Zoney wrote:
See my comments on that debate. Are people content for the Wikipedia namespace to have items other than the essentials needed for running en:? I mean, even with just that, there's a LOT of operational clutter (I think someone pointed this out on the village pump recently - suggesting a cleanup).
I would suggest we try to tidy up the Wikipedia namespace, and move jokes and satire to people's user space. I'm even suggesting this for BJAODN. It would also mean that a user would have to take responsibility for each page.
Surely the Wikipedia namespace is just there to help out with the running of the project?
Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on this?
I definitely agree with Zoney on this, although I don't particularly think use of the Wikipedia namespace for joke material is the real concern. This particular frivolity should have been relatively harmless by itself.
However, we do have a longstanding serious problem in that there are fundamentally *way too many* pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Even discounting the pages dedicated to things like WikiProjects, or BJAODN, we have so many Wikipedia: pages that it is excessively difficult for people to find information when they need it. This is especially a problem for newcomers, and poses a significant barrier for anyone wishing to learn how to be an effective contributor. You can't exactly tell someone to "read the manual" when the manual's pages have been strewn all across the playfield.
If I thought it was realistic to enforce such a thing, I would suggest a moratorium on creating any new pages in the Wikipedia namespace. As it is, I think we should seek out opportunities to severely condense our statements of policy, redirect relic pages to more helpful locations, and generally weed out material of limited usefulness. This would make Wikipedia much more "user-friendly", something we fail abysmally at right now.
--Michael Snow
When was the last time a newbie was told to 'read the manual'?! ;) Mark
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Zoney wrote:
See my comments on that debate. Are people content
for the Wikipedia
namespace to have items other than the essentials
needed for running
en:? I mean, even with just that, there's a LOT of
operational clutter
(I think someone pointed this out on the village
pump recently -
suggesting a cleanup).
I would suggest we try to tidy up the Wikipedia
namespace, and move
jokes and satire to people's user space. I'm even
suggesting this for
BJAODN. It would also mean that a user would have
to take
responsibility for each page.
Surely the Wikipedia namespace is just there to
help out with the
running of the project?
Am I completely out of touch with everyone else on
this?
I definitely agree with Zoney on this, although I don't particularly think use of the Wikipedia namespace for joke material is the real concern. This particular frivolity should have been relatively harmless by itself.
However, we do have a longstanding serious problem in that there are fundamentally *way too many* pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Even discounting the pages dedicated to things like WikiProjects, or BJAODN, we have so many Wikipedia: pages that it is excessively difficult for people to find information when they need it. This is especially a problem for newcomers, and poses a significant barrier for anyone wishing to learn how to be an effective contributor. You can't exactly tell someone to "read the manual" when the manual's pages have been strewn all across the playfield.
If I thought it was realistic to enforce such a thing, I would suggest a moratorium on creating any new pages in the Wikipedia namespace. As it is, I think we should seek out opportunities to severely condense our statements of policy, redirect relic pages to more helpful locations, and generally weed out material of limited usefulness. This would make Wikipedia much more "user-friendly", something we fail abysmally at right now.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
I agree that the Wikipedia: namespace is way too full, but I'm not clear what sort of information we should put in Wikipedia: , we also have a Help: namespace, and that looks like a good place for "manual" type info, and currently has copies of pages from meta, and Wikipedia: seems like a place for policy decision.
So am I missing something? What's the purpose of Wikipedia: and Help:?
If we have answers to this already, I think we need to make them more clear, as Wikipedia: seems a mixture of both.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:43:59 -0500, John Davenport flockmeal@gmail.com wrote:
we also have a Help: namespace
We do?!
Wow! I do not believe I have read any pages in that namespace!
Hmmm... this does call for some reorganisation (or minus the "re"). Surely the Manual of style and such pages should be in this "Help" namespace.
Zoney
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:31:44 +0000, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:43:59 -0500, John Davenport flockmeal@gmail.com wrote:
we also have a Help: namespace
We do?!
Wow! I do not believe I have read any pages in that namespace!
Hmmm... this does call for some reorganisation (or minus the "re"). Surely the Manual of style and such pages should be in this "Help" namespace.
Same here, just shows that the namespaces need something serious done to them. IMO, ideally all help pages should be part of one big series or at least category, and all in the help namespace. AFAIK that would be the majority of the Wikipedia namespace problems fixed...
Ludraman
Mark Richards wrote:
When was the last time a newbie was told to 'read the manual'?! ;) Mark
To be honest, the manual is not that easy to find.
Gerrit.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:02 -0800, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
However, we do have a longstanding serious problem in that there are fundamentally *way too many* pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
I don't really know where to propose it, but I've been thinking about this one for a while. I believe there are too many choices for "problem resolution" pages, particularly pages in the Wikipedia: namespace designed to list articles which need to improve in some way. This includes Cleanup, Pages Needing Attention, Peer Review, and Requests for Expansion. I think PNA is particularly redundant with Cleanup, and PNA should be phased out. Four months ago I was a newbie and I had no idea what the difference was between those pages. I'm still a little unsure about PNA vs. Cleanup.
Rhobite
Rhobite wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:48:02 -0800, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
However, we do have a longstanding serious problem in that there are fundamentally *way too many* pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
I don't really know where to propose it, but I've been thinking about this one for a while. I believe there are too many choices for "problem resolution" pages, particularly pages in the Wikipedia: namespace designed to list articles which need to improve in some way. This includes Cleanup, Pages Needing Attention, Peer Review, and Requests for Expansion. I think PNA is particularly redundant with Cleanup, and PNA should be phased out. Four months ago I was a newbie and I had no idea what the difference was between those pages. I'm still a little unsure about PNA vs. Cleanup.
Rhobite
I've been editing since September 2003, and I still don't know the difference between PNA and Cleanup. :-P
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])