User:Hmich176/My straight truth
 | This is an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more members of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. While it is not a part of the standards the project promotes, it provides some recommendations and ideas for members to consider. |
I credit the title to TwinsMetsFan.
WikiProject U.S. Roads
[edit]For a significant period of time, I was a contributor to WP:USRD. I contribute very little now. While I read the talk page and keep tabs on discussions, I keep back, and only contribute when I feel absolutely necessary. I suspect these reasons come from a series of unfortunate events that happened within the project.
Today, May 19, 2008, I came across a discussion on the USRD talk page, and the particular discusion was relating to users starting articles and leaving them behind as stubs. There was a suggestion by said user starting the article, it's creating more work. I strongly disagree with thisas in assessment. There are a finite number of routes in a state. For example, assuming that all 999 routes in Pennsylvania exist (there are a handful that do not), that means there will be 999 route articles on Wikipedia. I can't tell you if every one is started or not, and that's aside from the point. What is the point is that there are 999 route articles that should eventually become featured articles (or complete articles). Whether Route 39 is started or not is also irrelevant. Some day it will be started. If it doesn't exist as an article now, someone will need to start it, because it meets notability guidelines. In an effort to have a complete encyclopedia, that means someone will have to start it.
The act of starting it does not create more work for you or I. It actually lessens the load. Yes, someone could do a very poor job with an article, and we have to come in and fix it. If someone is intentionally writing bad articles, then they should be banned. However, if someone is starting articles, even if it's poor, stubs, or B-class, one can't dismiss them. Even if they struggle to stay within standards. If that person is making their good faith effort at writing an article, we should respond with the same kind of good faith effort.
This is the developed problem within USRD and where the "walled garden" concept creeps in. I think it's very logical for an outsider to see it as a walled garden. I also think it's very logical for an insider to see it as an open garden. Why is this? Because of several "recently" developed concepts, including WikiWork.
"Do the statistics interfere with our goal on Wikipedia?" Yes, they do. It's not the numbers themselves, because they exist regardless of whether we see it on the computer screen or not. It's the way we treat said information. Unfortunately I've observed that some people seem to look at these statistics and say "I don't want them to get worse," so "I'm not going to include it." Just look in the discussion about writing a new article. I quote the following:
Say we have 5 poor articles in X project. Someone writes a new bad article. Now we have 6 poor articles to fix. That's more work.
It's only more work because now it actually shows up in real statistics since we cannot keep track of non-written articles.
WikiWork statistics have its uses and its harms. I would suggest deleting the USRD leaderboard, and taking each stat to each state project and letting the states handle it themselves.