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] 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] 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 about notability?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@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. And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an editor who got frustrated with all his submissions being tagged for deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back at WP:REFUND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ron ___ 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?
Boldness In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity, but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of exception, but it really is not that bold action at all). I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of spotlight.. I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or hesitation to start While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest... just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high) In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their work. Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@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. And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an editor who got frustrated with all his submissions being tagged for deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back at WP:REFUND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ron ___ 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?
All excellent advice, and probably already written down on-wiki somewhere. Trouble is, those biting newbies often don't read it, and newbies often don't read it (or don't follow it). It should be mandatory to give this sort of advice when interacting with newbies, but many people don't take the time to look into a user's editing history, but want to finish what they've started and move on to something else. Carcharoth On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:23 PM, petr skupa skupa.p...@gmail.com wrote: Boldness In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity, but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of exception, but it really is not that bold action at all). I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of spotlight.. I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or hesitation to start While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest... just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high) In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their work. Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman ritz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@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. And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an editor who got frustrated with all his submissions being tagged for deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back at WP:REFUND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ron ___ 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 about notability?
Coincidentally, I started here by doing that you argued against, which is being bold. That aside, if we start questioning be bold, then we also need to reconsider nobody owns articles. I've always been a firm believer, even in the beginning that Wikipedia (same could be extended to any open wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for the wiki to remain open to those to edit. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote: Boldness In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity, but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of exception, but it really is not that bold action at all). I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of spotlight.. I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or hesitation to start While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest... just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high) In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their work. Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzmanritz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerarddger...@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. And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an editor who got frustrated with all his submissions being tagged for deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back at WP:REFUND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ron ___ 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 about notability?
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. On Oct 10, 2011 4:45 PM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: Coincidentally, I started here by doing that you argued against, which is being bold. That aside, if we start questioning be bold, then we also need to reconsider nobody owns articles. I've always been a firm believer, even in the beginning that Wikipedia (same could be extended to any open wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for the wiki to remain open to those to edit. -MuZemike On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote: Boldness In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity, but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of exception, but it really is not that bold action at all). I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of spotlight.. I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or hesitation to start While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest... just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high) In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their work. Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]] On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzmanritz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerarddger...@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. And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an editor who got frustrated with all his submissions being tagged for deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back at WP:REFUND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ron ___ 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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
2011/10/9 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com: One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where the article was deleted per A7. Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by editors with less than 100 edits. Yes, if I could read deleted talkpages ... :) (I'm an administrator at Swedish Wikipedia, but not at English Wikipedia.) Thanks, anyway. //Johan Jönsson -- ___ 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] Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?
Hey list, do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem where to find them. Thanks, //Johan Jönsson -- User:Julle ___ 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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind. A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time. Michel Vuijlsteke On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where the article was deleted per A7. Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by editors with less than 100 edits. Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer than 100 edits would find shed loads. In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is along the lines of but he exists!. Which is more a failure to grasp the concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it. More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the Internet - our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such as new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team. WereSpielChequers On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson brevlis...@gmail.com: do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem where to find them. +1 These need collecting. 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. - 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 ___ 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?
Here's a couple of discussions. In the very loosest sense of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_of_Israphel This says it all, really: - *Delete* - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The YogPodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_YogPodaction=editredlink=1 , The Yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Yogscastaction=editredlink=1 , The yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_yogscastaction=editredlink=1, and Yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogscastaction=editredlink=1 . MikeWazowski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski) 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC) And apparently it's personal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland#The_Yogscast_Wikipedia_page Excellent (imho) article start here, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast On 9 October 2011 01:18, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind. A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time. Michel Vuijlsteke On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where the article was deleted per A7. Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by editors with less than 100 edits. Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer than 100 edits would find shed loads. In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is along the lines of but he exists!. Which is more a failure to grasp the concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it. More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the Internet - our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such as new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team. WereSpielChequers On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson brevlis...@gmail.com: do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem where to find them. +1 These need collecting. 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. - 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 ___ 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?
Sorry to go on about this, but it really defies belief, sometimes, when you go into these things. I picked Yogscast because I'd just been watching an episode with my wife *and* I was just about 100% sure there wouldn't be an article on Wikipedia about them. What are you to make of an exchange like this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UtherSRG/Archive_4#Deletion_of_Yogscast), really, if you're looking to write an article about the Yogscast? Awesome, the file's nuked, and CIrelandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland salted the Yogscast page. I think we put a stopper on that! --HTMLCODER.exehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HTMLCODER.exe (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HTMLCODER.exe) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Awesome in combination with nuking stuff and salting a page? Ack. Michel On 9 October 2011 01:38, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote: Here's a couple of discussions. In the very loosest sense of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_of_Israphel This says it all, really: - *Delete* - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The YogPodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_YogPodaction=editredlink=1 , The Yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Yogscastaction=editredlink=1 , The yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_yogscastaction=editredlink=1, and Yogscasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogscastaction=editredlink=1 . MikeWazowski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski) 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC) And apparently it's personal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland#The_Yogscast_Wikipedia_page Excellent (imho) article start here, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast On 9 October 2011 01:18, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind. A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time. Michel Vuijlsteke On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where the article was deleted per A7. Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by editors with less than 100 edits. Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer than 100 edits would find shed loads. In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is along the lines of but he exists!. Which is more a failure to grasp the concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it. More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the Internet - our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such as new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team. WereSpielChequers On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson brevlis...@gmail.com: do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem where to find them. +1 These need collecting. 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. - 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 ___ 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
