On 10/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant). In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
Your task:
- Write this interface.
- People don't read. How few words can you put it in? Can you be as
harsh as the new articles page for IPs on Meta?
I'll try to mock something up, but something more like the Meta interface (is there a difference between the regular and IP versions?) would be a step forward.
One possibility would be to add the must-read text to the edit box itself, along the lines of the preloaded template for the featured picture candidate interface http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AFPCno... (and have this be a preference that users can turn off, but default on).
People may not read much, but reading rates will certainly go up if the text can be passively ignored (i.e., if they have to delete it to write their article).
-Sage