Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Johan Jönsson
Hey list,

do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk
page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among
(most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
where to find them.

Thanks,

//Johan Jönsson
--
User:Julle

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

David Gerard-2
2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]>:

> do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk
> page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
> Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
> with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among
> (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
> where to find them.


+1

These need collecting.

Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.

When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

WereSpielChequers-2
One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where
the article was deleted per A7.

Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by
editors with less than 100 edits.

Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space
edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer
than 100 edits would find shed loads.

In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is
along the lines of "but he exists!". Which is more a failure to grasp the
concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it.

More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the
Internet -  our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does
seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such as
new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team.

WereSpielChequers

On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]>:
>
> > do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk
> > page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
> > Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
> > with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among
> > (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
> > where to find them.
>
>
> +1
>
> These need collecting.
>
> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
> after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>
> When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
> that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
> this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind.

A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making
Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time.

Michel Vuijlsteke

On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>wrote:

> One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where
> the article was deleted per A7.
>
> Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by
> editors with less than 100 edits.
>
> Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia space
> edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer
> than 100 edits would find shed loads.
>
> In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept is
> along the lines of "but he exists!". Which is more a failure to grasp the
> concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it.
>
> More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the
> Internet -  our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings does
> seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such
> as
> new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team.
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
> On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk
> > > page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
> > > Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
> > > with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among
> > > (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
> > > where to find them.
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > These need collecting.
> >
> > Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
> > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
> >
> > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
> > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
> > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Here's a couple of "discussions". In the very loosest sense of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_of_Israphel

This says it all, really:


   - *Delete* - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to
   find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The
   YogPod<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_YogPod&action=edit&redlink=1>
   , The Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>
   , The yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>,
   and Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>
   . MikeWazowski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski>)
   14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


And apparently it's personal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland#The_Yogscast_Wikipedia_page

Excellent (imho) article start here, btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast

On 9 October 2011 01:18, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind.
>
> A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making
> Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time.
>
> Michel Vuijlsteke
>
>
> On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where
>> the article was deleted per A7.
>>
>> Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by
>> editors with less than 100 edits.
>>
>> Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia
>> space
>> edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with fewer
>> than 100 edits would find shed loads.
>>
>> In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept
>> is
>> along the lines of "but he exists!". Which is more a failure to grasp the
>> concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it.
>>
>> More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the
>> Internet -  our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings
>> does
>> seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such
>> as
>> new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team.
>>
>> WereSpielChequers
>>
>> On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the talk
>> > > page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
>> > > Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
>> > > with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted among
>> > > (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
>> > > where to find them.
>> >
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > These need collecting.
>> >
>> > Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
>> > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>> >
>> > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
>> > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
>> > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>> >
>> >
>> > - d.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Sorry to go on about this, but it really defies belief, sometimes, when you
go into these things. I picked Yogscast because I'd just been watching an
episode with my wife *and* I was just about 100% sure there wouldn't be an
article on Wikipedia about them.

What are you to make of an exchange like this (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UtherSRG/Archive_4#Deletion_of_Yogscast),
really, if you're looking to write an article about the Yogscast?

Awesome, the file's nuked, and
CIreland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CIreland> salted
the Yogscast page. I think we put a stopper on that!
--HTMLCODER.exe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HTMLCODER.exe>
 (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HTMLCODER.exe>) 23:25, 28
April 2011 (UTC)

"Awesome" in combination with "nuking" stuff and salting a page? Ack.

