[WikiEN-l] Ars Technica: Prof replaces term papers with Wikipedia contributions, suffering ensues

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl>:

> David Gerard schreef:
>> On 30/10/2007, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >  It's really not very hard at all.  The obiggest problem is
>> > probably the anti-redlink culture that's growing very strong, that
>> > keeps people uninformed on what needs writing.
>> > More than anything else, the fact that writers are so strongly biased
>> > against redlinks these days is a huge reason new page creation has
>> > gone down.
>>
>> This is bad. How to get across to the fervently anti-redlink (and they
>> exist) their error?
>
> The only solution I can come up with is to ask them on their talk page
> why they don't think [[subject]] can have a Wikipedia article.
>
> Oh, and one other thing: give the people at [[Wikipedia:Featured article
> candidates]] a stern talking-to. Some of the search results for "red
> link" on the current page:
>
> "Only a little problem - red links should be adressed or removed."
> "For FA, I'd lose the red links, either create stubs or unwikify, just
> for aesthetics."
> "For instance, the names in the infobox, if linked, will generate a lot
> of red links, which aren't desirable."
>
> etc., all by different editors.
>
> Eugene

Yes, I've tried to bring this up before. If one of the goals of featured
articles is to get new editors then having redlinks is a good thing. Gives new
editors stuff to work on.