Wikiask:To stub or not to stub

This is the start of an essay. And this is also testing use of template:essay. And this tests use of template:Shortcut. Feel free to edit this essay.

This specific topic is probably not imprtant yet in the development of WikiAsk, and it might not ever be. But it can be a big issue in a crowd-writing community, that different editors come to have different beliefs on what product is "good enough" to be placed out in "mainspace" for the general public to see. And this can play out in different ways, with one way being disagreement about what is a "stub" that is not good enough, vs. a "starter" that is.

Let's say a "stub" in WikiAsk is a Question-and-Answer that is not very satisfactory. On a low level, it could include spellling and grammar errors. The "answer" could not answer the question. It could get its point across but not be worded very well. Sourcing footnotes might not be well-composed. Its sourcing could be nonexistent or questionable.

On a higher level, the Question-and-Answer might appear to some editors to be presenting a quirky or unusual or unusual perspective that just seems not right. For a semi-technical topic, its answer might rely upon unpublished working papers or published journal articles that push, within their field, an unusual perspective, out of the mainstream in their field area.

A "stub" can always be improved. Maybe it is out in public, that will invite general readers to step in, and while their first edit might be to correct a spelling error, they might get further involved. Maybe it is enough of a start, that new or experienced editors can see their way to improve it, and will jump in.

However, some editors, or the WikiAsk managers, could feel that some "stubs" really shouldn't be out in public, in their current form. What is the strategy for WikiAsk overall? Is it about presenting an always-good quality of question-answer pairs that readers will appreciate, and want to come back for? Or is it to put any and everything out there, no matter if some pairs are simply embarrassing for some editors to see. Editors have to choose to stay and participate, or not. Perhaps editors who produce higher quality pairs will be dismayed and discouraged about some of what is public.

One or a few editors who think a low standard is okay, even strategically good for the development of WikiAask, could potentially race through all the open questions and generate off-the-cuff quick answers. Which other editors might not like to see out there in public. It's fine for other editors to be challenged sometimes to step in and improve pairs they know aren't good in some ways. But the others also could feel that they are being forced to clean up after ones with lower-quality work. In some other crowd-sourced writing arenas, this has been a serious problem.

So it could potentially become an issue, what constitutes a "stub" that is not good enough? Should there be a review process that serves a gate-keeping role, not letting them get out in public, or should there be a review process that assesses quality and removes not-good-enough stubs back into some "Draft" space, not vissible to the generl public?

This essay is about a potential future issue, not anything urgent yet.