234:
enjoy. A big problem is that too many people join, then just forget about the project. I'm not going to pretend that I'm any different, because I almost did the same thing. Something that's perhaps worth pointing out is that we have 147 members, yet 23 have opted out of receiving the monthly newsletter, which is the easiest way of staying up to date with what's happening with the project. I appreciate the edits these people make both to project related articles and non project related articles, but I'm often annoyed by these people: they sign up for the project, but seemingly do not care to know what is happening with it. It just seems so illogical to me.
225:
in the cultural arena particularly, are more attracted to their favourite author, novel, film, musician etc. So a project with a more broad constructive intent seems to have little interest garnered or, if gained, then kept. Also those editors who are more constructive, typically the more general
Wikipedian, do loads of sterling editing and authoring work but are less appreciative of the more popularist needs, interests and stylistic likes of others. All in all the character of Knowledge (XXG) and the articles of this projects scope often resemble more of a battleground than mutual help / co-operation that is more of the spirit of the thing.
252:
research-based editing to the articles, and also those with a true "project" focus who have really caught the
Knowledge (XXG) visions, and those of the Novels project in particular. Aside from that those who do often have real lives and are busy people, we just need more hours in the day, days in the week, weeks in the ..... you get the idea. Yes more strength to task Forces (period based, genre based, age group based, geographical base and others).
486:
117:
107:
33:
127:
87:
137:
97:
419:
certainly has. Finally, I imagine that there might be some editors out there who are unsure about either making specific edits or about what they can do to help - I know I certainly fell in to this category when I first started. So I'd just like to remind them that they can post their questions at the
388:
I've not been with the project as long as Kevin so I can only talk about the last half year or so. How well does it work? Both well and not so well. Why I say it doesn't work so well is because people just haven't been nominating any articles for collaboration. This has an effect on the good part of
233:
As Kevin said, it's because people are fans. A lot of people will only edit/read stuff they have an interest in, so when they edit an article on a novel they might see the WikiProject and decide that it'll be fun to join. This is all well and good, but we need people to edit more than just what they
292:
In my experience I've not really come across any particularly major disputes. As you say, most of the information in the articles is related to the plot and the reviews, so the information is all there and not really up for debate. Most disputes I've seen really come down to
Knowledge (XXG) related
240:
That's interesting. From what you're saying, it would appear that the scope of the project is too large to hold the interest of individual editors. But shouldn't the task forces, and I see that there are quite a few, help concentrate the minds of editors? Does that make sense and are there plans to
224:
The membership took a heavy trim - keen editors took it upon themselves to do this - then most of them became less keen soon after doing this. Also it appears most editors on
Knowledge (XXG) are "fans" of something. There are a few exceptions, but those that seem to get involved in Knowledge (XXG),
418:
over the next month, so make sure you get involved there and cast your vote (I'll be sending out the appropriate information to all members over the coming week). But basically, as I said at the start, just edit novel-related articles so that we can allow the project to reach the potential it most
251:
No. What I am saying is that
Knowledge (XXG) as a whole is struggling to attract the right type of editorial input in the culture arena. There are some truly committed people but most seem "fan" like. But yes Task Forces help, but what we could really do with are more people who do high quality
213:
Let's get right into it. Everybody has a favorite novel (and almost everyone wants to write one!). Yet, the number of listed wikipedians on this project is a dismal 147 with active members probably numbering in the low double digits. Why does this project have a hard time getting members and in
409:
and you'll receive the monthly newsletter which will include updates about what's happening at the project, as well as some general novel news. If you think there is an article on a novel that could be helped by bringing it to the projects attention then definitely list it at the
160:
to be one of the more successful projects on the encyclopedia but, surprisingly, the history of the project has been relatively low-key. Started in
October 2002 (making it one of the earliest WikiProjects), it never really took off until early 2006 when
415:
571:
258:
I should think that articles on novels are rarely contentious given that the articles revolve largely around the plot and reviews. But, of course, some novels may have been contentious or controversial in the past
389:
the collaboration department because the good thing about it is that it does seem to get people to edit the page, but when nobody is nominating an article, the chances of there being a new collaboration are slim.
