Wikipedia talk:Guide for Everything2 noders

UNTITLED

I have a number of articles elsewhere (Everything2) about various types of British railway locomotive that I'd like to put here. Should I create 'British Rail class NN' articles for them (all have two-digit numerical classification)? Or would it be better to stuff them all into a smaller number of pages, given that most of the more obscure ones are only going to warrant a small number of paragraphs? Or indeed, any other suggestion?

I guess I'll just do it the way that seems good to me, and then let you all disagree with me! Probably easier to tell me the right way to do it once you've all got a concrete example in front of you. -- Morven 23:57, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We aim for larger articles than E2 writeups, on average - see wikipedia:page size. That help? Martin 09:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes. E2 users don't like long writeups and show their displeasure; maybe Wikipedia renders them more readably, or the sectioning helps. Here, I suspect it might be best to write one article for each of several major sub-groupings and maybe break out seperate articles when there's a LOT to say. -- Morven 23:21, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Funky. I edited this page appropriately :) Martin

Also the user ranking scheme on E2 encourages more short writeups. The XP system, as an unfortunate side effect, encourages the (even unconscious) 'gaming' behavior of optimising for score not quality, and one long writeup will not garner the XP of two shorter ones. -- Morven 06:33, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

(to Martin) With ref to Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders: after the discussion on page size between the two sites, I wanted to add something about the way E2's experience point system alters writing style, article length etc. and that those things might be best avoided here. What do you think? Couldn't come up with good words for it yet. -- Morven 07:21, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll just move this there. Martin 19:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What if we just say something like:

Noding for numbers makes little sense here, because we don't have the experience system of E2. Node for the ages instead, and millions of future readers will thank you for it.

And link to the appropriate E2 nodes? Martin

Sounds good to me ... since the audience for this page will be those experienced with the E2 way, using E2 terminology is appropriate. -- Morven 04:52, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

From the Village pump

Copying content from E2

I have found some nodes on Everything2 that I'd like to (partially) copy to a WP article. Is this permissible by copyright? (I didn't write the E2 content.) What attribution would I need to use? --bdesham 02:12, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are a few notes on this at the Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders. --Camembert

Short answer: no, you can't copy directly without permission from the original author. You can use the material on E2 as a reference to write a wikipedia article in your own words. --Robert Merkel 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

E2 users own the content they have written and have given no blanket permission to redistribute it beyond the bounds of E2. If you'd like, contact the user who wrote them, or alternatively as Robert Merkel said, rewrite the facts in your own words. --Morven 03:56, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think most E2 users don't mind, but by default they haven't given their permission. If more E2 users signed their posts with something like "This writeup is in the public domain." then we would be better able to assimiliate E2 content into Wikipedia. -User:Mathiastck 3:05 pm 11/14/05

well I think I was wrong. Most E2 users are indifferetn about copyright, but do fear the idea that their work may be stolen. Original Research tells me so. Mathiastck 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps really out of date

Everything2 was popular back in the day, but it's clear that Everything2 has evolved very differently from Wikipedia and is much less well known. It also serves a different purpose. I'm gonna tag this as historical per WP:BOLD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)