Re: [WikiEN-l] Call for Volunteers: If you can read a diff, you're exactly who we need.
Jorgenev reporting in. On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:15, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, In the Community Dept. we've been collaborating with some Wikipedians to continue one of the research projects from the summer, namely involving the randomized testing of talk page templates to try and improve them. (If you watch WP:VPT, then you might've seen our announcements.) The great thing about doing randomized testing is that we get a more unbiased assessment of our experiment. The bad thing is that in order to do a proper job of crunching these numbers, we need help from people who can read wiki histories accurately and tell us what's going on. This is where you come in. Obviously no one is better primed to analyze diffs and editing histories than editors, so we're looking for a few (3-4, but the more the merrier) volunteers to lend us their experience this week. I know used the r word (research), which makes it sound not really important, but this is a live experiment on the projects. If we do this correctly, then we can do a better job of educating good faith editors, warning away those who cause damage to the encyclopedia, and keeping experienced Wikipedians from getting their user pages vandalized by angry people. ;-) The system we've got set up for analyzing these diffs is insanely simple if you're used to MediaWiki, so let me know either on the list or my talk page [1] if you might have an hour or two to spare. I'm game, if you still need volunteers. -- Jim Redmond [[User:Jredmond]] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if, after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so. When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ... this is an *unfortunate* circumstance. Doesn't just happen to newbies. For the first time in years I started a new article quite some time ago. It immediately got a speedy delete tag *even though* I had placed an in use banner at the top (something a newbie would never think of). Now, the rationale given for listing it for deletion was that it was rubbish. And it's true: it was rubbish! But the fact was I was editing it from the very earliest point of noting a phenomenon and trying to document it. I thought the in use banner and the fact that I would have edited it in the moments before the deletion banner popped up would have been enough to say someone is working on this right now, so hold your horses. I now realise I should have started the article in my user space but, again, this is certainly not something a new user would think to do. I recall, during the Strategy process, a user of very long standing saying that a new article he created was similarly stomped on at birth. I can see it from the new page patroller's point of view, mind. It can't be any fun doing a shift on there at all. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately? I like this question ;O) For my part I have been considering my actions during time spent on Wikipedia and actually adding content to articles has gone by the wayside! I have mainly been reading articles and making minor edits, generally to little errors such as no space after punctuation or where someone has accidentally repeated words or phrases. I suspect there's a gadget out there that would do this much more quickly than my way. Prior to that I was attending to my watchlist and the bulk of the actions arising from that were reverts, warnings and welcomes. But I must start devoting time to making more substantive contributions. Bodnotbod ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
On 12 October 2011 10:26, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: I have mainly been reading articles and making minor edits, generally to little errors such as no space after punctuation or where someone has accidentally repeated words or phrases. I suspect there's a gadget out there that would do this much more quickly than my way. Prior to that I was attending to my watchlist and the bulk of the actions arising from that were reverts, warnings and welcomes. But I must start devoting time to making more substantive contributions. Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze. I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that, such as party articles or those on MPs not now sitting but that are names recognisable to me). 2012 is going to be my year of UK politics, I have decided. There's no harm in doing this and, as I say, a little tidying gets done along the way. But I don't feel I have the balance between doing *real* *work* and keeping things suitably enjoyable and motivating quite right. Perhaps I will do a second and much more arduous pass of the articles and start doing some proper writing. There's quite a few new MPs that got elected for the first time in 2010 and their articles can be quite short, so there's plenty of scope for substantial contributions. Bodnotbod ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:08:41 +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. So the way to deal with people who poison the Wikipedia atmosphere by stomping down hard on other people is to stomp down hard on them! Actually, the main people who should be stomped down hard on is the ingrates who top-post to this list with fullquotes, especially when three or more list footers trail beneath their untrimmed quotes. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't have actual talk. I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there is a template this page is part of wiki project xyz. I'd really like it if that kind of information about a page was somewhere other than talk. