On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered ready for WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people at UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires changes to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of monobook (I do not know how feasible this is).
Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some of their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this ... Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch an option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects that will benefit.
The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a "simple" approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more contributors and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not that interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my perspective, it should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when this extension is localised first, it will be more effective.
When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get involvement from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in this collaboration and make usability a priority. Thanks, GerardM
Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...)
There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now.
Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem.
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 21:52:37 George Herbert wrote:
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
tl;dr as I'm afraid most people would say :(
Nothing personal, but when tl;dr is given as a response, it indicates that there is something certainly substantial and probably interesting to be seen and understood--and possibly even used as the basis for action -- as in this case/.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 21:52:37 George Herbert wrote:
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
tl;dr as I'm afraid most people would say :(
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/12/3 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Nothing personal, but when tl;dr is given as a response, it indicates that there is something certainly substantial and probably interesting to be seen and understood--and possibly even used as the basis for action -- as in this case/.
Or it indicates that whoever's trying to make the point needs to write more concisely, at least leading with a summary good enough to hook the reader into reading the rest.
tl;dr = writer fail.
- d.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/3 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Nothing personal, but when tl;dr is given as a response, it indicates that there is something certainly substantial and probably interesting to be seen and understood--and possibly even used as the basis for action -- as in this case/.
Or it indicates that whoever's trying to make the point needs to write more concisely, at least leading with a summary good enough to hook the reader into reading the rest.
tl;dr = writer fail.
Reasonable - I was stream-of-consciousness expanding on an idea, probably should have taken that level of detail offline to wikitech-l or some such.
My sense was that Nikola was using tl:dr to respond not to George's e-mail, but to the process he described for creating a new page. I could be wrong, though.
Nathan
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/3 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Nothing personal, but when tl;dr is given as a response, it indicates that there is something certainly substantial and probably interesting to be seen and understood--and possibly even used as the basis for action -- as in this case/.
Or it indicates that whoever's trying to make the point needs to write more concisely, at least leading with a summary good enough to hook the reader into reading the rest.
tl;dr = writer fail.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
My sense was that Nikola was using tl:dr to respond not to George's e-mail, but to the process he described for creating a new page. I could be wrong, though.
I wanted to say that due to the length of the text, new users' response would likely be tl;dr. I haven't realized it would be broken over several pages. But even so, I can see people giving up somewhere in the process...
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/3 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Nothing personal, but when tl;dr is given as a response, it indicates that there is something certainly substantial and probably interesting to be seen and understood--and possibly even used as the basis for action -- as in this case/.
Or it indicates that whoever's trying to make the point needs to write more concisely, at least leading with a summary good enough to hook the reader into reading the rest.
tl;dr = writer fail.
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Nathan wrote:
My sense was that Nikola was using tl:dr to respond not to George's e-mail, but to the process he described for creating a new page. I could be wrong, though.
I wanted to say that due to the length of the text, new users' response would likely be tl;dr. I haven't realized it would be broken over several pages. But even so, I can see people giving up somewhere in the process...
Not that it's George's fault, I myself run into similar problems whenever I try imagining something better than current instructions.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Nathan wrote:
My sense was that Nikola was using tl:dr to respond not to George's e-mail, but to the process he described for creating a new page. I could be wrong, though.
I wanted to say that due to the length of the text, new users' response would likely be tl;dr. I haven't realized it would be broken over several pages. But even so, I can see people giving up somewhere in the process...
Not that it's George's fault, I myself run into similar problems whenever I try imagining something better than current instructions.
I think these are valid concerns about my idea.
I would respond with "But you can always create pages the existing way" 8-)
But some new users won't want that much framework either. I don't know how many different methods/paths we can set up for different levels and expectations of users (and being aware of things like screen real estate, etc).
2008/12/5 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
I think these are valid concerns about my idea. I would respond with "But you can always create pages the existing way" 8-) But some new users won't want that much framework either. I don't know how many different methods/paths we can set up for different levels and expectations of users (and being aware of things like screen real estate, etc).
I've occasionally over the years suggested on wikien-l that we prefill article pages with an article template, e.g.
---O<---cut here---O<--- First sentence explaining your '''article topic''' with the topic in bold.
