User:Maproom/New users and New articles

Increasingly often, I have seen a new user arrive in Wikipedia, and assume that the way to improve it is to create a new article.

She then finds the task much harder than she had anticipated, is finally defeated by the notability issue, and gives up in despair. Wikipedia has lost a promising new editor.

I don't understand why so many new users make this assumption. We all wish they didn't. How can things be changed? I hope that something (re-writing certain pages? publicity? a survey to find out why people think that contributing means creating new articles?) can be done to correct the assumption, and I will do what I can to contribute.

Below are four discussions of the issue. They are not disagreements, they show experienced editors pretty much unanimous about the problem.

and are threads from the Teahouse. , from the Teahouse's talk page, relates to the latter thread. is from the Help desk. I contributed to all these discussions, but that is not why I have chosen them to copy here. I expect that there have been other similar discussions on pages I do not visit.

Multiple copies of drafts?
I am asking this here to get input both from experienced editors and from inexperienced editors, as to why a particular mistake is so often made by inexperienced editors. When I review a submitted user sandbox draft, I first check whether it has a title and content, so that it is worth moving into draft space because it has a chance of being an article. (That is, it isn’t a test edit, blank, in a foreign language, etc.) If it has a title and content, I try to move it to draft space. Usually I move it to draft space, but not infrequently I get an error message saying that the move could not be done. I then look for a page with the same name as I tried to move the sandbox to (in draft space), and I see that there is indeed a declined draft in draft space that is almost identical to the sandbox, both the work of the same editor. My question is: Why do inexperienced editors often create a new version of the draft in their sandbox rather than just editing the existing draft in draft space? I assume that it is a good-faith error, not an attempt to game the system. Is there some way to reduce the frequency of this error that annoys the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Many new editors only want to write a new article, (often about themselves or another non-notable subject) and experienced editors waste time reviewing these. I think the creation of new articles, by new editors, should be controlled. Initially, there were thousands of notable subjects without articles, but now, with over 5 Million articles, these are much rarer. Enforcing the need to be autoconfirmed, would avoid off the cuff articles, by totally inexperienced editors, reducing the time-wasting, that annoys experienced editors, leading to editor retention problems (Wrong venue for a rant, I know) - Arjayay (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that this happens. Most new users seem to think that the way to improve Wikipedia is to create an article. Unless they are unusually good at reading documentation, they are unsure how best to do this – maybe they should use their sandbox, maybe they should use a draft. So they try both. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general assumption. Most new users think that the way to improve Wikipedia is to create an article.  This starting assumption is unfortunate, because creating an article is difficult, and the repeated declines are discouraging, and this decreases editor retention.  Eventually, after several declines, they give up.  I wonder if there is some way that we can publicize better that there are other less frustrating ways to help Wikipedia.  I don't think however that they are trying both in the sandbox and in draft space.  They seems to think that new articles can only be created in the sandbox.  When I encounter the multiple copies, the history is that the copy that is already in draft space was moved there by another reviewer and was declined.  Then the new editor creates another copy in the sandbox.  So there seems to be an assumption by new editors that they have to start in the sandbox, and they copy-paste the draft either from Word or from Draft space back into the sandbox.  So my question is:  Why is this such a common issue?  Is there an assumption that Draft space is a junk file and articles should begin in the sandbox?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I was trying to ask for responses from inexperienced editors as to whether they can explain why it is so common for them to create a new copy in the sandbox after the earlier one was moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find an old discussion about this - but failed. If I remember correctly, there is a perception that a sand box is the editor's "own" space, and that draft space is where things are "marked", so, if the paper sent for marking is "failed", one goes back home and re-writes one's essay.
 * As an inexperienced editor, I have to say that finding out how to move a page at all is a non-trivial task. It took me half an hour after I figured out it was possible to actually get a page (which I had misnamed on creation) moved to an appropriate location. I seriously considered just creating a new page because I was getting very frustrated with the lack of clarity on numerous help pages. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of important how-to/explanation pages that are simultaneously overly long, written in obtuse (to newbies) language, and that lack key information for new users to implement the stuff. I also must admit that, with the sandbox link at the top of the page and no sign of a draft anywhere, I actually have no idea how I would even go about creating a draft, whereas I could try some stuff out in my sandbox. This sort of thing is probably what lands you with numerous drafts of articles. M. A. Broussard (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What to edit?
I like the idea of Wikipedia, in that anyone can edit, but how do people find things to edit? Pages already seem to exist on my favorite topics (and ones I know most about), I haven't been able to find anything to create... Whispered (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Yes, we already have five million articles but a very significant percentage of those can be expanded, better referenced and better written. That being said, there are many opportunities to write new articles. State and provincial legislators through history deserve biographies, and you could spend years writing them. Olympic athletes through history. Billboard hit songs of the 1930s and 1940s. There are broad areas that need enormous work. We also have a group of lengthy lists at Requested articles that are full of ideas. I even have a short list on my user page. Please read Your first article for detailed guidance. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your enthusiasm. But please don't assume that "edit" means "create". Only a small fraction of the edits made to Wikipedia are part of the creation process. Most are corrections, expansions, and improvements to existing articles. Article creation may be the most obvious form of editing, but it's also one of the most difficult. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What said, . I sometimes get frustrated because new people come and instantly try to create new articles. I always advise people to get some practice improving existing articles first, partly because creating an article that stays is difficult, and partly because we have so many articles which are in need of improvement. I have been an editor for more than ten years, and made 11 thousand edits: looking at my contribution record, I see that I have created 11 articles in that time, and some of them were actually just moving existing articles to a new name. If more people spent time improving existing articles, we would have a higher quality encyclopaedia than if they created new ones. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I agree with the comments above. Creating articles is good, but much editing can be done on existing articles, also. I can't comment on science articles, which your user page indicates is your main area of interest. My main interest is in old-time radio, and I have found many articles that need additional material, additional citations or both. My method is to bookmark such an article in my browser when I see it. When I have time, I search for valid material on that topic and add the information and/or citations where appropriate. Each person has his or her own approach, but that one works for me. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on new editors' expectations
This question, well answered by, , and , is interesting. From experiences here and at WP:AFC, I often get the impression that new many new editors assume that creating new articles is the primary (or even only) way to contribute to Wikipedia. In a way it makes sense, the concept of tweaking and changing other people's work is less intuitive than writing a new page and slotting it into encyclopaedia. Even if they realise this, a new editor is likely to be cautious about contributing, and may well consider writing something entirely new to be less "intruding" than changing the work of a stranger.

