headers
David Goodman | 1 Nov 2009 03:47
Picon

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

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 <at> ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Carcharoth | 1 Nov 2009 10:40

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

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 <at> 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.matthews <at> ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Steve Bennett | 1 Nov 2009 17:52
Picon

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

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers <at> googlemail.com> 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 <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Carcharoth | 1 Nov 2009 18:04

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

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers <at> googlemail.com> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
elipongo | 1 Nov 2009 20:07
Picon
Gravatar

Re: How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the createan article as a newbie challenge

It seems to me that he pigeonholed your references as external links instead. I guess he isn't familiar with
the fact that new editors often don't label their citations to our style/standard.

- Eli

------Original Message------
From: Steve Bennett
Sender: wikien-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To: English Wikipedia
ReplyTo: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How friendly are we to Newbies? Update on the createan article as a newbie challenge
Sent: Nov 1, 2009 11:52

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers <at> googlemail.com> 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...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sage Ross | 1 Nov 2009 20:57
Picon

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

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com> 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 <at> 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
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Goodman | 1 Nov 2009 21:14
Picon

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

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 <at> googlemail.com> 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 <at> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Bennett | 2 Nov 2009 02:38
Picon

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

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:04 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp <at> googlemail.com> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ryan Delaney | 2 Nov 2009 05:15
Picon

Re: deletionism in popular culture

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now that's a lovely perennial idea.  There's no point in hard deleting any
> article save to protect private information in the history.  You can pure
> wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but
> removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly
> unnecessary.
>
>
I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is
"but then there would be edit wars over deletion!"

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 33 comments |
headers
Charles Matthews | 2 Nov 2009 11:32

Re: deletionism in popular culture

Ryan Delaney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Now that's a lovely perennial idea.  There's no point in hard deleting any
>> article save to protect private information in the history.  You can pure
>> wiki delete; or even pure wiki delete and protect the blank page; but
>> removing the work done from view of interested passers-by is wholly
>> unnecessary.
>>
>>
>>     
> I haven't found any persuasive argument against it. Usually the objection is
> "but then there would be edit wars over deletion!"
>   
The main argument is rationalisation: if you ever thought that it was a 
valid idea to rationalise the scope of the project at any point, you'd 
probably start with the thought that with hundreds of thousands of 
articles deleted every year and most of that material being at best 
thoroughly marginal to what we are trying to do, then (you might argue 
that) having it all around is on balance not really helpful. So against 
that you can argue that WP doesn't need rationalisation of any kind: it 
can just go on growing how it likes given the resources. People seem to 
draw their own conclusions on this debate. Mine are based largely on the 
kind of focus or lack of it you see in people who want to search through 
those millions of deleted words, rather than anything else they could be 
trawling through.

Charles

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |

Gmane