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: Pondering the utility of talk page edits recently, I've begun to wonder: how many of our readers actually look at the talk page as well? I know some writers writing articles on Wikipedia have mentioned or rhapsodized at length on the interest of the talk pages for articles, but they are rare birds and statistically irrelevant. snip long analysis I suggest that the common practice of 'moving reference/link to the Talk page' be named what it really is: a subtle form of deletion. Well, only if there is no discussion. I think moving to the talk page is far better than outright removal. It does at least give editors a chance to review what has been included and what has been excluded. And talk pages *should* be for editors and not really for readers. I frequently use the talk pages to help draft articles and as a place to put material that I'm not quite sure is ready for inclusion yet. Putting everything straight into an article can make it harder to organise things later. It would be a service to our readers to end this practice entirely: if a link is good enough to be hidden on a talk page (supposedly in the interests of incorporating it in the future*), then it is good enough to put at the end of External Links or a Further Reading section, and our countless thousands of readers will not be deprived of the chance to make use of it. I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be used far more than they are. I think the problem is that people are paranoid about link farms and link spam and look at number of links rather than quality or organisation. It does help to organise very large external link sections into subsections, both to help readers (in finding what may be of interest) and the editors (in trimming where needed and organsing what is there). * one of my little projects is compiling edits where I or another have added a valuable source to an article Talk page, complete with the most relevant excerpts from that source, and seeing whether anyone bothered making any use of that source/link in any fashion. I have not finished, but to summarize what I have seen so far: that justification for deletion is a dirty lie. Hardly any sources are ever restored. If there is no discussion, you would be fully justified in adding the source yourself. If there is discussion, then, well, you need to discuss. Have a look at my recent talk page edits for one way in which I use article talk pages. The other aspect to all this is that many editors make editorial decisions silently, in their head, or briefly mentioned in edit summaries, and it can be hard for later editors to understand why something was cut or trimmed down. If a longer explanation is posted to the talk page, that can help, though for the largest articles, having mini-essays on the talk page explaining how each individual section of the article was put together would be a massive undertaking. What I do think would be helpful is a subpage for each article (or article talk page), listing the rejected material (sometimes the material is better placed in a different article). That would save a lot of repetition and aid organisation not only of the included material, but the excluded material. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to http://dods.co.uk/ It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...). Currently the images are licensed as freely usable with a non-commercial clause, which is obviously a sticking point to just using them straight out. edi...@dods.co.uk is the contact. (pretty everything else on parliament.uk is licensed under the open parliament license BTW http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/ ) Tom ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
Not so bad idea, I like the templates and those informations very much. However, if such info could be on some third tab I might be happy. regards Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszew...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't have actual talk. I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there is a template this page is part of wiki project xyz. I'd really like it if that kind of information about a page was somewhere other than talk. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: Pondering the utility of talk page edits recently, I've begun to wonder: how many of our readers actually look at the talk page as well? I know some writers writing articles on Wikipedia have mentioned or rhapsodized at length on the interest of the talk pages for articles, but they are rare birds and statistically irrelevant. snip long analysis I suggest that the common practice of 'moving reference/link to the Talk page' be named what it really is: a subtle form of deletion. Well, only if there is no discussion. I think moving to the talk page is far better than outright removal. It does at least give editors a chance to review what has been included and what has been excluded. And talk pages *should* be for editors and not really for readers. I frequently use the talk pages to help draft articles and as a place to put material that I'm not quite sure is ready for inclusion yet. Putting everything straight into an article can make it harder to organise things later. It would be a service to our readers to end this practice entirely: if a link is good enough to be hidden on a talk page (supposedly in the interests of incorporating it in the future*), then it is good enough to put at the end of External Links or a Further Reading section, and our countless thousands of readers will not be deprived of the chance to make use of it. I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be used far more than they are. I think the problem is that people are paranoid about link farms and link spam and look at number of links rather than quality or organisation. It does help to organise very large external link sections into subsections, both to help readers (in finding what may be of interest) and the editors (in trimming where needed and organsing what is there). * one of my little projects is compiling edits where I or another have added a valuable source to an article Talk page, complete with the most relevant excerpts from that source, and seeing whether anyone bothered making any use of that source/link in any fashion. I have not finished, but to summarize what I have seen so far: that justification for deletion is a dirty lie. Hardly any sources are ever restored. If there is no discussion, you would be fully justified in adding the source yourself. If there is discussion, then, well, you need to discuss. Have a look at my recent talk page edits for one way in which I use article talk pages. The other aspect to all this is that many editors make editorial decisions silently, in their head, or briefly mentioned in edit summaries, and it can be hard for later editors to understand why something was cut or trimmed down. If a longer explanation is posted to the talk page, that can help, though for the largest articles, having mini-essays on the talk page explaining how each individual section of the article was put together would be a massive undertaking. What I do think would be helpful is a subpage for each article (or article talk page), listing the rejected material (sometimes the material is better placed in a different article). That would save a lot of repetition and aid organisation not only of the included material, but the excluded material. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
