On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Germans have it right, in my opinion, on their homepage: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind stets willkommen."
"Good authors are always welcome."
The opposite of a good author is a bad author. What kind of person regards themselves as a bad author _and_ will happily accept an introduction like this as a good reason not to participate? I don't think it's the bad authors, school children and trolls we have to deal with on a regular basis. I think it's more likely to be people who lack self-worth and confidence, and who will be turned away, and will never try editing Wikipedia for fear of being shouted at. Many of these people could become excellent contributors: not all areas of Wikipedia require a thick skin.
If an _actual_ bad author is going to be turned away by a message like that, I think they are likely to be the kind of person we could reform, and turn to areas of Wikipedia where they could be productive. After all, they have listened to reason.
We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project. I also believe that becoming a "good author" on Wikipedia takes a lot of learning of both the social and the technical dimension of the project. It's not something which you _are_ when you visit the site for the first time. A knowledgeable person might be completely incapable of reaching consensus, and a dyslexic might be well aware of their problem, and focus on pictures or policies.
Jimmy, I may be wrong, but I suspect the notion above reflects your desire for Wikipedia to be seen (correctly) as elitist by the media, rather than a free-for-all. As you said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, "I think Wikipedia is extremely elitist. We're a bunch of snobs. But it's an elitism of productive work, it's an elitism of results."
These were very wise words. However, an elitism of results is not in conflict with being welcoming to everyone we don't know yet. Indeed, it requires it.
Erik
On 6/25/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Germans have it right, in my opinion, on their homepage: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind stets willkommen."
"Good authors are always welcome."
The opposite of a good author is a bad author. What kind of person regards themselves as a bad author _and_ will happily accept an introduction like this as a good reason not to participate? I don't think it's the bad authors, school children and trolls we have to deal with on a regular basis. I think it's more likely to be people who lack self-worth and confidence, and who will be turned away, and will never try editing Wikipedia for fear of being shouted at. Many of these people could become excellent contributors: not all areas of Wikipedia require a thick skin.
How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project. I also believe that becoming a "good author" on Wikipedia takes a lot of learning of both the social and the technical dimension of the project. It's not
IMHO being a "good author" is irrelevant. Perhaps it comes from the German translation, but one's "authoring" skills aren't really important, if one is adding images, reordering categories, performing any manner of maintenance etc. Hell, even a "bad author" who is adding useful information is useful - we have copyeditors to clean up afterwards.
Jimmy, I may be wrong, but I suspect the notion above reflects your desire for Wikipedia to be seen (correctly) as elitist by the media, rather than a free-for-all. As you said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, "I think Wikipedia is extremely elitist. We're a bunch of snobs. But it's an elitism of productive work, it's an elitism of results."
We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very folksy and approachable, and our massive predilection for pop culture, over history or literature should put paid to that theory. It's rare to see two academics arguing over a substantitive issue on a difficult topic. Most of the arguments are emotional or territorial.
Steve
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
I agree in principle that the slogan "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is overly simplistic. It reminds me of the famous saying, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." It's more of a technical definition than one of principles and goals -- and can easily be confused with the latter.
I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great, free encyclopedia, along with the core principle _how_ we want to accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of here is not "anyone can edit". It's not even NPOV or any other policy. It's "WikiLove" -- of which our commitment to openness is only an expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That's the idea, at least.)
If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy?
We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very folksy and approachable
I'm not sure about "folksy," but of course an encyclopedia should be approachable. My idea of the perfect Wikipedia article is one which presupposes very little, and allows me to zoom into any level of detail which I require (following links and references to primary and secondary sources if Wikipedia itself is exhausted). Naturally, by "presupposing little", I don't mean that every concept needs to be explained in every article: that's what links are for.
"Elitism of results", as Jimmy put it, doesn't mean to me that we already believe that we've created the best encyclopedia in history. It only means that we believe that we should, and more importantly, that we can. And I think that these beliefs are firmly rooted in Wikipedia's culture.
