Explain why :P
Also as a secondary thought how many articles *can* we add? There is a limit where adding new articles is going to be harder and harder to do for the lack of worthy topics. The only way I can see a substantial increase in new articles is if we relax our standards of inclusion (not going to opine on if this is a good or a bad thing).
For example we don't list every book ever created as its own article. The same thought seems to go to the rest of the encyclopedia. We don't have every person on this planet having a page. We don't have every company having a page etc.
There is a large but finite number of articles we can write... Once those are started the work comes to improving the existing items, Sourcing, improving prose, etc. This is the work that seems to be not as popular... At least with newer folks. (I point to our huge maintainace backlogs for articles as proof of this)
On 1/14/09, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would hasten the process.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a "non-published" namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes could be made to change red links that point to where the article should be in main space a different color and point them at the "non-published" space.
In short readers, users etc could all see them, jush google would not index them. The benefit of the system as stated is users and readers would know by clicking on the non blue links that these articles are still "in the works".
Such a system would work decently well if moving from one space to the other could be done by any registered user... Sorta like moves are done today.
Please note that I am not advocating this, but I think tossing around alternate ideas can't hurt. This idea I think defines a decent answer to your question, feel free to change it around or attack it all you like, just be constructive about it.
On 1/14/09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I am sorry I still do not get it.
- Is your proposal going to completely hide "unfinished" articles from
the public? If so who will be able to see them? Admins? Users?>>
To hide those articles which are unfinished, or which the community has decided are unfinished. So the AfD process becomes simply the "Hide It process" much less contentious.
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the same as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
<<3) Isn't your proposal hiding all stubs as well as some other articles? After all no stub by very definition is ready for "public consumption".>>
No. It has nothing to do with stubs or non-stubs. Stubs are published today, and they would be published tomorrow. The only thing this does is provide a way for AfD to turn into something with less conflict.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't
it?
If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l