On 4 December 2011 03:56, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now whatever the merits of his case, this chap does have a point about
the unfriendliness of the environment.
Well covered in The Signpost, in fact. But I came away thinking that there
is a misconception behind the "complaint". Put it this way: who is the
customer? That turns out to be a rhetorical question: the customer is the
reader. If the customer was the writer, or the person who feels he/she
should have a Wikipedia page about them, the tone of the complaint would be
It isn't so much that we've
gone out of our way to be unfriendly, but the tool we use to
interact--the wiki, in other words--isn't really very fit for the
Considering that Wikipedia is the "killer app" for wikis, the comment
a bit off-beam. What we have done is to stress-test the wiki concept by
making a wiki at least two orders of magnitude larger than would have been
been thought reasonable in the year 2000.
Wikis are _supposed_ to invite contributions, but here
we seem to have
built a big maze that only frustrates people who in good faith want to
help us to make it better.
AGF is good, but the issue here is just as much whether the problems with
"learning curve" are correctly described in the article. My first
thought in finding Deletion Review on enWP is to type
into Google. So the top hit is the talk page of [[WP:DRV]]. If I omit the
quotes I get the same thing. Not all related searches are so helpful but
if you put in
then (today for me) hit number three is [[WP:AFD]] and the template to the
right has a link to the deletion review page.
OK, I happen to know that the way to search enWP is a Google custom search,
not futz around navigating on the site. That's a generic procedure that is
presumably quite accessible to technical people everywhere.
I get frustrating experiences regularly, in searching the websites of
financial institutions for the quite opposite reason: I expect to get
almost instant results from using Google to search the site for keywords,
and the design seems to think the world wants menu-driven plodding
navigation from an overcrowded front page full of irrelevant stuff, images
and things in tiny print. Maybe if the WMF paid enough it could get
Wikipedia to look the same.