[Foundation-l] Corporate vanity policy enforcement

[David Gerard]

On 29/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > It'd be quite a major move to have to close off new articles to that
> > extent just because of marketers.

> We shut off article creation for anons because of one media circus. If
> you recall the prevent orphan creation was the alturnative I sugested
> at that point. It has a lot of benifits. Afd, prod, speedy, all filled
> with orphans. It also means we are more likely to get a robust index.
> Articles that are orphans are not part of the community of articles.


True. It would still be a drastic move.


> > I spent 1.5 hours this afternoon talking to a journalist. About 20
> > mins of that was him complaining at length that the bureaucracy is too
> > damned intimidating for newcomers as it is. (I proceeded to more or
> > less reiterate [[:en:Wikipedia:Process is important]], which I'm sure
> > those of you who consider me a hack'n'slash enemy of process would
> > find most amusing.)

> Not really. It's because it is important that process and policy and
> guidelines should not exist lightly. If process doesn't matter and IAR
> is to be the order of the day it matters little how much we have.


IAR doesn't mean "do whatever damn fool idea pops into your head" any
more than "Anyone can edit!" is an invitation to marketers to spam us.


> > I'd suggest that if we want better behaviour from newbies, we need to
> > make things suck less for the good ones (like this guy) - the crap
> > newbies will not be stoppable by any force of clue. You watch.

> My proposal would effect everyone. Newbies less so because with luck
> they would not even thing of doing what they are being prevented from
> doing.


With luck?


> > And remember: most text appears to be written by newcomers and
> > occasional editors, not the regulars. (Numbers not firm on this one
> > per AaronSw, but I understand others are checking his work.)

> But how much of this text is added in the form of new articles and how
> much is added to existing articles.


I can tell you, I'm eagerly awaiting the


> > See, that's the sort of thing we're good at. Be open to input from
> > all, even if a tweaked vandal-checking bot puts it in a patrolling
> > admin's "#redirect [[round file]]" list.

> Problem is that there isn't much else you can do. Unwikified, linking
> to a site that contains the article title in the url and created by a
> one off user (and not linking to myspace). But that could apply to so
> many things.


So? Linkless articles and orphans are easily added to a round-file
list. It's not quite like they hit 'save', think it saved and it
disappeared, but it's that with a delay.


- d.