535:
540:
473:
464:
545:
515:
520:
73:
525:
510:
503:
693:
497:
52:
41:
395:
Could you give our readers some tips on what they can do to get involved with the project? Things like receiving updates, areas where you could use some help, that sort of thing.
326:
293:
topics, rather than topics related to the novels themselves. In other words, it's more disputes over stylistic issues, rather than over issues related to the novels.
208:, a project coordinator, to explore the pitfalls in this everyman's area, and to identify what you can do to strengthen this neglected continent of Knowledge (XXG).
746:
411:
344:
21:
334:
330:
721:
190:
716:
711:
322:
706:
406:
357:
420:
630:
If you post a note at the forum, and list it at the
Collaboration department as well, you might well get some help with it. Best wishes,
185:. While this is a respectable record, it is far less than one would expect from an area in which there are upward of 40,000 articles
701:
485:
369:
299:
What help can the project give an editor who creates an article on a novel? For example, I've just created the article on the novel
46:
32:
17:
405:
Well the best way to get involved with the project is to edit novel-related articles. If this is what you are interested in, then
654:
649:
Good interview. I will probably join the WP, considering I'll be doing a lot of novel studying in the next couple of years.
676:
658:
639:
621:
610:
456:
650:
727:
260:
380:(93 edits). But not too much going on recently - we are just in need of more interest. Constructive of course.
281:
424:
455:
Next week, the WikiProject Report will dig into a prehistoric project. Until then, feel free to peruse
365:
616:
667:
I would encourage you to join, MasterOfHisOwnDomain. The more active members, the better. Regards,
373:
449:
318:
170:
157:
448:. Readers, if there is a novel that you have more than a passing acquaintance with, please visit
347:. How well does this work? Are there any success stories you'd like to share with the community?
90:
567:
120:
672:
635:
437:
428:
201:
162:
150:
100:
606:
186:
307:. Could you direct me to various project resources that I can use in building my article?
182:
178:
174:
130:
304:
740:
300:
264:
594:
452:
and see what you can do to send the novel's article on the way to featured status!
110:
140:
668:
631:
441:
205:
597:
can become a GA (but of course, up to now it still isn't a very good article.)
599:
361:
165:, the current lead coordinator, became active member #3 with the plaintive
423:
where our members will try and help, or they can come straight to either
271:
articles that have escalated into major disputes in your knowledge?
377:
268:
317:
The pages pointed to in the "Article information" section of the
51:
484:
459:, newly updated with lost articles from a previous revival.
169:. Since then, the project has moved forward fitfully to its
31:
156:
Since (almost!) everyone reads novels, one would expect
583:
576:
556:
166:
581:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
68:Writers wanted! The WikiProject Novels interviews
431:, and we will both do our utmost to help them.
8:
747:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2010-01
593:That's an interesting interview. I wish
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
584:
560:
67:
241:expand the reach of these task forces?
358:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling
7:
267:come to mind!). Have there been any
204:, the project lead-coordinator, and
444:for taking the time to talk to the
53:
28:
566:These comments are automatically
370:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
343:I notice that the project has a
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
319:main project navigation infobox
577:add the page to your watchlist
1:
414:. We're going to be having a
284:- depend what you call major?
677:19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
659:19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
640:19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
622:13:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
763:
335:co-ordinator communication
412:Collaboration department
345:collaboration department
261:Lady Chatterley's Lover
167:is this project active?
694:looking for new talent
574:. To follow comments,
489:
477:"WikiProject report" →
282:List of longest novels
36:
488:
416:coordinator elections
214:keeping them engaged?
