I'm an infrequent editor. Naively, I don't understand:
1. Why the author's attempt at a discussion/clarification was ignored
2. Given point #1, why this was deleted *so* quickly, when it was merely
"insignificant", and not actively harmful (e.g. copyright violation)
3. Given point #1, why the article was deleted, instead of being moved into
some draft space
If any of those three had been handled differently, at a minimum, this
potential new editor would have felt more welcomed. In most cases, this
article would have disappeared. It was only because Mitar spoke up that the
article was resurrected and turned into what is, which is apparently an
article of positive value for wikipedia.
It's not clear to me how much of what happened was in line with existing
policies. Perhaps some of what happened leaned toward the harsh end of
normal. It's not clear to me how easy it would be to shift the policies, or
implementations, slightly in the direction of being more welcoming.
I think the process "worked" as far as keeping a dodgy article out, and
making efficient use of admin time. I don't think the process "worked" as
far as growing the editor community, nor in terms of helping appropriate
content get added.
Maybe things are as they need to be, for admin efficiency. But I think it's
worth considering whether that is the case. Could we do something to
improve the situation?
Thinking outside the box, perhaps by default new articles should be created
in a private sandbox, so inexperienced editors won't run into this trap. A
user setting could allow experienced editors to create articles directly in
the main namespace, I suppose that has been discussed before, and there's
probably a good reason why it won't work. Still, it seems like we should be
able to find processes that are win-win-win, for new editors, admins, and
readers.
NOTE: I am not speaking as a foundation employee here. This is strictly
personal opinion.
Kevin Smith
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
list-wikimedia(a)funcrunch.org> wrote:
Without weighing in on the specific's of
Mitar's case, I think this is a
good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd
been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to my
name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was, rightfully I
think, tagged for notability. It wasn't deleted though (I did improve it
with more sources), and that article is still up today.
Regardless, it would have been good for me to get more experience by
improving other articles before creating one myself. Even now, seven years
later, I don't create many new articles, preferring to work on existing
ones. Whenever I do create a new article, I always work up a solid version,
with good sources, in my userspace first.
- Pax, aka Funcrunch
On 6/27/16 12:40 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Or may be just to emphasize again David's
point. Every new editor
starting an article about a living person or an existing organization with
a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional (payed of
fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always a red tape.
As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as
promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve
existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an
autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for
promotional editors.
This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only
response to promotional editing.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>