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(a)gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)gmail.com
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