Second sentence introducing it more. Explain to the reader why this is important enough to need an article.
== Subheading ==
Some text explaining the subheading. Add more subheadings and text as needed.
== References ==
What sources back up the information you've written above? Please list them here. Be able to back up everything you've written.
== External links ==
List here the one or two very best web links possible in the world on this topic. ---O<---cut here---O<---
Unfortunately, the idea's never gotten any traction, and discussion has rapidly gone all bikeshed [1] on the precise content of the hypothetical template and how this is horribly restrictive of established editors and the Man's keeping them down, etc.
A pity, as I think new en:wp contributors seeing the above when they start an article would lead to a lot less articles being shot on sight.
- d.
I was just thinking how that would be a good idea - boxes of text, where you fill in the introduction, the basic content and the references in "content required" fields. It wouldn't be necessary for regular contributors (perhaps it could be turned off for autoconfirmed), but if anything it seems very strange that we don't already try to "shape" new articles in this way when they come from new accounts and IP editors.
Nathan
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've occasionally over the years suggested on wikien-l that we prefill article pages with an article template, e.g.
---O<---cut here---O<--- First sentence explaining your '''article topic''' with the topic in bold.
Second sentence introducing it more. Explain to the reader why this is important enough to need an article.
== Subheading ==
Some text explaining the subheading. Add more subheadings and text as needed.
== References ==
What sources back up the information you've written above? Please list them here. Be able to back up everything you've written.
== External links ==
List here the one or two very best web links possible in the world on this topic. ---O<---cut here---O<---
Unfortunately, the idea's never gotten any traction, and discussion has rapidly gone all bikeshed [1] on the precise content of the hypothetical template and how this is horribly restrictive of established editors and the Man's keeping them down, etc.
A pity, as I think new en:wp contributors seeing the above when they start an article would lead to a lot less articles being shot on sight.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This [1] is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. David, has this been proposed, discussed, modeled and rejected in the past? (It seems like it must have, for something that is pretty common around the web).
[1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Add_an_article_-_basic.JPG
Nathan
2008/12/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
This [1] is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. David, has this been proposed, discussed, modeled and rejected in the past? (It seems like it must have, for something that is pretty common around the web). [1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Add_an_article_-_basic.JPG
Not that I know of. A preloaded text box would do much the same job, I expect. Note how I don't say anything about format of references, etc - just enter the content.
Unfortunately, getting community consensus for any change whatsoever on en:wp is all but impossible these days. Happenstance conditions are treated as rock-solid intention.
- d.
We could just build the thing and then ask permission to put in the link on the default UI..
Forgiveness easier than permission, etc etc.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:25 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
This [1] is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. David, has this been proposed, discussed, modeled and rejected in the past? (It seems like it must have, for something that is pretty common around the web). [1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Add_an_article_-_basic.JPG
Not that I know of. A preloaded text box would do much the same job, I expect. Note how I don't say anything about format of references, etc
- just enter the content.
Unfortunately, getting community consensus for any change whatsoever on en:wp is all but impossible these days. Happenstance conditions are treated as rock-solid intention.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/12/5 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
We could just build the thing and then ask permission to put in the link on the default UI..
Yeah. If there were a way to put preload text into the edit box when you hit "edit" on a nonexistent page, that'd be the easy way.
It'd certainly make the new page patrollers happy.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
This [1] is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. David, has this been proposed, discussed, modeled and rejected in the past? (It seems like it must have, for something that is pretty common around the web). [1]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Add_an_article_-_basic.JPG
Not that I know of. A preloaded text box would do much the same job, I expect. Note how I don't say anything about format of references, etc
- just enter the content.
The article wizard on en.wp that Greg linked a while ago (which has been in a state of under-construction-ness for some time now) and a version of which the Slovenian Wikipedia uses does this. It doesn't force people to use the wizard (the Slovenian one just suggests people use it, an en.wp version would likely do the same) but it does give the option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AArticle+wizard%2Fcompany%2Fpreload&editintro=Wikipedia%3AArticle+wizard%2Fcompany%2Fintro&title=Test1234 is an example of the enwiki one, the Slovenian one is http://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedija%3ANapi%C5%A1i+%C4%8Dlanek%2Fpodjetje%2Fpreload&editintro=Wikipedija%3ANapi%C5%A1i_%C4%8Dlanek%2Feditintro&title=Test1234 - it even provides example article text.
