*Apologies for cross posting*
Hi everyone -
We are quickly approaching the launch of the 2011 Wikimedia annual
fundraiser. These past few months have been critical to ramp up our
operation in preparation of the year-end campaign.
Here is where we are at now: Starting Monday November 7, we would like to
launch the fundraiser to only logged-in users. Last year, we took down
banners for logged in users about a month into the fundraiser. This year,
we want to take the banners down even earlier for logged in users and
starting next week will allow us to do that.
We are asking every community member who is planning to donate, to make
their donation in this first week to help us test our donation forms in all
different countries and languages. We have put a lot of effort into
localizing our messages and forms. If you see any errors or ways we can
improve the setup in your country or language, please get in touch with us
on the the fundraising meta talk page  in the next week so we can make
these improvements before we put up banners for all users on Monday,
We will be sending out notices about the logged-in launch/test to mailing
lists and village pumps this week. Please help us spread the word!
Thanks for helping us get off to a strong start.
The Fundraising Team
Now, we have a lot of work to do, it's obviously encyclopedic and it
would be hard to get really wrong.
What needs to be in place to make it possible to recruit newbies for
the task of referencing things? (Alleviate the citation syntax
problem. Make the results easily checkable by the experienced. Ban the
use of Twinkle or similar semi-botlike mechanisms on the resulting
edits, as nothing repels good-faith new users like instant reversion.
On 3 November 2011 11:10, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> safe and then move on". And then someone else, later, might fix the
> article during general editing without even looking at the tag, and
> not remove the tag, or might expect others to remove the tag (no,
> really, that is a common attitude among some people who prefer others
> to judge any remedial work they have done - you put the tag there, you
> should come back and assess whether it is still needed).
There's also a widespread belief that "I shouldn't/can't remove them".
I regularly see emails in OTRS saying "I've fixed X page, but the tags
are still there, can you check it out"; I've seen it occasionally on
talkpages as well, though it's less common.
This may be because people believe -
a) the tags are "official", & need third party review before they can
be removed (to confirm the problem's gone); or
b) tags are automatically generated, and that since they're still
there after they've made changes, the articles obviously not fixed
Both beliefs are helped by the fact that a lot of people honestly
don't realise the lead section can be edited - they use section edit
links, and don't realise that editing the page is how you get at the
"zeroth section" of the article. If you don't see the template when
you edit, you're less likely to realise it's a template to be removed.
- and even if you know about templates, if you can't figure out how to
get to it, you're stuck!
Working on the assumption that there are people who want to remove
templates but are having problems doing so, one solution here might be
to build on the (excellent) work that's been done with HotCat, and
implement a "remove this tag" link on the template itself. Click this,
you get a little line saying "are the problems still here?", click
yes, and it loads-and-saves the change in the same way that a HotCat
category change works.
Thoughts? This would be one way to get our readers to do the triage
and cleanup for us...
- Andrew Gray