
Wikipedia’s Volunteer Story - aj
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/
======
waterlesscloud
There's an interesting page linked there, wikipedia's internal Newbie
Treatment Study. Good to see they're at least considering they might have a
problem.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD)

~~~
ramchip
Extract of the discussion for one of the (legitimate) articles that got
deleted at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD/Skomorokh#Searching_for_the_Wrong-
Eyed_Jesus)

 _I created an article with three links to coverage by reliable sources, two
of which were significant. The article clearly identified the subject, and was
tagged and deleted as patent nonsense, without any communication whatsoever
with the creating account. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the
proper markup. In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See
articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites". Willking1979
(talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those reasons are relevant to CSD, and sadly I note that
User talk:...and the circus leaves town is still a redlink. ϢereSpielChequers
09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had to read Williking's comment a few times to make sure it wasn't a
subtle parody. (Just to check: he did genuinely mean that comment, right?)

I think we can end this experiment now; it's an obvious success. --Gwern
(contribs) 22:37 8 October 2009 (GMT)_

