+1 to Quim and Nick and bawollf.
A step back: - Q: What was the purpose of the banner? It was a test in humanizing articles? After running the test for some time now, are we able to measure what value it has added the way it is? It is an interesting idea towards allowing readers to understand how Wikipedia works, but as Kaity mentioned, it needs further iteration, with clear ideas about what to measure after implementation. The banner itself is currently driving traffic to the userpage (which itself needs further iteration) --tuning both experiments, might be a wonderful idea :).
Cheers, M
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:02 AM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:11 AM, quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com
wrote:
"Last edited 10 months ago, by one of 245 editors"
While I don't think "last edited" is particularly useful and I prefer to focus on simplicity and what really matters, I don't have a strong
opinion
either.
However, I do have a strong opinion about trying the use of "volunteers" rather than "editors". While for us wikimedians "an editor" sounds
almost as
familiar as a friend, for a big percentage of our readers, an editor
sounds
like a literary or newspaper editor, like someone almost professional and erudite, "not like me". "Volunteer" is an accurate and actually more descriptive term, which sounds a lot closer (and should I say human?),
and
sounds "like me" for an interesting portion of our readers.
I meant to add in my previous message, I do like your tweak of saying "volunteers". I was primarily just copying my old message, to note that it had been suggested before - I'm not attached to any particular wording or ordering, but I do strongly agree with moving away from "naming a particular person" (for rationales detailed onwiki).
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design