geni wrote:
On 9/29/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: "Sorry, you can't have your article unless you apply *this* magic trick we mention on a page you didn't read, did you."
you don't get that becuase the only way to get to a page that allows you to create a new page is to click a redlink.
Bites the newbies badly, and doesn't stop editors of bad faith for a second. Rules can't cure malice.
You can't create an article that no one else wants without editing an existing article that someone might care about.
Wouldn't it be better to apply the filter retroactively, i.e. to delete orphan articles with human confirmation some time after they are created? If we put in profanity filters to prevent bad page saves, Wikipedia would suddenly be overwhelmed with 5H1t, if you understand my meaning. But the current system of IRC notification and semi-automated reversion is strangely effective.
Let's say for argument's sake that maybe there is a way to automatically recognise PR fluff, even if the best method is not by orphan status as geni has suggested. Then you can automate the process of deleting it. Display a big list of articles with a column of checkboxes, click "select all", select "CSD a7" from a drop-down list, click "delete". Wham, all gone. Keep the filters covert as much as possible, e.g. on the client side.
These kinds of features are the things we're trying to encourage with what I've been calling "hybrid" development, i.e. simultaneous development on the client and server. Get the client-side developers interested, ask them what they need on the server side in support, and we server-side developers will see if we can incorporate it into an API or extension.
-- Tim Starling