Michel

On 9 October 2011 01:38, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here's a couple of "discussions". In the very loosest sense of the term.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yogscast
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_of_Israphel
>
> This says it all, really:
>
>
>    - *Delete* - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to
>    find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The
>    YogPod<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_YogPod&action=edit&redlink=1>
>    , The Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>
>    , The yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>,
>    and Yogscast<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogscast&action=edit&redlink=1>
>    . MikeWazowski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski> (talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski>)
>    14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
>
>
> And apparently it's personal:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland#The_Yogscast_Wikipedia_page
>
> Excellent (imho) article start here, btw:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast
>
> On 9 October 2011 01:18, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogscast springs to mind.
>>
>> A million followers on Youtube, arguably one of the factors in making
>> Minecraft as popular as it is today, deleted time after time.
>>
>> Michel Vuijlsteke
>>
>>
>> On 9 October 2011 01:11, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially
>>> where
>>> the article was deleted per A7.
>>>
>>> Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by
>>> editors with less than 100 edits.
>>>
>>> Or if you don't have access to deleted edits, an extract of Wikipedia
>>> space
>>> edits in subpages of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion by editors with
>>> fewer
>>> than 100 edits would find shed loads.
>>>
>>> In my experience the most common argument against our notability concept
>>> is
>>> along the lines of "but he exists!". Which is more a failure to grasp the
>>> concept of notability as opposed to having an alternative concept of it.
>>>
>>> More meaningful ones are along the lines of Wikipedia not embracing the
>>> Internet -  our lack of regard for people with high youtube followings
>>> does
>>> seem perverse to some; And ones where notability is as yet uncertain such
>>> as
>>> new signings to major teams who haven't yet played for the team.
>>>
>>> WereSpielChequers
>>>
>>> On 8 October 2011 09:24, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 2011/10/7 Johan Jönsson <[hidden email]>:
>>> >
>>> > > do you remember any particular discussions about articles (on the
>>> talk
>>> > > page, or AfD if enough newcomers found their way there) on English
>>> > > Wikipedia where you could see that new editors/outsiders didn't agree
>>> > > with the concept of notability, or how notability is interpreted
>>> among
>>> > > (most) Wikipedians? I know that I've seen them, I just can't seem
>>> > > where to find them.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > These need collecting.
>>> >
>>> > Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
>>> > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>>> >
>>> > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
>>> > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
>>> > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - d.
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Johan Jönsson
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
2011/10/9 WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>:
> One good place to look would be talkpages deleted per G8, especially where
> the article was deleted per A7.
>
> Better still if you could get an extract of deleted talkpage edits by
> editors with less than 100 edits.

Yes, if I could read deleted talkpages ... :) (I'm an administrator at
Swedish Wikipedia, but not at English Wikipedia.) Thanks, anyway.

//Johan Jönsson
--

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Ron Ritzman
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
> after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>
> When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
> that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
> this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.

And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of
doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have
a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In
others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run
into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an
editor who got frustrated with all his "submissions" being tagged for
deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back
at WP:REFUND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat

The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but
start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand
stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities.

Ron

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

petr skupa
Boldness....

In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to
reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It
really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity,
but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration
almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of
exception, but it really is not that bold action at all).

I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is
already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted
very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured
article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles
are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV
and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he
tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow
notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of
spotlight..

I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing
experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the
nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or
hesitation to start....

While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like
en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation
and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is
somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the
communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning
process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really
discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest...
just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high)

In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt
them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their
work.

Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
> > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
> >
> > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
> > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
> > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>
> And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of
> doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have
> a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In
> others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run
> into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an
> editor who got frustrated with all his "submissions" being tagged for
> deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back
> at WP:REFUND.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat
>
> The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but
> start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand
> stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities.
>
> Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Carcharoth
All excellent advice, and probably already written down on-wiki
somewhere. Trouble is, those biting newbies often don't read it, and
newbies often don't read it (or don't follow it). It should be
mandatory to give this sort of advice when interacting with newbies,
but many people don't take the time to look into a user's editing
history, but want to finish what they've started and move on to
something else.

Carcharoth

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:23 PM, petr skupa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Boldness....
>
> In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to
> reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It
> really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity,
> but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration
> almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of
> exception, but it really is not that bold action at all).
>
> I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is
> already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted
> very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured
> article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles
> are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV
> and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he
> tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow
> notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of
> spotlight..
>
> I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing
> experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the
> nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or
> hesitation to start....
>
> While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like
> en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation
> and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is
> somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the
> communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning
> process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really
> discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest...
> just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high)
>
> In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt
> them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their
> work.
>
> Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]]
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
>> > after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>> >
>> > When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
>> > that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
>> > this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>>
>> And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of
>> doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have
>> a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In
>> others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run
>> into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an
>> editor who got frustrated with all his "submissions" being tagged for
>> deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back
>> at WP:REFUND.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat
>>
>> The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but
>> start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand
>> stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

MuZemike
In reply to this post by petr skupa
Coincidentally, I started here by doing that you argued against, which
is being bold.