187:categorized as novels
35:
651:MasterOfHisOwnDomain
570:from this article's
469:"WikiProject report"
536:Features and admins
374:Steppenwolf (novel)
366:The Handmaid's Tale
329:particularly), the
173:of 147 members, 29
561:Discuss this story
541:Arbitration report
531:WikiProject report
490:
450:WikiProject Novels
189:(according to the
158:WikiProject Novels
65:WikiProject report
42:← Back to Contents
37:
619:
617:to the lighthouse
585:purging the cache
546:Technology report
516:Births and deaths
175:featured articles
47:View Latest Issue
754:
730:
620:BACK FROM EXAMS
615:
613:
602:
588:
586:
580:
559:
508:
500:
493:
476:
468:
407:join the project
376:(77 edits), and
327:Style guidelines
153:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
762:
761:
757:
756:
755:
753:
752:
751:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
726:
724:
719:
714:
709:
704:
697:
686:
685:
611:
600:
590:
582:
575:
564:
563:
557:+ Add a comment
555:
551:
550:
549:
501:
498:25 January 2010
496:
494:
491:
480:
479:
474:
471:
466:
196:This week, the
154:
148:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
54:25 January 2010
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
760:
758:
750:
749:
739:
738:
725:
720:
715:
710:
705:
700:
699:
698:
688:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
662:
661:
646:
645:
644:
643:
625:
624:
565:
562:
554:
553:
552:
548:
543:
538:
533:
528:
523:
521:News and notes
518:
513:
507:
495:
483:
482:
481:
472:
463:
462:
461:
435:
433:
432:
393:
391:
390:
381:
341:
339:
338:
305:Barry Unsworth
297:
295:
294:
285:
256:
254:
253:
238:
236:
235:
226:
211:
179:featured lists
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
759:
748:
745:
744:
742:
729:
723:
718:
713:
708:
703:
695:
691:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
618:
614:
609:
608:
604:
603:
596:
592:
591:
587:
578:
573:
569:
558:
547:
544:
542:
539:
537:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
505:
499:
492:In this issue
487:
478:
470:
460:
458:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
430:
426:
422:
417:
413:
408:
404:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
387:
386:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:(118 edits),
363:
359:
356:
355:
351:
350:
349:
348:
346:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
306:
302:
301:Losing Nelson
291:
290:
286:
283:
280:
279:
275:
274:
273:
272:
270:
266:
265:Madame Bovary
262:
250:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
232:
231:
227:
223:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
209:
207:
203:
199:
194:
192:
188:
184:
183:good articles
180:
176:
172:
171:current level
168:
164:
159:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
690:The Signpost
689:
605:
598:
595:The Sea-Wolf
530:
504:all comments
457:the archives
454:
445:
434:
401:
400:
394:
392:
384:
383:
368:(58 edits),
360:(65 edits),
354:Kevinalewis:
353:
352:
342:
340:
314:Kevinalewis:
313:
312:
298:
296:
288:
287:
278:Kevinalewis:
277:
276:
257:
255:
248:Kevinalewis:
247:
246:
239:
237:
229:
228:
221:Kevinalewis:
220:
219:
212:
210:
197:
195:
155:
728:Suggestions
568:transcluded
526:In the news
511:BLP madness
438:Kevinalewis
372:(5 edits),
202:Kevinalewis
200:interviews
163:Kevinalewis
151:RegentsPark
436:Thank you
191:toolserver
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2010-01-25
722:Subscribe
612:HUCK FINN
572:talk page
362:Moby-Dick
323:Resources
181:, and 75
741:Category
717:Newsroom
712:Archives
467:Previous
446:Signpost
198:Signpost
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
607:Odyssey
402:Alan16:
385:Alan16:
289:Alan16:
230:Alan16:
111:Twitter
669:Alan16
632:Alan16
601:Kayau
442:Alan16
429:myself
325:&
206:Alan16
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
707:About
425:Kevin
421:forum
378:Novel
331:forum
269:novel
16:<
702:Home
673:talk
655:talk
636:talk
475:Next
440:and
333:and
263:and
177:, 4
141:Digg
692:is
427:or
303:by
193:).
149:By
76:—
743::
675:)
657:)
638:)
465:←
696:.
679:.
671:(
653:(
642:.
634:(
589:.
579:.
506:)
502:(
337:.
321:(
259:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
