I dunno, I think for newbie editors it might be nice to let them edit what excites them during an edit-a-thon - especially if the turn-out is on the small side. Creates more ownership?
I've done the following experiment with brand new editors: picked a benign article that a new editor was passionate about (we chose hotels) and added a few sentences. The newbie was excited to see his work in the established article, and even more so when the edit was QUICKLY patrolled and removed (no citations) as I warned it would be (no citations).
The patroller also added a note to the newbie's talk page, which we replied to during the class. We visited the patroller's pages and learned about his interests and editing history (his page had his name, no gender-judgment intended) .... and the newbie spent the rest of the class checking his own talk page to see if the patroller had replied! Connection established.
This experiment serves as a useful argument against comments like "Wikipediais badly sourced/written/etc" because the time between posting the edit and the patroller deleting it provides evidence that Wikipedia is closely monitored for sourcing/vandalism/etc.
Slightly off topic, but useful I hope. Yes, it is tough being the only Wikipedian in the 'hood....be bold and do your own edit-a-thon!
*What are 10 things Librarians should know about Wikipedia in order to help their patrons become better consumers (and perhaps editors)?* Compiling a list that will turn into a course on https://p2pu.org/en/ - joiners needed!
(PS "newbie" always used with affection)
Cheers,
Bettina
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:00 AM, libraries-request@lists.wikimedia.orgwrote:
Send Libraries mailing list submissions to libraries@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to libraries-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at libraries-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Libraries digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Wikipedia classes in the Public Library setting (Derric Atzrott)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:08:12 -0400 From: "Derric Atzrott" datzrott@alizeepathology.com To: "'Wikimedia & Libraries'" libraries@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [libraries] Wikipedia classes in the Public Library setting Message-ID: 033a01ce6b6c$7cbc5380$7634fa80$@alizeepathology.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
We also do small group instruction and even co-editing--we have been able
to
maintain at least a ratio of 1 experienced Wikipedia editor to 4
inexperienced
participants, and usually better. My advice is that if editing is
planned,
you need at least a 1:4 ratio, and if possible 1:2. Also, 2 participants
to a
computer is possible, but 1:1 is better. It is also very advisable to have
topics in mind suitable for beginners., though some will have their own
ideas.
How does co-editing work? And do you think that it is possible for one person
to pull of managing an edit-a-thon? I've been thinking about holding one at my
local library and actually subscribed to this mailing list hoping a thread
like this would come up. As far as I can tell, I'm the only Wikipedian in the
general area (haven't met any others at least, and I organzied the Wiknic for
my area last year).
For topics I was thinking local historical items that have poor coverage on
Wikipedia; I see you recommend recent deaths. Do you have any other topic
recommendations to make to participants?
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
One of my "crusades" is that Wikipedia really *is* a social network. The social aspect may not be emphasized as it is on Facebook and similar sites, but the fact is you can't do anything on Wikipedia without it being observed by others. (I note that over the years, the Wikipedia documentation has gradually eliminated the "Wikipedia is not a social network" guideline.)
Based on experiments like the Wikipedia Teahouse, I think it's better to go into Wikipedia knowing it is a social space, and to be aware that anything you create or add won't be owned by you, but is going to be a collaboration. Regarding all the different editors not as adversaries (however terse their statements) but as teachers and collaborators shouldn't diminish one's enthusiasm for adding content, and should mitigate many of the problems people have by thinking of Wikipedia as a monolithic encyclopedia.
I would never advise a newbie to jump into a controversy, but observing passively how controversies develop and resolve themselves can be an instructive lesson.
On 18 June 2013 12:06, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
One of my "crusades" is that Wikipedia really *is* a social network. The social aspect may not be emphasized as it is on Facebook and similar sites, but the fact is you can't do anything on Wikipedia without it being observed by others. (I note that over the years, the Wikipedia documentation has gradually eliminated the "Wikipedia is not a social network" guideline.)
Regarding your observation, it's interesting to point out that that guideline has gone from "Wikipedia is not a social network" to "Wikipedia is not a social networking service". Because, as you say, of course Wikipedia is a social network (but so is any other community of people interacting, even a boring workplace), and the purpose of that statement all along was that Wikipedia is not like Facebook. That part is still true: Wikipedia is mission-driven and social for the purpose of collaboration, and therefore consciously avoids many social features that are not regarded as furthering that goal. Even better than making the point that Wikipedia really is a social network might be to make a point of the fact that it is a *social encyclopedia*.
Based on experiments like the Wikipedia Teahouse, I think it's better to go
into Wikipedia knowing it is a social space, and to be aware that anything you create or add won't be owned by you, but is going to be a collaboration. Regarding all the different editors not as adversaries (however terse their statements) but as teachers and collaborators shouldn't diminish one's enthusiasm for adding content, and should mitigate many of the problems people have by thinking of Wikipedia as a monolithic encyclopedia.
I would never advise a newbie to jump into a controversy, but observing passively how controversies develop and resolve themselves can be an instructive lesson.
This is a really good point. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people who tried to edit Wikipedia complain that they were alienated after Wikipedia told them they couldn't do X or Y (usually adding links to their site or editing their article). For most of these people, it never occurs to them that it's just another person who has given them that warning or reverted them, and that they have the option of starting a dialogue. In most cases, I think teaching people about the social and mission aspects of the Wikipedia community is more important than teaching them the technical skills.
Dominic