Hi Roger, welcome to wikipedia from a fellow contributor and thanks for your additions to the outdoor education article which is currently ranking #2 on google for "outdoor education", so although the article needs plenty of work, it is nevertheless a piece which many people searching in this area will encounter, reference and refer to. I see you deleted critical views which someone I think had cut and pasted from a journal article which cited your work - just wondering if perhaps have something to add in its place? I've been on holidays, but will be back into things soon. You may also want to set up this page differently to help invite discussion. Sincerely, Jtneill - Talk05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Rog, for your efforts, even if you've chosen to feel put off by the experience. I am not out to convince, but happy to share and appreciate the interaction in a different forum. Although the activity level may not have been what you'd hoped, you have nevertheless provided a form of peer review, which is there now for others who wish to work on the article. There is more interactive activity, I'd suggest around the outdoor education page, than most Web1 pages. I've seen people completely rewrite WP bad articles and the range of possible organic improvements are only limited by the contributor(s). All the foundations / sections, etc. are readily changeable, but it is probably wise to wait and see whether you want (and others want) you to take on a more wholesale renovation. If an article is particularly poor, it can also be nominated for deletion (although I suspect the vote for the outdoor education would be towards improvement rather than deletion). Like you, I've been reluctant to go the wholesale renovation approach and have tended to engage in weed-pulling and smaller modifications which has so far been OK for me. I've also enjoyed the practical task/challenge of working on community-generated and owned text. My only real suggestion (other than direct content-related suggestions which will eventually go on the article's talk page and article page) would be chill out a bit on expectations about how and when others should be responding and reacting to your contributions. Perhaps look at where the article was one year ago and consider where it might be in one year's time. There have been other outres contributors (but its hard to tell from user names) e.g., after the first call I put out on OUTRES, someone cut and pasted from an academic article about the OE in the UK. It probably wasn't what I'd been hoping for, but I was grateful for the effort and carved out the Lyme Bay material and created a new article for that topic, etc. and have been gradually deleting/refining what remains from that contribution. You have helped in that respect by pruning out the references to your own work which didn't quite fit in. The article may get a further push along if teaching academics start using wiki-editing in their classes, and get students working on developing wiki-text instead of essays which rarely get seen / critiqued, so I see plenty of opportunity ahead. Jtneill - Talk00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments James. No longer do I feel that I am speaking to an empty hall. These are also helpful insights into what is happening with the outdoor education article and other Wikipedia articles. This is especially helpful for a novice in this environment. It is encouraging to have made contact with someone at last. It is just, but only just, beginning to feel like a community. --RGreenaway09:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Reviewing! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
