Mh. Is this actually leading anywhere? I can see both views, but there is a danger that things are getting non-constructive here. A particular issue in my view is playing the "Wikipedia-vs-Wikidata" card. I don't see things in this way, and I hope most Wikipedia and Wikidata editors don't either.
Of course there are different interfaces and different pitfalls for each system. Let's face it: both are far from perfect when it comes to UI. People use them because they are extremely important projects, in spite -- not because -- of the UIs. I have also read about missing documentation on how to do things. Again, I don't think either project really shines here. There often is documentation if you know where to look, but if you just come by the page and want to work, it is very difficult to find it. Things could be much better.
Therefore, any approach that looks only at current editors (who already have made a lot of effort to wrap their heads around one of the not-always-intuitive processes and interfaces) is necessarily too limited. Their tolerance to the "other" UI will be as low as anybody's (ask someone on the street how nice they find either template editing or Wikidata input forms -- you'll get similar views). At the same time, current users often have a kind of Stockholm syndrome towards the UI they are used to. We have to take their views very serious, but we must not build our sites only for the people who already use them now.
The question therefore is not at all which of the current UIs is better, but rather how both can be improved. For this list, this mainly leads to the question how Wikidata can be improved. The practical insights gathered with different editor groups around the world are useful here. The findings need to be split into small, actionable units and prioritized. Then they will be fixed.
For this to work, it is completely irrelevant if more people like one UI or more people like the other. Since the UIs are doing completely different things, we won't be able to replace one by the other anyway. All we can do is to improve on our side. For this reason, any "vs"-themed discussion can only be harmful, attracting trolls who love to chime in whenever there is critique, and frustrate contributors who would rather like to get things done than to argue.
As for the (little) project that started this discussion, I think it should not be overrated in its scope. If people don't find the current UI usable enough, they will not switch to use it until we have our processes improved. But having other pieces of the puzzle in place will increase the pressure on Wikidata to fix remaining pain points, and possibly do exactly what Erika is asking for: make the voice of current Wikipedia editors (even) more relevant to ongoing Wikidata development.
Peace,
Markus
On 03.08.2016 19:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Brill Lyle, 03/08/2016 19:20:
I am not saying editing Wiki Markup on Wikidata. Is that what you are
describing?
No.
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata