Content Wanted

Tag used for pages where there is clearly a demand and links exist, but there is as yet minimal content. Use of this tag is contentious, with some saying they'd rather have the dangling links than a real link to a page without content. Others say it's useful to find pages that need filling out, and doesn't have some of the drawbacks of the WantedPages script.

The jury is still out ...


I don't understand this concept "demand for a wiki page". If you have a question, ask it where you have it. When the question is answered, refactor it to a new page.

But there's no need to try to make this wiki answer every question in the world. Please, let's concentrate on programming.

Not all wiki pages arise in the way you describe. Some people, me included, write material that is intended to be relevant, and create links to what we expect will be pages, trusting that AccidentalLinking will work. Often it does, and therein lies a large part of the value of the wiki concept. Sometimes, however, it creates a DanglingLink.

As a separate, but related process, DanglingLinks should be "fixed". That can be done either by If the target of a dangling link is referenced from several places, not just one, then clearly it is a candidate page. In some sense it is "wanted", possibly because it is a clearly relevant semantic unit. It's useful to be able to find such pages, and to draw the attention of people who might be qualified or interested in creating the content.

Using this tag makes it easy to find pages these sorts of pages. You can search for this tag and then You can use the WantedPages script to find DanglingLinks, but that also finds links to SisterSite pages and doesn't show multiplicity of reference.

Hence I believe this tag to embody a useful concept for this wiki.

OK, we disagree. Clearly I will therefore think that you are wrong, and you will think that I'm wrong. Let me try to make my case clear so you can tell me where you think I go wrong.

Sometimes a good thing, sometimes a red herring. When pages are very well named, they create rich connections. Many times, they just create extraneous links. Does the GoodThing page really enhance this discussion? No, it's irrelevant. More is not better. ThereIsNoPointInMakingEveryPhraseIntoaLink. Thoughtfulness trumps accident more than 99% of the time.
We are in complete agreement here. Do you understand that I'm trying to help you make this wiki better? Perhaps the problem is entirely in the name of the tag, and it should instead be something like "DanglingLinkTarget"?

Why? Not every part of the universe needs to be filled. Music lives as much in the space between notes as in the notes themselves. Artists do not have to cover every square inch of the canvas.
Because when they are inappropriate they invite the creation of the page, and when they are appropriate then they are worth filling. This debate about DanglingLinks needs to go to another page.
Perhaps, then, that person might also be unqualified to determine that it's worth having.
Indeed, and then someone who is qualified can use the stub as an easy way to unsmash the links to it, and then remove it.
I think the above argument justifies the use of the ContentWanted tag. I would be interested to hear a cogent case for the opposite.

I'm guilty of using this tag a couple of times, when I've created what would be called a StubArticle? on WikiPedia. I've found some information on the subject, and by using the tag, I'm basically asking for more knowledgeable WikiZens to (add to|modify) it. I think it's a useful tag, but perhaps it's just a specialized version of EditHint. -- AalbertTorsius

A page with this name necessarily seems to call for content addition to itself :-) -- gz

Perhaps it should be called DanglingLinkPointsHereAndSomethingNeedsToBeDoneAboutIt?.
Nothing needs to be done about it. Dangling links are just dangling links. If they don't encourage useful content, delete them. In the mean time, ignore them.
This is the nub of our difference of opinion. I find them annoying, distracting, and unproductive. You don't, but that's no reason why others who do shouldn't try to fix them. I could equally say that you can simply ignore the ContentWanted tag and the pages it's on.


The above argument for ContentWanted is invalid because it is based on a flawed premise, namely that DanglingLinks are a problem to be fixed. See DanglingLink for a refutation of this idea.

Also, creating pages with nothing more than "ContentWanted" makes Wiki less useful. A wiki link contains exactly one bit of information (other than its name): whether the page it refers to exists. Since a page is expected to have useful content, that bit is meaningful. Creating pages with no content decreases the value of that bit.

To take this to a ridiculous extreme, imagine a wiki engine that creates stub pages automatically from DanglingLinks, so that no link is ever dangling. How useful would links be in that wiki?

I disagree with the argument on DanglingLinks because I believe that The ContentWanted tag fills the purpose of the first when the finder feels unable to fill the void, WikiGnome work fixes the second.

The wiki I use personally does auto-fill the targets, and I find it very useful. That's part of why I use the tag here. If you've ever used such a feature then perhaps you have less experience on which to base your opinion. Like all things, it takes getting used to. (Perhaps, but perhaps the prevailing culture of your wiki differs from the prevailing culture of this one. This wiki was designed to indicate the dangling links with ?, not by creating stub pages. It works well as designed.)

Actually, I don't care anymore. I've made my case, if people disagree then the tag won't get used. I'll use it for pages I think are relevant to this wiki but which I don't feel qualified to fill. If this page exists then you can easily find those instances with a search. If it doesn't, you can't, wasting someone else's time.

Either way, if you don't feel I've made my case, do what you like.


JulyZeroFive

CategoryWikiTag

EditText of this page (last edited June 4, 2006) or FindPage with title or text search