Hi Paulo,
I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new and
what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor and
the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is reasonable to
believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to allow
new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people that we
reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are eager
to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the articles
reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus can
not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and
the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
Best,
Kiril
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 19:09 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Kiril Simeonovski
<kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia segunda,
31/12/2018 à(s) 10:05:
some innovations. The problem with expanding an
unchanged and obsolete
infrastructure to underrepresented groups might result to no avail and
further incentivise a major shift, thus doubling the cost invested in
infrastructure. Definitely, it is an open topic to discuss whether
outreach
to new communities should be done using the old
methods or experimenting
with something new.
I've been experimenting this personally for some time, firstly with the
Art+Feminism initiative, which past experience has shown to be highly
counterproductive if handled in a simple, amateurish way - events have
been
organized here in Portugal without appropriate support, which resulted in
massive eliminations of the articles created, with a consequent
traumatizing experience for the people that took part in them, that never
again wanted to hear about Wikipedia. The 1lib1ref in its basic form also
do not seem to be ideal to catch the attention of librarians over here,
but
alternative ways of organizing it seem to result. Edithatons in general
have shown to be a bad option for reaching to new editors, except in the
cases where we have some motivated work force already available (feminist
activists, students being evaluated, etc.). My personal experience is that
participating in edithatons "just because" is simply not fun nor
attractive, there must be something to gain from it (promoting a specific
cause, getting good grades, etc). We should indeed get innovative here,
and
above all, share our experiences, so that we can build something on this
together.
Cheers,
Paulo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>