?
==External links==
Not ==Further reading== ?
This shows people how to give us the useful content for a good stub article without having to know all about editing wikitext and lovely formatting.
You missed two things: Categories and stub templates.
{{stub}} <!-- Go to [[....]] and find a more precise stub template if you can -->
[[Category:Uncategorized]] <!-- Go to [[...]] and find a couple of categories that describe your article. -->
(I would try and make these two bits valid Wikicode at least, even if the user hasn't set them up).
Steve
On 11/30/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
==References==
[List the sources you used in writing this article]
Not ==Sources== ?
==External links==
Not ==Further reading== ?
Seeing as we have <ref> tags and since references seems to be the prevailing name in the articles I visit, ==References== appears the logical choice. "Further reading" makes people list irrelevant books which are a lot harder to check than URLs.
Mgm
On 12/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing as we have <ref> tags and since references seems to be the prevailing name in the articles I visit, ==References== appears the logical choice.
What about sources of information which are not "referenced" as such. That is, a site where some of the information came from, but which was not cited at the paragraph or sentence level?
"Further reading" makes people list irrelevant books which are a lot harder to check than URLs.
Section headings make people do what now?
Steve
On 12/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing as we have <ref> tags and since references seems to be the
prevailing
name in the articles I visit, ==References== appears the logical choice.
What about sources of information which are not "referenced" as such. That is, a site where some of the information came from, but which was not cited at the paragraph or sentence level?
Those go in ==References== sections too. It's not just for cite.php...
On 12/2/06, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Those go in ==References== sections too. It's not just for cite.php...
Maybe this is my "academic training", such as it is. The references section was where you put sources you had explicitly referred to. The bibliography, if you had one, was other sources that you had used but which were not attributable to individual quotes or ideas.
To make one last pitch for "sources" over "references": privately, we call them sources. We ask people to cite sources. Would it not help if we explicitly, publicly called them sources as well?
Steve
On 12/1/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Seeing as we have <ref> tags and since references seems to be the
prevailing
name in the articles I visit, ==References== appears the logical choice.
What about sources of information which are not "referenced" as such. That is, a site where some of the information came from, but which was not cited at the paragraph or sentence level?
But them under the same header but don't use them to cite at a sentence level. It is still a reference.