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 <dgoodma...@gmail.com> 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.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Carcharoth wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com> >>> 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@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