That aside, if we start questioning "be bold", then we also need to
reconsider "nobody owns articles". I've always been a firm believer,
even in the beginning that Wikipedia (same could be extended to any open
wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper
balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for
the wiki to remain open to those to edit.

-MuZemike

On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote:

> Boldness....
>
> In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to
> reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia. It
> really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity,
> but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their frustration
> almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of
> exception, but it really is not that bold action at all).
>
> I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it is
> already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted
> very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or featured
> article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles
> are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several POV
> and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if he
> tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow
> notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of
> spotlight..
>
> I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty agonizing
> experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the
> nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion or
> hesitation to start....
>
> While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like
> en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic expectation
> and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is
> somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the
> communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning
> process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really
> discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you suggest...
> just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high)
>
> In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to hurt
> them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their
> work.
>
> Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]]
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
>>> after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>>>
>>> When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
>>> that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
>>> this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
>>
>> And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of
>> doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have
>> a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In
>> others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run
>> into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an
>> editor who got frustrated with all his "submissions" being tagged for
>> deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back
>> at WP:REFUND.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat
>>
>> The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but
>> start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand
>> stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Tony Sidaway
The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more
steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new
content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard.
On Oct 10, 2011 4:45 PM, "MuZemike" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Coincidentally, I started here by doing that you argued against, which
> is being bold.
>
> That aside, if we start questioning "be bold", then we also need to
> reconsider "nobody owns articles". I've always been a firm believer,
> even in the beginning that Wikipedia (same could be extended to any open
> wiki) is ultimately a communal effort with individualist aspects; proper
> balance between the two key aspects need to be maintained in order for
> the wiki to remain open to those to edit.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/10/2011 9:23 AM, petr skupa wrote:
> > Boldness....
> >
> > In some way I am starting to believe, that we should start to
> > reconsider/rethink the rule/recommendation BE BOLD in English Wikipedia.
> It
> > really is one of our philosophical cornerstones and it has it's validity,
> > but unfortunately, if applied by/to newbies, it ends up by their
> frustration
> > almost in all the cases. (to correct one spelling error is kind of
> > exception, but it really is not that bold action at all).
> >
> > I mean it. If a newbie comes to existing article - most of the time, it
> is
> > already written to such a complex degree, that his addition gets reverted
> > very often and very quickly (going to improve some good article or
> featured
> > article without appropriate sources is not warmly welcomed, most articles
> > are complex with history of reverts and balancing the facts from several
> POV
> > and even well intentioned newbie is going to start with rejection..) , if
> he
> > tries to write something anew, it - most of the time would fall bellow
> > notability. The stubs worthy of the revamp are not having much of
> > spotlight..
> >
> > I believe, that rejection after well intentioned start is pretty
> agonizing
> > experience, especially if there were any expectation on the side of the
> > nebie.. for newbie retention it might be even worse than their confusion
> or
> > hesitation to start....
> >
> > While I believe in BOLD, I believe, that in such a large projects like
> > en:wp, it should be carefully reworded, to not bring unrealistic
> expectation
> > and it should bring some preparedness, that (now) the editation of wp is
> > somewhat learning process. It should build some preparedness that the
> > communication with rest of community might ensue, however the learning
> > process might be actually quite a fun by itself, no one is really
> > discouraging you by talking back to you (whatever the wording you
> suggest...
> > just to not rise the expectation after few first edits too high)
> >
> > In sum, I believe more in slow start of newbies, because it is going to
> hurt
> > them less and it is going to let them get more of appreciation of their
> > work.
> >
> > Petr Skupa [[u:Reo On]]
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Ron Ritzman<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Gerard<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
> >>> after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
> >>>
> >>> When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
> >>> that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
> >>> this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.
> >>
> >> And it's also unfortunate that the first thing many newbies think of
> >> doing is creating a new article. In some cases it's because they have
> >> a [[WP:COI]] and are only [[WP:HERE]] to write that article. In
> >> others, they are honestly creating articles that interest them but run
> >> into a gauntlet of [[WP:NPP|new page pouncers]]. Here's a case of an
> >> editor who got frustrated with all his "submissions" being tagged for
> >> deletion so he tagged them all for G7 and is trying to get them back
> >> at WP:REFUND.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abbythecat
> >>
> >> The advise I would give newcomers is to not create new articles but
> >> start out by editing existing ones. Another alternative is to expand
> >> stubs and redirects in Category:Redirects with possibilities.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Bod Notbod
In reply to this post by Ron Ritzman
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ron Ritzman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Deleting newcomers' hard work is one of our big PR problems. Even if,
>> after contemplation, we decide we were actually right to do so.
>>
>> When someone wanders into the sausage factory and the very first thing
>> that happens is that they fall head-first into the meat grinder ...
>> this is an *unfortunate* circumstance.

