I'm an infrequent editor. Naively, I don't understand: 1. Why the author's attempt at a discussion/clarification was ignored 2. Given point #1, why this was deleted *so* quickly, when it was merely "insignificant", and not actively harmful (e.g. copyright violation) 3. Given point #1, why the article was deleted, instead of being moved into some draft space
If any of those three had been handled differently, at a minimum, this potential new editor would have felt more welcomed. In most cases, this article would have disappeared. It was only because Mitar spoke up that the article was resurrected and turned into what is, which is apparently an article of positive value for wikipedia. It's not clear to me how much of what happened was in line with existing policies. Perhaps some of what happened leaned toward the harsh end of normal. It's not clear to me how easy it would be to shift the policies, or implementations, slightly in the direction of being more welcoming. I think the process "worked" as far as keeping a dodgy article out, and making efficient use of admin time. I don't think the process "worked" as far as growing the editor community, nor in terms of helping appropriate content get added. Maybe things are as they need to be, for admin efficiency. But I think it's worth considering whether that is the case. Could we do something to improve the situation? Thinking outside the box, perhaps by default new articles should be created in a private sandbox, so inexperienced editors won't run into this trap. A user setting could allow experienced editors to create articles directly in the main namespace, I suppose that has been discussed before, and there's probably a good reason why it won't work. Still, it seems like we should be able to find processes that are win-win-win, for new editors, admins, and readers. NOTE: I am not speaking as a foundation employee here. This is strictly personal opinion. Kevin Smith On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen < list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote: > Without weighing in on the specific's of Mitar's case, I think this is a > good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd > been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to my > name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was, rightfully I > think, tagged for notability. It wasn't deleted though (I did improve it > with more sources), and that article is still up today. > > Regardless, it would have been good for me to get more experience by > improving other articles before creating one myself. Even now, seven years > later, I don't create many new articles, preferring to work on existing > ones. Whenever I do create a new article, I always work up a solid version, > with good sources, in my userspace first. > > - Pax, aka Funcrunch > > > > On 6/27/16 12:40 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > >> Or may be just to emphasize again David's point. Every new editor >> starting an article about a living person or an existing organization with >> a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional (payed of >> fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always a red tape. >> >> As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as >> promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve >> existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an >> autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for >> promotional editors. >> >> This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only >> response to promotional editing. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
