I think we could all be less arsey at each other. But, that’s just my general
rant every time a spat happens.
But on the wider point; it’s important to make sure BLPs are well sourced
BECAUSE people failing to do so in the past has created a massive backlog of
BLPs without any sourcing. Creating more is compounding the problem, and sets a
really bad example for newbies.
It’s a pain, and it takes more time, but is important to do because long term
we will reap the rewards.
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing is bound to leave some
without improvement for some time. Right now you and others have your eye on
them, and that’s good, but what about in 5 years time? The reason the
requirement was brought in for all BLPs to require a RS was to help address
this important problem.
I understand what you’re saying about the construction tags being off-putting
to newbies; but the problem is that without it, you’re going to get either a
BLP-Prod or a maintenance template (which is totally valid) - and I’d say that
would be even more of putting. Saying SOFIXIT to such arguments does’t work in
this case because you’re working on a project so know which sources to use.
Perhaps the solution is to have a project specific under construction template,
with better wording than currently.
But the bottom line, as someone who spent a significant portion of their early
wiki-career dealing with BLP crud, is that the rules are in place, in this
case, for a specific and very valid reason. It only takes 30 seconds or so to
comply with them, and it makes everyone’s lives a lot easier :)
As a final point; when you’re a prominent figure in the training world of
Wikipedia, it’s definitely a good idea to make sure everything you add is
sourced as soon as possible. It’s about setting an example :)
Do those arguments hold any sway?
Cheers,
Tom
Sent with Airmail
On 10 February 2014 at 19:22:55, Andy Mabbett ([email protected]) wrote:
On 10 February 2014 18:27, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a prime example of the sort of things causing editor decline;
> along with the sort of asshattery which saw Andy Mabbett threatened with
> a block (on BLP grounds) for creating a one-line stub about an MEP.
>
>
> Given that politicians are a prime target for BLP trolls, it wasn't
> unreasonable to ask him to actually get it right IMO.
I did. HTH.
> Sadly it can never just be a discussion; someone has to get the tone a bit
> wrong, Andy has an outburst at them, the rest is history.
There was no "outburst"; unless you mean the one where the admin who
wanted to block me compared my saying "X is an MEP" to someone saying
"John Smith has a massive penis". But nice try at an ad hominem smear.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