On 11 October 2011 16:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately? [[Jacobus Verheiden]] turned out to be much more rewarding than it promised to, when I just had a name. Spinoff from [[List of participants in the Synod of Dort]], which is a tough piece of reference-finding; but I liked the way it turned out to illuminate a whole series of engravings (on Commons) and to link in with [[Hendrik Hondius I]], and the Bodleian. I came across the idea of cigarette card collections of portraits on [[List of legendary kings of Scotland]], and here it is again, earlier and in another form. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be used far more than they are. Nah. As in yes, but there's an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted entirely to systematically stamping out external links, whether they're useful or not. Some of the members go from article to article removing ALL the links that wouldn't get them permanently banned for removing. One of the members of that board even decided that they should rewrite one of the guidelines so that it said that links can only be kept if there's an *overwhelming* majority that wants any particular link... and then in most cases if there's an RFC they effectively canvas by posting notices on the noticeboard to ensure that any majority isn't quite overwhelming enough in their eyes (and single purpose account !votes count for them), and it looks like they often edit war links away anyway afterwards, using sock puppets, irrespective of the result. Well, we don't necessarily know who the sock puppet is, but if the sock puppet is reverted, members of the board frequently, publicly, revert the revert. It does help to organise very large external link sections into subsections, both to help readers (in finding what may be of interest) and the editors (in trimming where needed and organsing what is there). That's the way it's supposed to work, but I've never seen an external links section that big, because if it got a tenth that size it would be put up on the noticeboard and then get gratuitously chopped. And I'm not talking about spam links here. Carcharoth -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
Ian Woollard: do You know their motivation? I see this oversensitivity to the external links in czech Wikipedia too. I am not that much hurt by their removal, what is hurting me is that the cleaners are sometimes treating (in my opinion) well-intentioned outsiders as spammers. Reo On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be used far more than they are. Nah. As in yes, but there's an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted entirely to systematically stamping out external links, whether they're useful or not. Some of the members go from article to article removing ALL the links that wouldn't get them permanently banned for removing. One of the members of that board even decided that they should rewrite one of the guidelines so that it said that links can only be kept if there's an *overwhelming* majority that wants any particular link... and then in most cases if there's an RFC they effectively canvas by posting notices on the noticeboard to ensure that any majority isn't quite overwhelming enough in their eyes (and single purpose account !votes count for them), and it looks like they often edit war links away anyway afterwards, using sock puppets, irrespective of the result. Well, we don't necessarily know who the sock puppet is, but if the sock puppet is reverted, members of the board frequently, publicly, revert the revert. It does help to organise very large external link sections into subsections, both to help readers (in finding what may be of interest) and the editors (in trimming where needed and organsing what is there). That's the way it's supposed to work, but I've never seen an external links section that big, because if it got a tenth that size it would be put up on the noticeboard and then get gratuitously chopped. And I'm not talking about spam links here. Carcharoth -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On 12 October 2011 18:11, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 October 2011 06:56, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I agree absolutely that external links and further reading should be used far more than they are. Nah. As in yes, but there's an entire noticeboard on Wikipedia devoted entirely to systematically stamping out external links, whether they're useful or not. Reminds me - we should at some stage do something about noticeboards. Not that they all need stamping out, but as unchartered processes, the more useful ones should graduate to having some sort of charter. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On 12 October 2011 18:42, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote: Reminds me - we should at some stage do something about noticeboards. Not that they all need stamping out, but as unchartered processes, the more useful ones should graduate to having some sort of charter. Yes, and starting with WP:ANI; the Wikipedia is a Stanford Prison Experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment First you divide the users into two groups, we'll call them guards (admins) and inmates (editors) and then ensure that the admins are in the minority so that they HAVE to gang up on the editors. Then we give them unlimited power over editors and make sure that there's virtually no policies or guidelines that relate to severity of punishment. What could *possibly* go wrong??? Charles -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] So ...
