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

[Sage Ross]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>

That would make a good topic for an opinion essay in the Signpost, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Opinion

-Sage


> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>