Unfortunately, getting community consensus for any change whatsoever on en:wp is all but impossible these days. Happenstance conditions are treated as rock-solid intention.
As long as its optional, people probably won't mind that much.
David Gerard wrote:
I've occasionally over the years suggested on wikien-l that we prefill article pages with an article template, e.g.
---O<---cut here---O<--- First sentence explaining your '''article topic''' with the topic in bold.
Second sentence introducing it more. Explain to the reader why this is important enough to need an article.
== Subheading ==
Some text explaining the subheading. Add more subheadings and text as needed.
== References ==
What sources back up the information you've written above? Please list them here. Be able to back up everything you've written.
== External links ==
List here the one or two very best web links possible in the world on this topic. ---O<---cut here---O<---
Unfortunately, the idea's never gotten any traction, and discussion has rapidly gone all bikeshed [1] on the precise content of the hypothetical template and how this is horribly restrictive of established editors and the Man's keeping them down, etc.
A pity, as I think new en:wp contributors seeing the above when they start an article would lead to a lot less articles being shot on sight.
You may want to check out the page the English Wiktionary has for failed searches: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. If you do a search for something like "xxxxx" that has no article (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=xxxxx&go=Go) and click on "Basic" (or whichever) you can see the preloaded article it gives you, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3Anew_en_basic&editintro=Template%3Anew_en_noun_intro&title=xxxxx&create=Basic. This is especially important on Wiktionary where the format is more important and inflexible than Wikipedia, and it's also more esoteric. I think English Wiktionary is not the only Wiktionary to do something like this.
Dominic
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:52 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
<snip>
Does this process make sense?
Yes very much, people like wizards (like the nice upload wizard on
commons). new article wizard would be a great addition if someone make it.
As for Nikola's "too long, didn't read", you will always have the classic way of creating a new page (things like this and WYSIWYGE should be optional).
Hoi, So if the question to any of these questions is not positive a person should not contribute ?
I would strongly argue that when a valid subject is identified and a plain text of one or two paragraphs has been written we already have a winner. You still want wikification, you still want interwiki links, you still want illustrations and you still want references. We call this a stub and stubs are good and can be improved at a later date.
I understand where you are coming from, you want to see Pallas Athena rise fully armoured from Zeus's head. The Greek Gods do not exist. Not all contributors write perfect articles in one go. Requiring Gods to participate will drive ordinary people away. The process of writing the perfect Wikipedia article is not obvious and it takes time for people to become comfortable with it. Some time ago I was asked to write an article on the English Wikipedia on imho a valid topic. I decided against it because I am uncomfortable with the straight jacket that is imposed on me.
So the conceptual question is, how do we want what to achieve and do we want other people to participate ? Thanks, GerardM
2008/12/2 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered ready
for
WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people at UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires
changes
to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of monobook
(I
do not know how feasible this is).
Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some
of
their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this
...
Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch an option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects that will benefit.
The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a
"simple"
approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more
contributors
and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not
that
interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my perspective,
it
should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when this extension is localised first, it will be more effective.
When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get involvement from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in this collaboration and make usability a priority. Thanks, GerardM
Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...)
There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now.
Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem.
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So if the question to any of these questions is not positive a person should not contribute ?
I would strongly argue that when a valid subject is identified and a plain text of one or two paragraphs has been written we already have a winner. You still want wikification, you still want interwiki links, you still want illustrations and you still want references. We call this a stub and stubs are good and can be improved at a later date.
I understand where you are coming from, you want to see Pallas Athena rise fully armoured from Zeus's head. The Greek Gods do not exist. Not all contributors write perfect articles in one go. Requiring Gods to participate will drive ordinary people away. The process of writing the perfect Wikipedia article is not obvious and it takes time for people to become comfortable with it. Some time ago I was asked to write an article on the English Wikipedia on imho a valid topic. I decided against it because I am uncomfortable with the straight jacket that is imposed on me.
