Explain why we discourage autobiography (i.e. explain it as part of high encyclopaedic standards) and point them to [[WP:RA]]? (I know you didn't want to simply quote a webpage at them, but if you can encourage them to go to [[WP:RA]] and add a simple explanation of why their achievement/book/whatever is encyclopaedic and verifiable enough for us to be interested in it, that gets them off your back and into contributing.)

David Gerard wrote:

> WP:RA might be the go. Does anyone actually look at it and create the > articles? I thought it had devolved into a dump for unloved really bad > ideas.

Well, I just had a look at it and it certainly has several dump-like qualities. There are far too many entires that are just names or topics without any explanation of why they'd be a useful article. I might give it some TLC over the next few days.

Fist off all, this should really be in our FAQ (I've just skimmed over it, man it's big, and I couldn't find it). Someone should put that in.

On 28 Sep 2006, at 12:36, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: I would suggest that they start contributing to Wikipedia. After a period, their name will be recognised by other passing editors who will be surprised that they don't have an article yet, and they will write one. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 9/28/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > On 28 Sep 2006, at 12:36, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: > >> On 9/28/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> My phone number and email are publicly available for media contact >>> purposes. This means, of course, I get emails and calls about >>> *everything*. >>> >>> A common call is "How do I get an article about me/my book/my >>> achievement?" >>> >>> Now. What's a helpful answer to this? Better than "You don't, >>> someone >>> else has to write one," because you *know* they'll just write a >>> really >>> bad one themselves and it'll all end in a tearful AFD entry and >>> someone hating or fearing Wikipedia henceforth. >>> >>> Assume that referring them to a web page or policy page is less >>> good >>> than being able to answer on the phone right there. >>> >>> Ideas please? >>> >>> >>> - d. >> >> Fist off all, this should really be in our FAQ (I've just skimmed >> over >> it, man it's big, and I couldn't find it). Someone should put >> that in. >> >> To answer your question, if I were to get those calls I would calmly >> explain that we have fairly high standards on what people can be >> subjects of articles. Tell them that if they deserve to have an >> article in wikipedia, they will. Just not written on request or by >> themselves. Point out that if they do write an article on >> themselves, >> it is very likely it will be deleted and it is not always a nice >> discussion to read. You might also want to point out that you >> yourself >> doesn't have an article, I can imagine that would convince some >> people >> ;) > > I would suggest that they start contributing to Wikipedia. > After a period, their name will be recognised by other > passing editors who will be surprised that they don't have > an article yet, and they will write one.

Hang on, if the PR people start contributing, odds are that sooner or later they'll write an article (not on themselves or a client, just in general) and then they'll have a confronting AfD and leave Wikipedia permanently. What can we do about encouraging people to contribute without creating policy violating articles? Of course, I know when I started out editing, I created [[Php MMORPG]] and [[Telstra India Call Centre Clip]]. The former I speedied and the latter was prodded by another editor, then prod2ed it and in the end both were deleted. These articles didn't conform to policy in terms of notability or referencing, and weren't worth keeping, but I (as a relatively normal policy-unaware contributor at the time) didn't know any of this. Maybe the welcome templates should link to simplified versions of article creation guidelines?