How to frame a question so that it improves the article.
Step 1 -- Always include a phrase like "this article" or "I don't see where"
Step 2 -- Always include a phrase like "I'd like to see" or "it would improve this article if"
Step 3 -- Slip your question in, sideways between these catchphrases.
Example Anna Nicole Smith
"I don't see where in this article they discuss how many men have been knocked unconscious when she suddenly turned sideways. I think it would improve this article to have those details. Also this article does not appear to address what exactly her bust size was prior to her implants. I'd like to see that added to this article. Thanks. -- Booboo kitty the Fourth"
Will Johnson
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
This is kinda interesting, but I don't think it's within the goals of Wikipedia, or, more importantly, within the cultural model of Wikipedia.
There is an assumed goal that Wikipedia wants more eyeballs/pageviews. If you ranked the importance of pageviews to most wikipedians it would be very low. It is a goal, in as much as we want people to benefit from wikipedia, but I think it would certainly fall below core principles like neutrality, free content, and the other [[WP:5P]]s. There are probably lots of other normal policies that people would rate higher than pageviews.
Realizing that, the culture is not such that we want millions of random people saying they like pokemon, or pop-culture-icon of the week, or even discussing their health concerns. These are all valid things to do, but unless you are working on Wikipedia (which we encourage!) there is really no reason to lure people in.
Our culture is very much more like co-workers with a shared goal, than is it a bunch of chums at the pub. (with a few exceptions of course :)
This might be a great opportunity for another site though, maybe a browser plug-in. Want to talk about this topic? One click away at nabble, or something.
In general though, I think centralized discussions about general topics are a dying breed of website. People are better served by specific fora (http://community.breastcancer.org/ for example) for subjects not everyone has an opinion on. For subjects that are in the general awareness, as more and more people come online, the likelihood of people you know in real life being online goes up, and people start to realize they care more about what their actual friends think than random people in Australia.
Just some thoughts, I got carried away! :o
2008/9/5 Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org:
There is an assumed goal that Wikipedia wants more eyeballs/pageviews. If you ranked the importance of pageviews to most wikipedians it would be very low. It is a goal, in as much as we want people to benefit from wikipedia, but I think it would certainly fall below core principles like neutrality, free content, and the other [[WP:5P]]s. There are probably lots of other normal policies that people would rate higher than pageviews.
In fact, Wikipedia has achieved its vast mainstream popularity precisely by concentrating on being an encyclopedia. No ads, no hooks, no idea if anyone's reading this ...
Our culture is very much more like co-workers with a shared goal, than is it a bunch of chums at the pub. (with a few exceptions of course :)
Both work well together! There's nothing quite like a pile of encyclopedists down a pub!
- d.