How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the create an article as a newbie challenge

[WereSpielChequers]

I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
criteria".

So far we've had a range from Battleships and miniaturists to Monarchs
and a winger. I think we've tested the charge that a new article
submitted to Wikipedia will be tagged for deletion in two minutes and
is guaranteed not to last seven days.  But it would be a Pyrrhic
victory to respond to the press that  It is still possible for a good
article to be added to Wikipedia by a newbie, as we'd have to concede
that enough get deleted by over-enthusiasm at CSD to constitute a
problem - the press exaggerated the problem, but they didn't entirely
invent it.  We've also established that neither welcoming nor
wikification are currently keeping up with the flow of newbies and
their articles.

My own contribution has in the first sentence "was king of ****** from
***** to ***". It has yet to be marked as patrolled and I anticipate
it reaching those who patrol the back of the unpatrolled  newpages at
some point this week.

Regards

WereSpielChequers

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:52:18 -0400
> From: David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the
>        create  an article as a newbie challenge
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
> Message-ID:
>        <480eb3150910290952i5afcb259qadfdd6751246d1b3@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It's not hard to do. Mention the unspectacular factor that claims
> notability in an obscure position in the middle without any details,
> add some foolish spam about how good they are & how they will change
> the world,  include an email address to contact for more information,
> and omit references. For models, check CSD.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM, WereSpielChequers
>> <werespielchequers@...> wrote:
>>> The idea is to test the speedy deletion process with articles that
>>> shouldn't be speedy deleted.
>>>
>>> Links to several of the articles in the process and their fates have
>>> been posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie_treatment
>>
>> Hey, that's really cool. I've made my own lame newbie attempt to join
>> the experiment. It's hard to write a convincing newbie stub article
>> that you think deserves to exist, but could be dissed by a patroller
>> acting in a hurry.
>>
>> Steve
>>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@...>:

> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
> criteria".


Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to
catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an
article as you would in your known identity.

> I think we've tested the charge that a new article
> submitted to Wikipedia will be tagged for deletion in two minutes and
> is guaranteed not to last seven days.  But it would be a Pyrrhic
> victory to respond to the press that  It is still possible for a good
> article to be added to Wikipedia by a newbie, as we'd have to concede
> that enough get deleted by over-enthusiasm at CSD to constitute a
> problem - the press exaggerated the problem, but they didn't entirely
> invent it.  We've also established that neither welcoming nor
> wikification are currently keeping up with the flow of newbies and
> their articles.

I do, however, strongly suggest a writeup for the Signpost.

I'd also suggest getting the functionaries - which is the group on
Wikipedia of people who've had most editorial and administrative
privileges for a substantial length of time - to contribute their
experiments as well. Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider
below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
after all.

[cc'ing to functionaries-en - funcs, you may wish to join the wikien-l
thread or contact WereSpielChequers directly.]


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2009/10/30 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:

> 2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@...>:
>
>> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
>> criteria".
>
>
> Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to
> catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an
> article as you would in your known identity.

Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is
unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/10/30 geni <geniice@...>:
> 2009/10/30 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
>> 2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@...>:

>>> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
>>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>>> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
>>> criteria".

>> Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to
>> catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an
>> article as you would in your known identity.

> Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is
> unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.


I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an
anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated
these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How
dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think
about what I was doing!" Really.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2009/10/30 geni <geniice@...>:
>> 2009/10/30 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
>>> 2009/10/30 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@...>:
>
>>>> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
>>>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>>>> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
>>>> criteria".
>
>>> Yeah, any such article ahs to be done in good faith, not an attempt to
>>> catch people out. The test criterion is anonymity. Write as good an
>>> article as you would in your known identity.
>
>> Not a reasonable test since anything that heavy with markup is
>> unlikely to look anything like something created by a new user.
>
> I fear it won't be that bad a test. Try doing your usual editing as an
> anon. You'll be surprised just how preremptorily anons get treated
> these days, and the excuses for the clearly unthinking actions. ("How
> dare you! I couldn't possibly cope with the load if I had to think
> about what I was doing!" Really.)

Well, I'm slated to do my regular once-a-month spate of article
creation (yes, really, it's that bad), but I do this (and all editing)
under my account (the only one I've ever had). But I do try and create
the article in the best possible state, drafting and previewing it for
several hours. I suppose my version of this test would be to create an
article in sub-stub format, and see whether someone jumps on it before
I improve it?