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I came across the idea of cigarette card collections of portraits on [[List of legendary kings of Scotland]], and here it is again, earlier and in another form. There is a long and venerable history of such collections of portraits of the 'grand and the good'. My reading on collections of images includes collections such as 'virorum literis illustrium', 'icones virorum illustrium', 'vitae virorum illustrium' and so on. I'm pleased to see we have an article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_viris_illustribus Though that refers to biographical collections, at some point the act of illustrating them caught on as well. Or of simply making or collecting portraits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovio_Series Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: It would be a service to our readers to end this practice entirely: if a link is good enough to be hidden on a talk page (supposedly in the interests of incorporating it in the future*), then it is good enough to put at the end of External Links or a Further Reading section, and our countless thousands of readers will not be deprived of the chance to make use of it. Not to either agree or disagree with this but I wrote a substantial amount about the artist [[Rachel Whiteread]] years ago and through my research found out about a ton of works she'd done that I didn't feel merited inclusion. So I documented them on the talk page and I drew the conclusion that although they would overwhelm the article some article readers would be interested in the list. But you shouldn't treat the talk page as an external place to link to. The article should be self-contained. So I placed a link to the talk page in the links section with a note explaining about the list that could be viewed there. Someone removed the link and the explanation saying that either the talk page information was good enough to be included in the article or it wasn't good enough to be noted in the article space. I didn't fight it, but thought it a poor decision. Linking from the article to the talk page is a violation of SELFREF. If you want to include appendix-type material, that is bset placed in it's own section at the end of the article, in a collapse box or footnote that makes clear it is not part of the main article, but an adjunct to it. A bit like an infobox is an adjunct, like a footer template is an adjunct, just like the styles and children bits of articles on royals are adjuncts, just like a list of works by an author is an adjunct. There are many articles that successfully manage this tricky process of ending the main text of an article, but then providing appendix-style sections at the end to add such material. It's not easy, but can be done without splitting off to a separate page. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On 10/12/11 4:50 AM, Angela Anuszewski wrote: Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't have actual talk. I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there is a template this page is part of wiki project xyz. I'd really like it if that kind of information about a page was somewhere other than talk. I think I raised this point several years ago, to no avail. Perhaps something like a meta page. When I look at a talk page I'm really looking for other opinions on some of the material about which I have uncertainties. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: That's the way it's supposed to work, but I've never seen an external links section that big, because if it got a tenth that size it would be put up on the noticeboard and then get gratuitously chopped. And I'm not talking about spam links here. The trick is to trim and not let it get too large, but to keep it organised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holden The former is still a work in progress, but the EL section sub-sectioning was prompted by advice I gave to the editor there. One of the problems is that ELs that can be used as sources are rightly folded into the article, just as most see also links are folded into the article, but the difference is that ELs that are pointing to different media are fine to remain, as are ELs that are serving as further reading. The issue of whether sources can also be further reading is more contentious, but I maintain that this is possible, as readers should be guided as to which of the sources in use are useful as further reading, and shouldn't have to sort through the sources themselves to identify those useful for further reading. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Readers clicking through to talk pages
