[WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge

[Carcharoth]

Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)

Carcharoth

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but
> keeping the new contributors.   This is done not just by refraining
> from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors  to improve
> them.
>
> What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after
> I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did
> it wrong--now I know what to do better."  or   "Many people left
> notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after
> all."    The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the
> extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will
> keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to
> people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where
> expectations are different.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment,
>>> but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think:
>>>
>>>
>>>> To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that
>>>> stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a
>>>> new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics
>>>> need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed
>>>> to new editors trying to do the same?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new
>>> editors bitten?
>>>
>>>
>> If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what
>> makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of
>> saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by
>> notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that
>> might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side
>> (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even
>> on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an
>> encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the
>> site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more
>> infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning
>> the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David
>> Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by
>> the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of
>> time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content
>> grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.)
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>