But I'm stuck on which of these terms to write an article on:

1) "sword brother" (bit lightweight)

2) "heroic code" (good number of Google Scholar hits)

3) "heroic friendship" (nebulous concept, difficult to pin down)

Any suggestions?

Anyone saying "all three" will get a wet trout slap. I'm leaning
towards heroic code, but unlike most articles I start, it is one that
I don't really have access to enough sources to flesh out the article
enough. The last time I did that was here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arctic_expeditions

But it is gratifying to see that article (well, list) continuing to
grow and improve.

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?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

David Gerard wrote:
>  Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
> real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
> you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider
> below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
> after all.
>  
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the
preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the
deleting admin?

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Delaney]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >  Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
> > real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as just
> > you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and consider
> > below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
> > after all.
> >
> So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the
> preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the
> deleting admin?
>
> Charles

Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that
contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer review an
admin's use of sysop tools?

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/10/30 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...>:

> So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago) that the
> preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to notify the
> deleting admin?


That was fatigue from dealing with too many people reacting as I
described. It is of course way less than ideal. (I tend to deal with
wikidrama by saying "fuck it" and figuring in a year it either won't
matter or we're doomed anyway.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Ryan Delaney wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews@...
> <mailto:charles.r.matthews@...>> wrote:
>
>     David Gerard wrote:
>     >  Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
>     > real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as
>     just
>     > you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and
>     consider
>     > below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
>     > after all.
>     >
>     So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago)
>     that the
>     preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to
>     notify the
>     deleting admin?
>
>     Charles
>
>
> Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that
> contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer
> review an admin's use of sysop tools?
>

Which was how the point arose. I'm quite a hardliner in general on the
collegiate approach and requirement on admins to do exactly that; as
some people know.

The question is what nuances there are. In arguing that undoing a
clearly erroneous speedy, post-notification of the action is probably
adequate, I came across this idea that one should just do it rather than
make an issue; and that this was accepted practice as of 2009. (I then
went and spent quite a bit of time on speedy patrol to assess how things
were over there.)

This fits into the current debate in the form not of whether reversing a
bad speedy is some sort of wheel-warring (which is a kind of reductio ad
absurdum); but that not reporting that it has been reversed is actually
or potentially causing a lack of feedback to admins with systematic
errors of approach. (We're all fallible, but this study raises the
question whether there are enough misconceptions out there in the group
of admins to make this a serious matter.)

Charles



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

Yes, there are enough misconceptions to make this worth discussion. In
fact,  one oft he reasons for not notifying is when one knows the
notification will be ignored, or, possibly, start a conflict.
Give the official equality of all admins, most of us are not anxious
for conflict, and this is always powerful factor for hiding problems.
If we brought up all the problems we had with one another, the already
combative tendencies of our form of discussion would be overwhelming.

That this leads to non-notification is only part of the problem.  It
also leads to a failure to correct errors. When I see a bad speedy,
unless I think it's really important, I leave it alone, and do not
revert it, although I know it will result in people coming to that
admin's talk page thinking there have been no problems. To a certain
degree, that we get along is more important as a practical matter than
that we get it right.  I'd like to find a way to deal with this.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
>> <charles.r.matthews@...
>> <mailto:charles.r.matthews@...>> wrote:
>>
>>     David Gerard wrote:
>>     >  Discussion on the funcs list indicates there's a
>>     > real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as
>>     just
>>     > you whining - but something the arbs are seeing as well, and
>>     consider
>>     > below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're after a cultural change,
>>     > after all.
>>     >
>>     So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago)
>>     that the
>>     preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to
>>     notify the
>>     deleting admin?
>>
>>     Charles
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that
>> contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer
>> review an admin's use of sysop tools?
>>
> Which was how the point arose. I'm quite a hardliner in general on the
> collegiate approach and requirement on admins to do exactly that; as
> some people know.
>
> The question is what nuances there are. In arguing that undoing a
> clearly erroneous speedy, post-notification of the action is probably
> adequate, I came across this idea that one should just do it rather than
> make an issue; and that this was accepted practice as of 2009. (I then
> went and spent quite a bit of time on speedy patrol to assess how things
> were over there.)
>
> This fits into the current debate in the form not of whether reversing a
> bad speedy is some sort of wheel-warring (which is a kind of reductio ad
> absurdum); but that not reporting that it has been reversed is actually
> or potentially causing a lack of feedback to admins with systematic
> errors of approach. (We're all fallible, but this study raises the
> question whether there are enough misconceptions out there in the group
> of admins to make this a serious matter.)
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