Doesn't just happen to newbies. For the first time in years I started
a new article quite some time ago. It immediately got a speedy delete
tag *even though* I had placed an "in use" banner at the top
(something a newbie would never think of).

Now, the rationale given for listing it for deletion was that it was
"rubbish". And it's true: it was rubbish! But the fact was I was
editing it from the very earliest point of noting a phenomenon and
trying to document it. I thought the "in use" banner and the fact that
I would have edited it in the moments before the deletion banner
popped up would have been enough to say "someone is working on this
right now, so hold your horses".

I now realise I should have started the article in my user space but,
again, this is certainly not something a new user would think to do.

I recall, during the Strategy process, a user of very long standing
saying that a new article he created was similarly stomped on at
birth.

I can see it from the new page patroller's point of view, mind. It
can't be any fun doing a shift on there at all.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Johan Jönsson
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:08:41 +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more
> steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new
> content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard.

So the way to deal with people who poison the Wikipedia atmosphere by
stomping down hard on other people is.... to stomp down hard on them!

Actually, the main people who should be stomped down hard on is the
ingrates who top-post to this list with fullquotes, especially when
three or more list footers trail beneath their untrimmed quotes.


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

MuZemike
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway
I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on
the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new
articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the
encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being
complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing
articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good
way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.

-MuZemike

On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more
> steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new
> content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

Carcharoth
Expanding existing articles has its pitfalls as well. Having a lot of
work summarily reverted is possible there as well, though less likely.
Possibly worse is developing your own writing style and technique in
isolation and having no-one there to point out your mistakes results
in either painfully unlearning and relearning the correct way to do
things, or running into even more trouble further down the road. The
cardinal rules I would give would be something like (in no particular
order):

1) Take things slowly and stop and discuss if needed
2) Read and watch, and ask and learn, and show and help
3) Be helpful not confrontational, and be patient
4) Treat others as you would like to be treated

Along with that, always remember how big and chaotic Wikipedia is and
can be. Don't avoid other areas, but find areas you like and enjoy and
ensure you always have those areas to return to if things get
stressful elsewhere.

Carcharoth

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on
> the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new
> articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the
> encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being
> complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing
> articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good
> way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
> especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more
>> steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create new
>> content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers about notability?

petr skupa
In reply to this post by MuZemike
 >I don't know of any good
 >way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
 >especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.

When I came to Wikipedia, .. years back then.. I really liked the idea of
stubs being sorted by the field of interest. I liked it and started to sort
them and sort them in finer categories and such. In the end it does not look
like success, like that it would help in any way.

But I would like to see some more invitation on those stubs like:

This article about plant biology is stub. You can help Wikipedia by
expanding it.
*Or you can inspect and expand any other stubs about plant biology [linked
here to the category:Plant biology stubs]

Basically : invite the reader/editor into the particular category of topical
stubs from the article.