So the conceptual question is, how do we want what to achieve and do we want other people to participate ? Thanks, GerardM
There are a range of options, going from "if they don't understand those questions don't let them add the article", which is the most severe response, to opening up a new window with a context specific help page to explain what the issue is, or going to an intermediate (more detailed) explanation page that then links on to the next step anyways.
The point is that those are the questions that anyone should be thinking about if they're going to add an article, whether they're a brand new user or an experienced one. Brand new ones obviously lack the context and framework to know the questions and issues ahead of time... that's why we set up a framework to help them answer the questions.
The framework makes them aware of the questions and issues, and if done properly helps them understand and respond with appropriate answers. If they really shouldn't be creating an article (it's something that really shouldn't have an article, seriously not notable or grossly non encyclopedic or has no references at all) then it can gently point that out and perhaps suggest that they not do so.
Obviously anyone could hit "back" and then click yes anyways - we can't force them to not create an article if they don't answer a question, but if we give them a framework which lets them know what things matter then they are more likely to get the things that matter correct.
The question of "should the framework discourage if unprepared" is completely separate from the question of "should there be a framework to structure the new users page creation engagement". I see no downside to the latter. The former, I know some people who will be more happy to discourage, but I'd personally prefer to educate and let people go ahead anyways if they chose to.
-george
2008/12/2 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered ready for WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people at UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires changes to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of monobook (I do not know how feasible this is).
Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some of their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this ... Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch an option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects that will benefit.
The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a "simple" approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more contributors and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not that interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my perspective, it should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when this extension is localised first, it will be more effective.
When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get involvement from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in this collaboration and make usability a priority. Thanks, GerardM
Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...)
There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now.
Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem.
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
The major weakness may be the attitude of some Wikipedians, who treat newbies rudely as if we would have an infinite reservoir of them. Our ideal of openess ("everyone can edit") has as an implication that new people come in and make things we experienced Wikipedians consider as wrong. Pacience and friendliness must be the answer.
Any tools that make editing easier are welcome, but that's only one of the problems. Yes, "conceptual" is the other one. And, we Wikipedians should look out when fellow Wikipedians are rude to newbies and try to set things right.
In many Wikipedia language editions help pages are poor. I often cannot even blame newbies for having not read help pages that do not exist or explain well.:-)
Ziko
2008/12/3 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So if the question to any of these questions is not positive a person
should
not contribute ?
I would strongly argue that when a valid subject is identified and a
plain
text of one or two paragraphs has been written we already have a winner.
You
still want wikification, you still want interwiki links, you still want illustrations and you still want references. We call this a stub and
stubs
are good and can be improved at a later date.
I understand where you are coming from, you want to see Pallas Athena
rise
fully armoured from Zeus's head. The Greek Gods do not exist. Not all contributors write perfect articles in one go. Requiring Gods to
participate
will drive ordinary people away. The process of writing the perfect Wikipedia article is not obvious and it takes time for people to become comfortable with it. Some time ago I was asked to write an article on the English Wikipedia on imho a valid topic. I decided against it because I
am
uncomfortable with the straight jacket that is imposed on me.
So the conceptual question is, how do we want what to achieve and do we
want
other people to participate ? Thanks, GerardM
There are a range of options, going from "if they don't understand those questions don't let them add the article", which is the most severe response, to opening up a new window with a context specific help page to explain what the issue is, or going to an intermediate (more detailed) explanation page that then links on to the next step anyways.
The point is that those are the questions that anyone should be thinking about if they're going to add an article, whether they're a brand new user or an experienced one. Brand new ones obviously lack the context and framework to know the questions and issues ahead of time... that's why we set up a framework to help them answer the questions.
The framework makes them aware of the questions and issues, and if done properly helps them understand and respond with appropriate answers. If they really shouldn't be creating an article (it's something that really shouldn't have an article, seriously not notable or grossly non encyclopedic or has no references at all) then it can gently point that out and perhaps suggest that they not do so.
Obviously anyone could hit "back" and then click yes anyways - we can't force them to not create an article if they don't answer a question, but if we give them a framework which lets them know what things matter then they are more likely to get the things that matter correct.
The question of "should the framework discourage if unprepared" is completely separate from the question of "should there be a framework to structure the new users page creation engagement". I see no downside to the latter. The former, I know some people who will be more happy to discourage, but I'd personally prefer to educate and let people go ahead anyways if they chose to.
