You can edit: "I learned that is was a community based effort. It's that site every one can edit. I think is great...with many people looking at the same subject, you have a better change to get the length and breadth of the subject...the opportunity to look from various vantage points. It does credibility issues, but I notice there are checks and balances. It's a mild concern, a mild risk, not so much a concern for general information gathering--as a source I'd have more concern and want to verify it.
Go to Wikipedia: Types in Wikipedia.org. "I'm Happy that it's high up in Google search results."
Sign up for an account: "I would 'eyeball' the login info. I glanced at the username policy... I get that. Not going to add email now, maybe later. I am kind of protective about my email address. I'm concerned about Hacking and Phishing, through no fault of Wikipedia's, but I'm concerned Wikipedia could be a target. Captcha is not a concern, but it's an inconvenience, and we'll get past it one day with technology.
Getting started page: "It's clean and clear on 3 points with color-coded icons. If I'm editing, these are functions of contributing... Honesty, I'm a little confused. It tells me that as of having an account I have established that these are three things that I can do, but I don't know what the 3 things under the icons are [the article links]. I still don't know what the [article titles] are. I would have to click, I assume they're blue so I can click on them." Clicked through to MC Shan article. "I forgot what I was supposed to do and the articles had changed in the list Getting Started list when I went back." Used browser forward button to return to MC Shan article. "Now I see that these are articles that have the copyediting tag. It appears to me now like it's randomly giving pages that have a need for the heading [fix grammar & spelling, but the link is not clear. I wish the green pencil link was also present on the article [but the citation template does not use that icon]. The graphics and the language don't match between Getting Started and the article cleanup templates. I want to see the same icon and language. I don't want to have to keep clicking back and forth to the getting started page. I want to participate but make the edit button more inviting. I'm kind of shy, but I'm close. If you just give me a little push I might participate. The Getting Started icons I like, they're great map markers. Make the 'you can assist by editing it' be green and have the same Getting started green pencil icon, maybe at a 45 degree angle like 'here, take it, try it'. Further suggestions: Have the user sandbox upfront on the Getting Stared page, and also the watchlist. "Those are engaging. Make them very easily accessible."
Clicked edit on the MC Shan article [recommended by Getting Started], saw the editing page: "Oh god, you just scared me. Yikes, goodbye. Looks a little too code-y and like I might break something. Also, I'm not very connected to MC Shan. The curly brackets [header templates] are intimidating. I'm concerned about these double brackets, too. Do I need to know how to edit to contribute? I feel like I could copy and paste without breaking something, and that I might actually succeed. I feel like I could contribute to the [infobox] without breaking it. I want to make a contribution but I absolutely don't want to break something in a public space--it's like the motto, first, do no harm. It feels like there's limited places I might feel ok contributing: after = signs [in infoboxes], that seems really easy, next level is adding to a list by copying and pasting, and then, getting into the paragraphs--not so sure about that. I don't know what those double brackets are. I would have to commit my time to a learning curve that I'm not so passionate about, would determine whether or not I'd invest in learning it. I don't think they would set something up that was too easy to break, but I would expect that lacking double brackets wouldn't have the functionality. I don't know what all the apostrophe's are."
Create your userpage: "I see I don't have a userpage, but it's giving me the option to start one. It's got this sort of blank text editor. Am I creating an actual article-like page, am I going to be indexed in the search? It says userpage but it's mildly confusing. I dont know what belongs on a userpage, maybe optionally qualifying yourself (as in credentials), more information about you and what your background is. I don't know what 'watch this page' means, and I don't want to get lots of alerts. "Oh, can somebody else make a change to my userpage... maybe I have to watch this page. So now I'm making a commitment, someone could write something about me. Made word bold, "Oh good grief. I wanted it to be WYSIWYG, I wanted it to turn bold. "I'm feeling like it's not very userfriendly, it's kind of geeky. I would be willing to overlook it if I was compelled about the information... I would overcome it." Tried to undo italics, instead it inserted double italics, then quadruple italics. Manually deleted the quotations. "It seemed a little 'literal'".
Leave me a message: "I expect the talk page to have comments at the bottom, like an online article. I don't see a chat or message something. 'Talk' I would think... I don't know what that is. Talking is usually done over the phone, or in person. It doesn't feel like it has to do with written messages. I see conversation threads, I would expect to have an 'add' or a 'comment' function underneath the table of contents. I'm a little befuddled, a little lost. I'm looking for something that gives me an indication to Add something. I probably would go to the Help at this point. All it feels like I can do is edit an existing section....I don't think I want to add a new section... Edit is for something already existing." Told her New Section was the way. "I would change from 'New section' to 'New Talk'; 'section' makes it feel like I'm creating a whole new section. Creating a new talk page makes sense to me. Stick with the word 'Talk'.... I feel ok about signing my own post, but it would be a little more useful if it said 'sign your posts' near the signature button. I'm curious if it would prompt me to add a signature, but it doesn't prompt me. Hmmm... I wonder if in the preview it should indicate that the comment is unsigned. If signing is good practice, is there a reason you don't do it by default?"
Add a sentence with a reference in your sandbox: Found 'Cite', then clicked [named reference]. "I'm feeling like I need a url". Even with a url named reference doesn't work. Had to do a captcha so it saved. Told her to use the template dropdown menu. Reference worked.
Received a welcome message (unplanned): "I like it, I feel like it was standard issue, but I appreciate it." Informed it was an actual editor who did it.
What would you change: "The obvious WYSIWYG. All the fundamentals are there. No more 'confetti of apostrophes'. It feels like to be a contributor you have to be a geek. It's just polishing stuff. I want to see more consistency and leveraging common terminology. There's a very inconsistent use of Create.Read.Update. and Delete [database functions you're trying to control]]. I see different function words like 'dismiss'. That's not a huge technological thing, just consistency about the tools you already are using, renaming, repositioning--bringing them to the forefront. You have to manage real estate, find the priority functions and present different ways to execute it (links, words, icons, tabs) in multiple different ways."
--Female database designer from Philadelphia area, BS in communications, in her 40's, on April 11 2013.
--