Petr [[u.Reo_On]]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:55 AM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on
> the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating new
> articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to the
> encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to being
> complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand existing
>  articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know of any good
> way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
> especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take more
> > steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts to create
> new
> > content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We should stop them hard.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers aboutnotability?

Phil Nash-3
An excellent idea, since we don't currently actively invite new editors into
topics in which they might be interested, such as, for example, by pointing
them at relevant WP:Projects. I think a general indication that their
expertise might be appreciated would be more welcoming than we currently
seem to achieve; it would at least give less of an appearance of a "closed
shop" to which only experienced editors are welcome.

Phil

petr skupa wrote:

>> I don't know of any good
>> way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction, though,
>> especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
>
> When I came to Wikipedia, .. years back then.. I really liked the
> idea of stubs being sorted by the field of interest. I liked it and
> started to sort them and sort them in finer categories and such. In
> the end it does not look like success, like that it would help in any
> way.
>
> But I would like to see some more invitation on those stubs like:
>
> This article about plant biology is stub. You can help Wikipedia by
> expanding it.
> *Or you can inspect and expand any other stubs about plant biology
> [linked here to the category:Plant biology stubs]
>
> Basically : invite the reader/editor into the particular category of
> topical stubs from the article.
>
> Petr [[u.Reo_On]]
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:55 AM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on
>> the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating
>> new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to
>> the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to
>> being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand
>>  existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know
>> of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction,
>> though, especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
>>
>> -MuZemike
>>
>> On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>> The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take
>>> more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts
>>> to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We
>>> should stop them hard.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Point me to discussions with newcomers aboutnotability?

Phil Nash-3
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
I think that new editors (apart from vandals) sometimes come with
unrealistic expectations, based on "This is the encyclopedia that anyone can
edit". Anything we can do to focus their expectations towards the reality
should be welcomed. A welcome template is all very well, but cannot hope to
explain all the subtleties of the policies, guidelines, consensi (?) and
ArbCom rulings that will affect the validity or persistence of their edits.

Unless existing editors take great care not to alienate new editors by being
jargon-meisters or making assumptions, we may well continue to lose
well-intentioned new editors.

And, of course, we'e already lost, or are losing, a whole host of
well-intentioned experienced editors, whose experience cannot be replaced
overnight; and that is tragic. Without entrenched editors willing to pass on
their experience, WP will inevitably struggle to develop, and continue to be
forever condemned to a Sisyphean task of correction rather than education.

Meh!

Carcharoth wrote:

> Expanding existing articles has its pitfalls as well. Having a lot of
> work summarily reverted is possible there as well, though less likely.
> Possibly worse is developing your own writing style and technique in
> isolation and having no-one there to point out your mistakes results
> in either painfully unlearning and relearning the correct way to do
> things, or running into even more trouble further down the road. The
> cardinal rules I would give would be something like (in no particular
> order):
>
> 1) Take things slowly and stop and discuss if needed
> 2) Read and watch, and ask and learn, and show and help
> 3) Be helpful not confrontational, and be patient
> 4) Treat others as you would like to be treated
>
> Along with that, always remember how big and chaotic Wikipedia is and
> can be. Don't avoid other areas, but find areas you like and enjoy and
> ensure you always have those areas to return to if things get
> stressful elsewhere.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:55 PM, MuZemike <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't think that is entirely reasonable thing to say or do, but, on
>> the other hand, I wished that newcomers would be aware that creating
>> new articles from scratch is not the only way to help contribute to
>> the encyclopedia. Assuming that Wikipedia is still nowhere close to
>> being complete, there are always going to be opportunities to expand
>> existing articles - many of them that are still stubs. I don't know
>> of any good way in which to guide newcomers towards that direction,
>> though, especially in a "come-and-go"-type environment such as this.
>>
>> -MuZemike
>>
>> On 10/10/2011 7:08 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>> The only important rule here is to be bold. We really ought to take
>>> more steps to disenfranchise those who repeatedly stamp on attempts
>>> to create new content. They know who they are, and I mean it. We
>>> should stop them hard.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l