-george
2008/12/2 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered
ready
for WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people
at
UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires changes to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of
monobook
(I do not know how feasible this is).
Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some of their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this ... Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch
an
option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects
that
will benefit.
The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a "simple" approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more contributors and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not that interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my
perspective,
it should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when
this
extension is localised first, it will be more effective.
When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get
involvement
from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in
this
collaboration and make usability a priority. Thanks, GerardM
Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...)
There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now.
Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem.
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This is at least a three-edged problem: 1) New users who don't understand WP policy/standards/community/expectations . 2) Lack of appropriate new user help info (when creating articles particularly, elsewhere as well). 3) Experienced users biting new users.
The first one is just a fact of life. We can and should deal with it via appropriate responses to the other two (polite, friendly engagement by experienced users, and building better help materials, frameworks for new pages, etc).
-george
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
The major weakness may be the attitude of some Wikipedians, who treat newbies rudely as if we would have an infinite reservoir of them. Our ideal of openess ("everyone can edit") has as an implication that new people come in and make things we experienced Wikipedians consider as wrong. Pacience and friendliness must be the answer.
Any tools that make editing easier are welcome, but that's only one of the problems. Yes, "conceptual" is the other one. And, we Wikipedians should look out when fellow Wikipedians are rude to newbies and try to set things right.
In many Wikipedia language editions help pages are poor. I often cannot even blame newbies for having not read help pages that do not exist or explain well.:-)
Ziko
2008/12/3 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So if the question to any of these questions is not positive a person
should
not contribute ?
I would strongly argue that when a valid subject is identified and a
plain
text of one or two paragraphs has been written we already have a winner.
You
still want wikification, you still want interwiki links, you still want illustrations and you still want references. We call this a stub and
stubs
are good and can be improved at a later date.
I understand where you are coming from, you want to see Pallas Athena
rise
fully armoured from Zeus's head. The Greek Gods do not exist. Not all contributors write perfect articles in one go. Requiring Gods to
participate
will drive ordinary people away. The process of writing the perfect Wikipedia article is not obvious and it takes time for people to become comfortable with it. Some time ago I was asked to write an article on the English Wikipedia on imho a valid topic. I decided against it because I
am
uncomfortable with the straight jacket that is imposed on me.
So the conceptual question is, how do we want what to achieve and do we
want
other people to participate ? Thanks, GerardM
There are a range of options, going from "if they don't understand those questions don't let them add the article", which is the most severe response, to opening up a new window with a context specific help page to explain what the issue is, or going to an intermediate (more detailed) explanation page that then links on to the next step anyways.
The point is that those are the questions that anyone should be thinking about if they're going to add an article, whether they're a brand new user or an experienced one. Brand new ones obviously lack the context and framework to know the questions and issues ahead of time... that's why we set up a framework to help them answer the questions.
The framework makes them aware of the questions and issues, and if done properly helps them understand and respond with appropriate answers. If they really shouldn't be creating an article (it's something that really shouldn't have an article, seriously not notable or grossly non encyclopedic or has no references at all) then it can gently point that out and perhaps suggest that they not do so.
Obviously anyone could hit "back" and then click yes anyways - we can't force them to not create an article if they don't answer a question, but if we give them a framework which lets them know what things matter then they are more likely to get the things that matter correct.
The question of "should the framework discourage if unprepared" is completely separate from the question of "should there be a framework to structure the new users page creation engagement". I see no downside to the latter. The former, I know some people who will be more happy to discourage, but I'd personally prefer to educate and let people go ahead anyways if they chose to.
-george
2008/12/2 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered
ready
for WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people
at
UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires changes to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of
monobook
(I do not know how feasible this is).
Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some of their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this ... Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch
an
option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects
that
will benefit.
The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a "simple" approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more contributors and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not that interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my
perspective,
it should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when
this
extension is localised first, it will be more effective.
When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get
involvement
from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in
this
collaboration and make usability a priority. Thanks, GerardM
Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...)
There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now.
Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem.
Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some?
To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions.
Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article."
"Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?"
"Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue."
"Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any."
"Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'."
"Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections).
And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation.
Does this process make sense?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org