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszew...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, I've given up on talk pages. The reason is many of them don't have actual talk. I see a blue talk link and go there and all that is there is a template this page is part of wiki project xyz. I'd really like it if that kind of information about a page was somewhere other than talk. That's not a reason to give up on them. Use them and get used to the fact that some are really empty though they aren't really. Some talk pages are also archived, so they are not actually as empty as they look. One thing I think talk pages are very useful for is editors learning different editing techniques from each other. Some editors learn by looking through the edits others make, while other editors learn better while discussing on talk pages. And all editors should remain open to both learning new things and teaching others. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. When I came to Wikipedia, .. years back then.. I really liked the idea of stubs being sorted by the field of interest. I liked it and started to sort them and sort them in finer categories and such. In the end it does not look like success, like that it would help in any way. But I would like to see some more invitation on those stubs like: This article about plant biology is stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. *Or you can inspect and expand any other stubs about plant biology [linked here to the category:Plant biology stubs] Basically : invite the reader/editor into the particular category of topical stubs from the article. Petr [[u.Reo_On]] On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:55 AM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
Expanding existing articles has its pitfalls as well. Having a lot of work summarily reverted is possible there as well, though less likely. Possibly worse is developing your own writing style and technique in isolation and having no-one there to point out your mistakes results in either painfully unlearning and relearning the correct way to do things, or running into even more trouble further down the road. The cardinal rules I would give would be something like (in no particular order): 1) Take things slowly and stop and discuss if needed 2) Read and watch, and ask and learn, and show and help 3) Be helpful not confrontational, and be patient 4) Treat others as you would like to be treated Along with that, always remember how big and chaotic Wikipedia is and can be. Don't avoid other areas, but find areas you like and enjoy and ensure you always have those areas to return to if things get stressful elsewhere. Carcharoth On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers aboutnotability?
An excellent idea, since we don't currently actively invite new editors into topics in which they might be interested, such as, for example, by pointing them at relevant WP:Projects. I think a general indication that their expertise might be appreciated would be more welcoming than we currently seem to achieve; it would at least give less of an appearance of a closed shop to which only experienced editors are welcome. Phil petr skupa wrote: I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. When I came to Wikipedia, .. years back then.. I really liked the idea of stubs being sorted by the field of interest. I liked it and started to sort them and sort them in finer categories and such. In the end it does not look like success, like that it would help in any way. But I would like to see some more invitation on those stubs like: This article about plant biology is stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. *Or you can inspect and expand any other stubs about plant biology [linked here to the category:Plant biology stubs] Basically : invite the reader/editor into the particular category of topical stubs from the article. Petr [[u.Reo_On]] On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:55 AM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers aboutnotability?
I think that new editors (apart from vandals) sometimes come with unrealistic expectations, based on This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anything we can do to focus their expectations towards the reality should be welcomed. A welcome template is all very well, but cannot hope to explain all the subtleties of the policies, guidelines, consensi (?) and ArbCom rulings that will affect the validity or persistence of their edits. Unless existing editors take great care not to alienate new editors by being jargon-meisters or making assumptions, we may well continue to lose well-intentioned new editors. And, of course, we'e already lost, or are losing, a whole host of well-intentioned experienced editors, whose experience cannot be replaced overnight; and that is tragic. Without entrenched editors willing to pass on their experience, WP will inevitably struggle to develop, and continue to be forever condemned to a Sisyphean task of correction rather than education. Meh! Carcharoth wrote: Expanding existing articles has its pitfalls as well. Having a lot of work summarily reverted is possible there as well, though less likely. Possibly worse is developing your own writing style and technique in isolation and having no-one there to point out your mistakes results in either painfully unlearning and relearning the correct way to do things, or running into even more trouble further down the road. The cardinal rules I would give would be something like (in no particular order): 1) Take things slowly and stop and discuss if needed 2) Read and watch, and ask and learn, and show and help 3) Be helpful not confrontational, and be patient 4) Treat others as you would like to be treated Along with that, always remember how big and chaotic Wikipedia is and can be. Don't avoid other areas, but find areas you like and enjoy and ensure you always have those areas to return to if things get stressful elsewhere. Carcharoth On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though, especially in a come-and-go-type environment such as this. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote: The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
