Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
Charles
On 29 June 2010 10:05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
There's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheatsheet-en.pdf (on wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET) but it doesn't cover tables, templates or citations - it's just a basic hand-out, good for people on new wikis but sadly not enough for wikis with crazy levels of code, like enwiki. Hopefully the UX work will be useful in this regard!
J.
James Forrester wrote:
On 29 June 2010 10:05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
There's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheatsheet-en.pdf (on wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET) but it doesn't cover tables, templates or citations - it's just a basic hand-out, good for people on new wikis but sadly not enough for wikis with crazy levels of code, like enwiki. Hopefully the UX work will be useful in this regard!
I thought about this in 2008, and again just recently as a result of a conversation on usability. Of various approaches to user-friendliness, most attention seems to be given to changing the interface, and then to the existence of wizards (I'm simplifying, of course). I hear little about documentation, and I don't remember hearing anything about working on a minimal page or sheet that could be the resource to give to a competent person who just wants to do some spot-editing. When in 2008 I looked, there wasn't an adequate resource.
WP:CHEATSHEET ducks discussing references by linking to detailed pages. I think this could be improved.
Charles
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
James Forrester wrote:
On 29 June 2010 10:05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Where is our cheatsheet for Wikipedia editing? Is it any good?
There's http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheatsheet-en.pdf (on wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET) but it doesn't cover tables, templates or citations - it's just a basic hand-out, good for people on new wikis but sadly not enough for wikis with crazy levels of code, like enwiki. Hopefully the UX work will be useful in this regard!
I thought about this in 2008, and again just recently as a result of a conversation on usability. Of various approaches to user-friendliness, most attention seems to be given to changing the interface, and then to the existence of wizards (I'm simplifying, of course). I hear little about documentation, and I don't remember hearing anything about working on a minimal page or sheet that could be the resource to give to a competent person who just wants to do some spot-editing. When in 2008 I looked, there wasn't an adequate resource.
WP:CHEATSHEET ducks discussing references by linking to detailed pages. I think this could be improved.
I spoke to two people recently about how they use Wikipedia, both saying they found it very useful, but I was surprised (though I shouldn't have been) at how diverse the readership is and what the attitudes are towards editing.
The first person I asked seemed ideal to edit Wikipedia, and I asked them if they edited Wikipedia. The response left me rather taken aback, as he said "oh no, I wouldn't dream of editing Wikipedia as I don't know enough about the topics". The presumption being that everyone else takes that sort of respectful attitude. I didn't ask exactly what topics he was referring to, but I did try and make the point that nearly everyone can find something they are comfortable editing to start off with.
The second person I asked said Wikipedia was "excellent on popular culture" (the specific topic was Dr Who). Which again left me a bit taken aback as I've seen some popular culture areas change and contract a lot as standards have risen, but I suppose some areas rise to the challenge and find reliable sources to really produce good articles. Though seeing as the best part of the articles (according to the person I was talking to) was the plot summaries of recent TV broadcasts, it would be interesting to come back in a year or two and see whether those plot summaries survived or not, and what replaced them (if anything).
I would hazard a guess that you could talk to readers all day and get a different reader each time and a different opinion on different areas each time. It is something that I would recommend to everyone (talking to readers, that is). And I think people would be surprised how many readers wouldn't dream of trying to edit, despite the messages encouraging that.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
And I think people would be surprised how many readers wouldn't dream of trying to edit, despite the messages encouraging that.
Undoubtedly people (Wikipedians) are surprised that there are so many readers who don't want to become Wikipedians in any sense. But we have to take that as a given. Assuming only that the UK readership is greater than that of the Daily Telegraph (which is to say more than 5% of the population), non-editors will outnumber editors by a huge factor. Job done, as far as gaining an audience is concerned. But the way the discussion goes after that is what bothers me. I'm certainly hoping for a more coherent view from the "grassroots", in part to displace annoying comments from people who should know better implying that the "grassroots" are the problem.
Charles
The other two official cheatsheets are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMDOC/Cheatsheet http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Reference_card
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP:CHEATSHEET ducks discussing references by linking to detailed pages. I think this could be improved.
It was most recently overhauled in March 2010. This is a 'before' diff, when references were still included: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Cheatsheet&oldid=349... The talkpage thread about it is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Cheatsheet#Redesign Please join the discussion! It could always use more eyes.
BTW, the Cheatsheet is what "Editing help" currently links to (The item in edit-mode next to "Cancel", "Preview", "Show Changes", "Save").
Quiddity.