Something that I have been noticing more and more recently, is that when people (usually new users) create one of the suggested articles on the bottom of every page and it gets flagged as a duplicate, their reply to the person who tagged it would be that their title is not exactly the same and that their content is different from the other article. Only then would someone explain to them how our deletion policy on duplicates work: that it is not the content that flagged it as a duplicate, even if you have a different method in your article, but it is the title. Now, when I look at the screen you are taken to when you create a new article, I don’t feel that this point of the deletion policy is made clear. Here is the screenshot. I have underlined the part that could do with a little rewording, I think:
I think if we could add something that makes it more clear that if you have a different method of completing the task, you should rather add to the original article, as I think it must be frustrating to learn about the deletion policy the hard way, after you were “asked” to write an article that turns out to be a duplicate on which some may consider a technicality.
system
3
I can’t view the image, can you just post the link @WriteIf
?
Mehhh, silly old link - it was showing perfectly last night! Here it is: http://www.wikihow.com/Image:WikiHow-write\_article\_424.jpg
Great idea WriteIf, but what do you think we should change it to? Maybe something along the lines of, “If one if the titles listed below is ALMOST the same as your title, please select it. See our Merge Policy for more details.”?
Whoze
6
I think its a really good idea, it would certainly help with duplicates, and the dismay new users feel when they put a lot of work into their first article, only to have it tagged as a dup. Great idea!
I was thinking more about focusing on how we flag duplicates. Many new people here will be encouraged to search for duplicates, and then do so, but not know what is a duplicate for us. Say someone wants to write an article on how to be popular/cool, and either search for duplicates, or be alerted by that “Write an Article” page that there are potential dups. But then they think “But my method is different, therefore it is not a duplicate,” not knowing that it is first and foremost an article’s title that flags it for dup. Many other sites allow articles with similar titles, provided the content is different. eHow, for example. And yes,
I think many people may be discouraged with writing for wH if their first article gets nfd-ed. Especially if they feel they were asked by that “Articles for you to write screen”, which does turn up many duplicate titles.
Well, the Merge Policy has lots of different details on duplicates in the Merge Policy, so that should be encouraged for help on deciding if it is a duplicate.
Yes, but simply providing a link to the merge policy would be the same as encouraging new editors to read the Writer’s Guide before they write an article. Most people will never ever bother to read it, and it won’t help to solve this problem. It should rather be a simplified explanation of the policies. Anyhow, even more experienced wH editors have admitted that they find the merge policy a bit difficult to take in. How must it feel for a newbie?
Bump! Anybody else got thoughts on this?
system
11
I understand the sentiment here - this whole “duplicates” thing can be so confusing to newbies, but if they do have a different method of completing the task, they should write it, because their method is more specific and warrants its own page. We shouldn’t NFD it; we should change the title so it reflects what makes the method unique
Also, if they are contributing unique content (but not unique enough to be its own method/article) we shouldn’t NFD at all, we can place a merge tag and ask the author to transfer their advice over to the existing article, him or herself. When I ask people to do this nicely, and explain briefly that we try to have just one article per topic so that readers can find all the info they’re looking for on a single page, they are often understanding and cooperative, and do not seem discouraged at all. I guess what I’m trying to say is that instead of focusing on the way the writing process is set up, we have a lot of room for improvement in how we treat new article, and how we treat the people who wrote them. Instead of using the dreaded NFD template, there are other ways to keep new contributors in the fold, and make them feel welcomed, even if their articles gets merged
