 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: You (including you anonymous users) should only be able to create an article if there is one or more articles in the main namespace linking to it. |
| This page in a nutshell: Variant: Non-autoconfirmed users (including anonymous users) should only be able to create an article if there is one or more articles in the main namespace linking to it, while autoconfirmed users should be able to create an article whenever. |
In december 2005, Jimbo Wales announced a controversial editing restriction to Wikipedia: only logged-in users would be able to create articles. The purpose of the change was "to reduce the workload on the people doing new pages patrol" (considering the amount of spammy articles created), and hopefully reduce the chances of a problematic article such as the Seigenthaler case slipping through.
Has this worked? Maybe, I don't know. What's clear however, is that the workload on the people doing new pages patrol is incredibly high: hundreds, if not thousands or more, of pages "slip through the cracks", since the new pages log only goes back one month. And nonsense articles are still a problem: a majority of the articles created are at least problematic, and many are deleted.
Another thing that is clear is that the restriction on creating new pages is still controversial and by many considered "un-wiki". Studies have indicated that a majority of Wikipedia's content is added by "anons", and restricting them from creating new pages can be considered harmful to the project rather than the opposite.
So, how to solve this problem?
What does as good as all new articles without worth have in common? Easy. They have no internal links. Wikipedia is a vast encyclopedia, encompassing over 2,5 million articles - if something is notable enough to warrant an article, it is probably already has an article, and if not, it probably has one or more redlinks pointing to it.
I propose that the restriction on anonymous users is lifted, and that a new restriction is introduced in it's place: you should only be able to create an article if there is one or more articles in the main namespace linking to it. If not, a message should be shown, inviting you to add such links in relevant articles if the topic is notable enough for inclusion. This would not only reduce spam, but also eradicate the creation of orphaned articles.
Comments? Please.
Variants edit
A variation of this idea might be implementing this, but also allowing users in the "autoconfirmed" user group to create new articles without the linked-to criteria. This would result in a situation somewhat similar to the one we have now: most people can create articles at will, some can not - but they can if it has been linked to elsewhere. Now, it is very common that users register only to be able to immediately thereafter create an article.
The statistics edit
As few agree with my perception, I have conducted a small investigation to confirm or deny my theory. Please see User:Plrk/Incoming links to A7-deleted articles and User:Plrk/Incoming links to patrolled new pages for the details on the investigation.
Although the sample is small and the statistical error margin is huge, my research shows that 80% of all articles that are deleted with reference to WP:CSD#A7 have no incoming links, and would therefore not have been created if my proposal had been a reality. It also shows that of the articles that are legitimately created and are not disambiguation pages, 89% have incoming links and would have been created anyways.
I think these statistics speak for themselves: implementing my proposal would cut a lot of work, without adding too much hassle.