On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-) > > Carcharoth >
That would make a good topic for an opinion essay in the Signpost, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Opinion -Sage > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> The important part of salvage work is not keeping the articles, but >> keeping the new contributors. This is done not just by refraining >> from deleting their articles, but helping the new editors to improve >> them. >> >> What encourages me to patrol is when I get a talk page comment after >> I've deleted (or drastically reworked) an article: "I see where I did >> it wrong--now I know what to do better." or "Many people left >> notices but you gave me specific advice. Maybe I'll stay here after >> all." The reason for saving rather than deleting, not matter the >> extra work it takes, is that a greater proportion of the people will >> keep on trying. This applies not only to immature editors, but also to >> people who wander in from the commercial or academic world where >> expectations are different. >> >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Charles Matthews >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Carcharoth wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> I created a "journal" article in the end. Not part of this experiment, >>>> but my point below (which may have got lost), is valid, I think: >>>> >>>> >>>>> To try and bring this post back on-topic, I suppose my point is that >>>>> stub articles on obscure topics would probably fare even worse if a >>>>> new editor submitted them. Is that a valid point? That obscure topics >>>>> need experienced Wikipedians to start the articles going, as opposed >>>>> to new editors trying to do the same? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Anyone agree that the high-hanging fruit are more likely to get new >>>> editors bitten? >>>> >>>> >>> If that's a way of saying that experience is helpful in knowing what >>> makes for a "good stub", I think that's uncontestable. If it's a way of >>> saying that the patrolling that goes on is basically a filter by >>> notability of topic first, and excuse for deletion afterwards, then that >>> might be factually accurate, if something that also has its darker side >>> (judging the notability of a topic by what is written in a stub, or even >>> on the basis of quick googling, is obviously flawed). If it's an >>> encouragement to post more stubs that are clearly needed to develop the >>> site, then I'm in complete agreement, and would add that we need more >>> infrastructure directed towards "missing articles" and at least turning >>> the redlinks blue with adequate stubs. (To answer part of what David >>> Goodman has been arguing consistently, adding new articles prompted by >>> the needs of the site, rather than spending a corresponding amount of >>> time on salvage work, seems to me a defensible priority on content >>> grounds. Which is not the whole point, though.) >>> >>> Charles >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