I reckon we lose a lot of potential editors because their first experience of Wikipedia is the difficult and complicated process of creating a new article. I don't really have a solution (and I know I'm not the first person to think the above), but thought that maybe a discussion here might throw up a few good ideas. --LukeSurlt c 12:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, . I am more and more often advising new editors to start by getting experience editing elsewhere before they try creating an article - and, as I said to someone yesterday, improving existing articles adds to our quality more than writing new ones unless the new ones are very good.
 * I don't know what the answer is. WP:YFA does recommend "practice first", but I'd like to see it say in large friendly letters something like "Don't even try this until you've edited several other articles" - but perhaps in a more friendly way. But a lot of new editors don't see YFA, or at least, not until they've asked for help and been referred to it. It used to be the case (maybe still is) that only autoconfirmed users can create an article in article space: I wonder if it might be a good idea to extend that to Draft space, and have the message say something about getting experience editing elsewhere first. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * New users, whether or not autoconfirmed, may create pages in almost any namespace, including article space and draft space. I see no reason to create an additional distinction between new users and autoconfirmed users.  (The real reason for restricting new users from editing semi-protected pages is presumably to prevent sockpuppetry by throw-away accounts.)  It is my understanding that the original purpose of Articles for Creation was to enable unregistered editors to create draft articles for review, and that it has evolved to be primarily a process for inexperienced editors but is still also a process for unregistered editors.  I see no reason to restrict the ability of unregistered editors to create drafts, let alone to restrict new editors.  (I can see arguments for restricting the ability of unregistered editors to edit at all, but that is, in my opinion, a mistake that was made at the very beginning of Wikipedia that is unlikely to be corrected.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, . Your point about new editors perceiving edits to "someone else's" article as intrusive is a good one, which had not occurred to me. And the experience of trying to create an article is made worse for them by the way new articles are often treated. For a competent and well-meaning new editor, it can go like this:
 * She writes a draft, and submits it.
 * A reviewer points out that it is written in promotional language. (He also has doubts about notability, but can't be sure, and so says nothing about that.)
 * She corrects the promotional writing, and resubmits.
 * A reviewer points out that references are all done wrong, and give guidance on how to do them. (He also has doubts about notability, likewise.)
 * She corrects the referencing, and resubmits.
 * A reviewer points out that the references do not establish notability.
 * She thinks "what a lot of hoops I have to jump through to get this accepted!", and starts to learn about notability. She doesn't fully understand what is required from her, and asks for help.
 * She is told that the subject appears not to be notable. She has been wasting her time all along. She gives up on her plan to contribute to Wikipedia.
 * I can't claim to be blameless here. I have contributed to all steps of the disillusionment process. It is very sad that enthusiastic new editors, and the more experienced editors who try to help them, all acting with good will, so often bring about such an unfortunate outcome.
 * The root of the problem is the very common belief that the way to contribute is to create an article. I have observed it in face-to-face training, as well as at my keyboard. I wonder if the slogan at the top of the Main Page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is partly to blame; but "... the free encyclopedia that anyone can improve" sounds stupid. I don't know what could be done about it, apart from preventing editors from creating articles until they have enough experience.  Maproom (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Maproom about the multiple declines being very discouraging. I will point out that this is an argument in favor of a proposal that I have made (and that no one has disagreed with, to the best of my knowledge), that the decline template should permit the reviewer to select multiple decline reasons.  The scenario that Maproom lists is not uncommon, and one reason is that, with the decline template only providing one primary reason, reviewers do not always mention other concerns or issues.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The multiple declines are inevitable. When an completely inexperienced editor creates a new article, it is going to have a lot of things wrong with it. But what is particularly unfortunate is that the things that can be fixed (promotional language, poor formatting, wrong referencing style, spelling, grammar) get drawn to the creator's attention first, before the lack of notability which is not the creator's fault and probably can't be fixed. Maproom (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is true that sometimes multiple declines are inevitable. It would happen less often if reviewers were able to specify multiple decline reasons at once.  Also, reviewers should be encouraged to identify notability concerns in the first decline.  To identify obvious concerns before notability concerns makes the reviewer's job "easy", but it is hard on the inexperienced editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It might help to know more about what motivates people to edit Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia because I saw that the coverage of my field of expertise was poor, so my editing choices were determined by the gaps I saw (improving some articles, creating others). But a lot of Wikipedians seem to start with a generalized wish to contribute something to Wikipedia. Why is that? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Part of this, too, is the open and volunteer nature of Wikipedia. If we were a corporation hiring people to edit an internally produced encyclopedia, we'd develop training processes, and be able to say something like "We're not going to let you create new pages until you've edited some existing ones first, and you've read through these important policy documents". Trying to implement anything like the previous sentence would pretty much destroy the whole "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" thing. (If you ever want to propose something that doesn't get adopted, try proposing those sorts of requirements!) If I were mentoring a new editor (and I don't know that I'm the best choice for that) I'd recommend that they did something like that anyway (as advice, not as a wiki-wide policy!). Go read a couple basic policy documents, then find articles to edit and improve. You get the experience of dealing with our processes without the likelihood of investing a lot of time and effort into something that's going nowhere. Wabbott9  Tell me about it....  21:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment was made somewhere in the past few days that a limitation on the AFCH script is that it posts the relatively unfriendly decline template to the editor's talk page, but, if any comments were also added, they are posted only to the draft article. Why can't the comments, which are sometimes clearer than the unfriendly decline, also be copied directly to the talk page?  That seems straightforward.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

