On 03/11/12 3:36 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Yes my criticism of your requiring new authors of new articles to have "a familiarity with policy" and "several references" was about what you said you intend this new software to do, not on how close the current prototype is to achieving that. If your intent is other than you said then please clarify your intent, don't expect me to disregard your stated intent simply because the current prototype doesn't fully implement it yet.
"Familiarity with policy" here is akin to inspecting the wheels of a moving bus without falling under them. Often one reference should be more than satisfactory. I have material in 200 year old books that may or may not be mentioned elsewhere.
I'm well aware of last year's studies which showed that despite an increasing proportion being spammers and far more being vandals than in our early years, most new editors are still editing in good faith. But that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, a large proportion of them do, much of my editing is fixing mistakes made by new editors. One of the divides in the community is between those who think that newbies need to be accepted indeed welcomed, their mistakes corrected without criticism and their good stuff celebrated;
A kind word and understanding go a long way.
As opposed to the majority who supported the idea of stopping editors creating articles until they'd been autoconfirmed, and who believe in template bombing newbies articles or simply reverting their edits as "unsourced".
It's unfortunate that idiots with this kind of attitude have taken over the asylum. These negativists who do this without ever making positive contributions to the project deserve a similar treatment.
Ray _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
