Hoi, Only a few of our Wikipedias have a reasonable coverage of the subjects that you expect in an encyclopaedia. As this is at the start of your argument, i find that I have to disagree. I do however agree that improved usability will improve quality. When you consider the Commons content, it is easy to argue that improved language support will make it easier for people who read/wite other languages to contribute and thereby remove some of the existing bias.
When you observe the cooperation that happens through the skype channels of "not the Wikipedia Weekly" to be called "Wikivoices" you will agree that it is indeed greater cooperation that will become easier from implementing social software. There is a need for social software because it can and does provide tooling that enhances cooperation in creating quality content work. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
What we SHOULD be talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and
their
first created articles, &c.
I agree.
And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached "mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.
Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l