HELP...please.
There's so much info that I am overwhelmed. I am trying to get familiar with wiki so that I can submit my first piece. I have several questions. But if someone can help with these first few, I would appreciate it. Please be kind because I'm sure these questions might seems stupid but I really want to figure this out.

1) Do I have to create the hyperlinks within an article that link it to other wiki pages, or are those key words recognized automatically?

2) Can newspaper articles and general public records be used as valid reference?

Thanks for any help Ibstylin (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer your question: you have to create the hyperlinks, by putting double square brackets around the words, so you would type dog to get dog. And you can cite newspaper articles and public records, as long as the public records really are public. But your intention to "submit your first piece" is probably a mistake, particularly if you are feeling overwhelmed. Creating a new article is really difficult, compared to the routine work of improving Wikipedia by correcting typos, improving grammar, adding references, and suchlike. I had been editing Wikipedia for five years before I first created a new article. Maproom (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why Article wizard was created.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The article wizard gives the impression that, after a few hours' work, you will be able to create a new article. Unless you're a genius, it's probably not so. I wonder if the article wizard is partly responsible for Wikipedia's falling retention rate for new editors. Maproom (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's a lot of factors, including that the public is very familiar with setting up pages on all sorts of social media, and understandably they expect Wikipedia to be similar. And unfortunately, the wizard allows people to gloss over the first step (collecting your references), which should be the bulk of the work.  - sorry to hijack your question to talk about that, but it should reinforce that writing a new article from scratch is hard, and I support the idea of starting out by improving existing articles first. I found it really helped me to understand how Wikipedia works.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above posts. For some reason, many new editors think that creating new articles is the only or best way to contribute to Wikipedia.  For new editors whose native language is English, I would suggest that copy-editing is a good way to contribute.  Also, as a reviewer, I find that most declines are due either to referencing issues or notability issues (which overlap), and the Article Wizard doesn't help with those.  References are just hard work.  I would like to see tools to simplify referencing.  Also, if a topic isn't notable, then no amount of work makes it notable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. The wizard really isn't as helpful as other's may think and I have been trying to edit other's pages to figure this out but it's a LOT to take in. I'm wondering if maybe it wouldn't just be easier to find someone that really knows wiki better and may be interested in researching more and writing the article I had considered. lol I really appreciate the information. I just feel so out of my league and thought it would be much easier to figure out than it has been this far. Ibstylin (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Ibstylin, For a while now I've been updating at Tip of the Day, Tips library and thought that Tips for contributors on getting started section may be helpful. Regards, JoeHebda   (talk)  20:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)