[Wikipedia-l] Deletion of Articles with No Content

[Ray Saintonge]

Karl Juhnke wrote:

>--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise at surfbest.net> wrote:
>
>>I think that having the Wikipedia Guard or Militia
>>routinely deleting empty good titled articles may
>>only slow down the growth in bread and depth of
>>the Wikipedia.   Some people may like organizing
>>the link structures and establishing good initial titles
>>and interconnections.   Why should this contribution
>>be routinely deleted?   How much subsequent work is
>>then lost from contributors who while browsing may
>>choose to add an easy paragraph but who will not
>>undertake an entire stub and the effort required
>>to link it appropriately into an entire encyclopedia?
>>
It is not enough to say that "sombody" should fix the stub.  Every 
Wikipediholic has pet subject areas that already require more of his 
time than he has.  We don't mind going into an article to make minor 
spelling corrections, but there's always the risk that wandering away 
from that task will land us in a new edit war.  If your not going to be 
that "somebody" there's no need to complain when a useless stub is deleted.

>It is interesting that the debate about article deletion turns on the
>contributing habits of other people, not ourselves.  
>
Saying that "somebody" should ...  is certainly about other people's 
habits.

>Therefore article deletion seems to be less a matter of encyclopdia
>building, and more a matter of public relations.  How does the
>established community interact with newbies?  
>
The difficulty about newbie work is that it's so variable.  Nevertheless 
the responsible ones are soon recognized.

>Far and away the most important impression for new contributors is
>whether or not they are part of a vibrant, ongoing interaction.  I
>still remember the huge rush it was for me to write my first short
>article, and discover a few hours later that someone had corrected my
>spelling and added a link.  From that instant I was sold on the
>concept, and began preaching to everyone who would listen that
>Wikipedia was the Next Big Thing (TM).
>
That they changed the spelling was proof that somebody had read what you 
had written.

>By the same token, the worst possible impression newbies can get is
>that nobody cares.  I am still smarting from having a change of mine
>reversed with no more than a terse comment and no effort at dialogue. 
>And I remember the disappointment of waiting for days and days to see
>what would be done with another contribution of mine, only to slowly
>conclude that nobody was going to work on it with me.  Each case was a
>different side of being ignored.  (Of course, by now I realize the
>efficiencies of discussing by editing rather than talking about
>editing, and realize too that even the most obscure article comes
>around for editing eventually, but I didn't have that perspective at
>first.)
>
>With this in mind, I think that the timing of a delete is critical.  If
>someone created an empty article a month ago and nothing has happened
>to it since, we need have no fear of deleting it.  Whoever made it is
>long gone.  They don't care about it, or they wouldn't have left it. 
>They won't feel that we are undoing their hard work; they aren't coming
>back every week to admire their miniscule efforts.
>
>On the other extreme, if a useless article has been created by a newbie
>in the last twenty-four hours, they would likely be extremely gratified
>at any attempt at communication, if only appending to their article
>"Would you like to expand this a little?  See
>link-to-writing-a-good-stub."
>
Good point,  This doesn't argue against deleting useless articles, only 
against doing so hastily.

>I know from my father's reaction to Wikipedia (i.e.
>complete dismissal) how damaging it is to have poor articles, and how
>much preferable it would be to have nothing at all rather than garbage
>or a pathetic stub.  On the other hand, now that I am a contributor
>myself, I can see how counterproductive it would be to try to remove
>everything that "lowers the average".
>
This is very interesting.  Now how do you convince your father to 
contribute?!  Perhaps if you could show him occasional printed copies of 
articles in his fields of interest that require "small" improvements, 
and ask him for his opinion about these; You would then, dutiful son 
that you are, add the improvements to the Wikipedia article, print it, 
and ask him if it now properly reflects his views and if it properly 
"raises the average".  Your father is likely the product of an 
educational philosophy that promoted the passive consumption of 
knowledge.  What was then written in the texbooks was undisputable truth 
that you only questioned at your own peril.  The knowledge explosion, of 
which the internet is a big part, has put that notion on its ear.

>The best solution I can think of is to make it more obvious that poor
>articles are obviously under construction.  
>
There is a distinction to be made between a poor article, where you are 
right, and a useless article that doesn't add to people's knowledge. 
 It's the latter that are better deleted.  

>