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

[Charles Matthews]

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