David Goodman wrote:

<snip>
> That this leads to non-notification is only part of the problem.  It
> also leads to a failure to correct errors. When I see a bad speedy,
> unless I think it's really important, I leave it alone, and do not
> revert it, although I know it will result in people coming to that
> admin's talk page thinking there have been no problems. To a certain
> degree, that we get along is more important as a practical matter than
> that we get it right.  I'd like to find a way to deal with this.
>  
I think this set of comments provides a possible type of explanation of
social phenomena on the site that is at least worth isolating. Rather
than the place being too "scratchy" (as is sometimes argued) it may be
that socially we prefer a "comfort zone" in which lesser forms of
conflict (over things like this) are avoided. So those may be
complementary issues, naturally, if people are too broad-brush in
attaching the label "drama" to all types of discussion of misuse of
admin powers. That certainly accords with my experience. It is sad to
think that the culture we have may simply not be compatible with telling
the truth about errors made in the application of admin powers.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Carcharoth wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

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
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)

Carcharoth

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> 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
> <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers@...> wrote:
> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
> criteria".

Hmm, as for my own experimental article (which I loaded with a few
newbie errors, but nothing too over the top), all that has happened
was an established user came along and deleted two of the sources, and
renamed a (deliberately misnamed) section heading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batu_Niah&action=history

I can't really fathom his thinking. Sure, they weren't high quality
sources, but they were the sources of the information nonetheless...

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers@...> wrote:
>> I'm hoping that we won't have too many "trick" articles in this
>> process, or articles that should be deleted but not by CSD (the
>> criteria are "write an article that doesn't meet the deletion
>> criteria".
>
> Hmm, as for my own experimental article (which I loaded with a few
> newbie errors, but nothing too over the top), all that has happened
> was an established user came along and deleted two of the sources, and
> renamed a (deliberately misnamed) section heading.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batu_Niah&action=history
>
> I can't really fathom his thinking. Sure, they weren't high quality
> sources, but they were the sources of the information nonetheless...

I think you needed to point out which bits of information corresponded
with which sources. I see the failed wikilinking for Bintulu was not
corrected. Oh, and was the spelling mistake intentional or
"interestig"? :-)

Carcharoth

PS. User:Speleo87 for writing an article about a town near famous
caves (speleology)? :-)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sage Ross]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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 <dgoodmanny@...> 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
>> <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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
>>> WikiEN-l@...
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

The point of my comment is that if I have the time to do it,  the
advice is specific to the particular article.  Not suggesting looking
for sources in general, but suggesting  where they might be found,
keeping in mind the probable availability to the user. Not saying
avoid promotional phrases like this standard list, but  just which
particular phrases in that particular article  look promotional.

That said, I do have a list of boilerplate standard advice, and I will
post it. Let me give now the one I use the most often:

"See chapter 6 of [http://howwikipediaworks.com/ the free online
version] of ''How Wikipedia Works'' by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews,
and Ben Yates (also available in [http://nostarch.com/howwikiworks.htm
print])

I once thought of doing a similar book myself, but i quickly saw I
could not do better.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> wrote:

> Have you written that essay with this sort of advice in it yet? :-)
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> 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
>> <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> 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
>>> WikiEN-l@...
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...> wrote:
> I think you needed to point out which bits of information corresponded
> with which sources.

I sure did! I also needed to use bullet points - but I didn't know that.

> I see the failed wikilinking for Bintulu was not
> corrected.

Yup. Nor was the lack of bold for the first mention of the town. The
lat/long coords should also be {{coord|...}}'ed.

(How on earth would a newbie ever figure this stuff out...)

> Oh, and was the spelling mistake intentional or
> "interestig"? :-)

Heh, I think that was actually an accident. I originally wrote
"popular tourist attraction", but thought "really interesting" was
more appropriate. :)

> PS. User:Speleo87 for writing an article about a town near famous
> caves (speleology)? :-)

Yup, my alterego is a 22 year old cave lover...

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l