> When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum > standard from new editors?
Yeah, I do. I believe this helps them acclimate to the Wikipedia community. Like I've said previously, I often edit articles *before* tagging for deletion. These articles are usually written by people not familiar with Wikimarkup, or people not even familiar with English, period. > Imagine the let-down they feel when they discover that actually, > there are loads of good and bad checks and balances in place that > actually make contributing quite difficult. I do imagine they feel let-down. Most if not nearly all the articles I tag for speedy deletion are by barely autoconfirmed people with hardly any edits at all. They just jumped right in the deep end and most of the time, they drown. I think there needs to be two levels of auto- confirmed, the "You aren't Willy on wheels" confirmed, and "You can probably write a non-speedyable article" confirmed. Is there any way to take out the bad checks and balances without also taking out the good as well? Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Emily Monroe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > <snip> > >> I can't help but notice that the author of this article keeps trying >> to add articles that aren't to our standards. Maybe make people who >> are writing their first (or second, or third, if the first or second >> is deleted) article go through the article wizard? That way, some (or >> perhaps all) of his articles would've eventually been deleted, but at >> least they would've been sourced and at least somewhat of a NPOV? > > It's not the article that matters here - others can come along and > tidy it up later. What matters here is getting people started off on > the right footing, and explaining things to them. Forcing someone to > go through an article wizard is a "one size fits all" solution. The > best approach, in nearly all cases, is personal and friendly > interaction, helping people improve. > > When you say not to our standards, are you expecting a minimum > standard from new editors? If so, then the problem goes all the way > back to this: > > "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." > > That gets people excited when they realise it is true. They really > *can* edit it. Imagine the let-down they feel when they discover that > actually, there are loads of good and bad checks and balances in place > that actually make contributing quite difficult. > > And of the two articles mentioned, Kettlebowl seems OK for what it is, > and the other one is fine as well: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_Education_Group_Inc. > > Carcharoth > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
