Carl (CBM) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Charles Matthews > <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> (I happen to think that starting by improving existing articles is probably >> a better training, >> and certainly an easier one. The question is how to motivate newcomers, to >> do that or >> anything else.) >> > > The difficulty I see for newcomers improving existing articles is > that, as newcomers, they don't know which things they can change and > which things they should leave alone. > > For example, imagine a well-meaning newbie who sees that our article > "Logic" starts with "Logic is the study of reasoning." This newbie > might change that to "Logic is the art and science of correct > deduction", which is a priori reasonable. They would not know that > people have argued over the first sentence in detail and that the > present wording is a compromise between the many definitions of > "logic" available in reliable sources. And "Logic" is not at all a > controversial topic, nor rated as a featured article. If a new user > were to wade into a featured article on a religious or political > topic, they would have even less freedom to edit. > Right. Reading down an article and changing the first thing you happen to disagree with is not an ideal way to work; it happens to suggest itself to many newcomers, though. I suppose the three pillars of improving an article are: fact-checking and referencing anything that appears dubious to you; expanding in areas where coverage seems obviously lacking; and restructuring. All these really matter more than wording tweaks, or at least should be given priority. But they require specific skills (in our terms).
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