Erik
As much as "love in knowledge" is true, "anyone can edit" distinguishes us from other knowledge--based projects, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. The slogan is terribly catchy, and we still have readers unaware of the fact that they can edit.
If I had to give Wikimedia projects a new, more accurate slogan, it would be "organizing knowledge by open editing". Perhaps the Foundation proper should adopt "for people that love sharing knowledge"?
-George [[User:GChriss]]
<quote who="Erik Moeller">
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
I agree in principle that the slogan "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is overly simplistic. It reminds me of the famous saying, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." It's more of a technical definition than one of principles and goals -- and can easily be confused with the latter.
I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great, free encyclopedia, along with the core principle _how_ we want to accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of here is not "anyone can edit". It's not even NPOV or any other policy. It's "WikiLove" -- of which our commitment to openness is only an expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That's the idea, at least.)
If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy?
We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very folksy and approachable
I'm not sure about "folksy," but of course an encyclopedia should be approachable. My idea of the perfect Wikipedia article is one which presupposes very little, and allows me to zoom into any level of detail which I require (following links and references to primary and secondary sources if Wikipedia itself is exhausted). Naturally, by "presupposing little", I don't mean that every concept needs to be explained in every article: that's what links are for.
"Elitism of results", as Jimmy put it, doesn't mean to me that we already believe that we've created the best encyclopedia in history. It only means that we believe that we should, and more importantly, that we can. And I think that these beliefs are firmly rooted in Wikipedia's culture.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone who isn't a douchebag can edit
On 6/25/06, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
As much as "love in knowledge" is true, "anyone can edit" distinguishes us from other knowledge--based projects, such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. The slogan is terribly catchy, and we still have readers unaware of the fact that they can edit.
If I had to give Wikimedia projects a new, more accurate slogan, it would be "organizing knowledge by open editing". Perhaps the Foundation proper should adopt "for people that love sharing knowledge"?
-George [[User:GChriss]]
<quote who="Erik Moeller"> > On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp@gmail.com> wrote: >> How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that >> we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will >> let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are). > > I agree in principle that the slogan "the free encyclopedia that > anyone can edit" is overly simplistic. It reminds me of the famous > saying, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have > someone like me for a member." It's more of a technical definition > than one of principles and goals -- and can easily be confused with > the latter. > > I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great, > free encyclopedia, along with the core principle _how_ we want to > accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of > here is not "anyone can edit". It's not even NPOV or any other policy. > It's "WikiLove" -- of which our commitment to openness is only an > expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who > shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That's the idea, at > least.) > > If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something > like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove > as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human > knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice > slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy? > >> We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very >> folksy and approachable > > I'm not sure about "folksy," but of course an encyclopedia should be > approachable. My idea of the perfect Wikipedia article is one which > presupposes very little, and allows me to zoom into any level of > detail which I require (following links and references to primary and > secondary sources if Wikipedia itself is exhausted). Naturally, by > "presupposing little", I don't mean that every concept needs to be > explained in every article: that's what links are for. > > "Elitism of results", as Jimmy put it, doesn't mean to me that we > already believe that we've created the best encyclopedia in history. > It only means that we believe that we should, and more importantly, > that we can. And I think that these beliefs are firmly rooted in > Wikipedia's culture. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
If I had to give Wikimedia projects a new, more accurate slogan, it would be "organizing knowledge by open editing". Perhaps the Foundation proper should adopt "for people that love sharing knowledge"?
Too syllogistic. "Free information, come and get it" would be better.
A better slogan: "Every day [we] write the book." Elvis might have some objection though.
-S
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/26/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
If I wanted a three word slogan for Wikipedia, it would be something like "Love in Knowledge": emphasizing the core principle of WikiLove as well as the overarching goal to collect the sum of all human knowledge. Come to think of it, "Love in Knowledge" might be a nice slogan for the Wikimedia Foundation. Or is it too kitschy?
Funny, you know the etymology of "philosophy" right?
Steve