On 11/04/11 12:44 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Ray Saintonge<sainto...@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 11/03/11 6:27 AM, Fae wrote: >>> On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Backlogs as a concern translate directly to "newbies are inherently a >>>> problem." >>> I don't get the point being made here, I would have thought that backlogs >>> are a good way to attract new editors into teamworking and community.< >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/DER> and< >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue> are >>> examples that attracted many new editors >>> >> Backlogs can go both ways. They can be a rich source of things to do if >> you're looking for something to do, but today's newbies are not the >> cause of the backlogs; they should not be be somehow held responsible >> for templates they didn't put on articles. >> >> > Naturally. > > Something to consider: when the English Wikipedia reached a million > articles, inline citation was just becoming standard. So there is inherent > catch-up to be played with the articles already written, and the additional > three million. Providing a WYSIWYG reference interface with the editing > interface really can only help as much as the gadgets do in providing new > and updated articles with citations. The backlog will never be conquered. > It's just a side effect of our holistic growth. > Growth that's not only holistic, but fractal too.
I don't think were at WYSIWYG yet, but a bot should be capable of putting a reference in the right place should be possible. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
