I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
- d.
David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:29:
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
What's the impact of changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ? (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit anyway, usually.)
Nemo
On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impact of changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ? (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit anyway, usually.)
Do we have knowledge of anyone actually starting to edit because of this?
- d.
David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:59:
On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
What's the impact of changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ? (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit anyway, usually.)
Do we have knowledge of anyone actually starting to edit because of this?
I don't remember if we ever asked, in our general surveys, how and when contributors discovered that they /could/ edit. But perhaps after they've edited it's too late becauser they've already fallen in the category "I don't remember, I've always known it".
Nemo
Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?" thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement. Admittedly only 2 percent of them *succeed*, but it's not a lack of motivation, methinks.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:59:
On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
What's the impact of changes like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306...
? (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit anyway, usually.)
Do we have knowledge of anyone actually starting to edit because of this?
I don't remember if we ever asked, in our general surveys, how and when contributors discovered that they /could/ edit. But perhaps after they've edited it's too late becauser they've already fallen in the category "I don't remember, I've always known it".
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?" thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement. Admittedly only 2 percent of them *succeed*, but it's not a lack of motivation, methinks.
What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong.
- d.
2% of the 17, I believe (don't quote me on that), and yeah, saving an edit is the metric. I think we could probably improve things by providing guidance on markup or something; I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT MEAN"
On 31 October 2011 12:39, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?" thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000
people
who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement. Admittedly only 2 percent of them *succeed*, but it's not a lack of motivation, methinks.
What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT MEAN"
I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that reaction ... here's to usable WYSIWYG!
- d.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT MEAN"
I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that reaction ... here's to usable WYSIWYG!
Purely aside from the clutter effect of all those tags, particularly the references syntax is remarkably opaque. I would imagine a huge part of non-stickyness of edits and the subsequent demoralisation, stems from the steep learing curve for citing sources, Personally I have added a few refences, and each time had to pore with considerabe expense of time over the relevant help and policy pages. It really is hard to remember how the syntax works. Would it be overwhelmingly hard to program a pop-up dialogue which would first ask which type of source the editor is citing from, which would lead to a form with labeled textboxes for the various elements of a reference citation with an asterisk beside the elements considered vital. My guess is that quite a few of the elements of such are already in the code.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be overwhelmingly hard to program a pop-up dialogue which would first ask which type of source the editor is citing from, which would lead to a form with labeled textboxes for the various elements of a reference citation with an asterisk beside the elements considered vital. My guess is that quite a few of the elements of such are already in the code.
A lot of this already exists in the cite toolbar on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cite_toolbar_2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Citing_sources_tutorial,_part_2.ogv
It's very en.wp specific (because the templates are), and the usability is still a bit poor. It's one of those low-hanging fruit things where a little bit of effort could go a long way.
Agree with David.
We ask for sources everywhere, every place of Wikipedia have ''Cite your Sources''. How could a newbie know how to quote a reference in: <Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref> ?
And then a newbie get out of the 70% who doesn't saves (funny, it's 70% of waiver and we still have infinite vandalism...) and finally, finally, saves, some pseudo-user (a bot disguised as a user, reverting vandalisms and sending automatic messages 24/7) reverts the newbie cause he doesn't put a source, the newbie gives up. At his second day he have new messages saying ''You didn't put the source. Put a source or I'll revert you againd and again.'' -so, he: ''How could I do that?'' - and the user: easy: ''<Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>''
True story.
Something have to change about the sources. I learned put sources after one week trying to learn and not miss the code.
If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to newbies.
_____________________ MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:14:28 +0200 From: cimonavaro@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT MEAN"
I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that reaction ... here's to usable WYSIWYG!
Purely aside from the clutter effect of all those tags, particularly the references syntax is remarkably opaque. I would imagine a huge part of non-stickyness of edits and the subsequent demoralisation, stems from the steep learing curve for citing sources, Personally I have added a few refences, and each time had to pore with considerabe expense of time over the relevant help and policy pages. It really is hard to remember how the syntax works. Would it be overwhelmingly hard to program a pop-up dialogue which would first ask which type of source the editor is citing from, which would lead to a form with labeled textboxes for the various elements of a reference citation with an asterisk beside the elements considered vital. My guess is that quite a few of the elements of such are already in the code.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;) _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
Agree with David.
We ask for sources everywhere, every place of Wikipedia have ''Cite your Sources''. How could a newbie know how to quote a reference in: <Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref> ?
And then a newbie get out of the 70% who doesn't saves (funny, it's 70% of waiver and we still have infinite vandalism...) and finally, finally, saves, some pseudo-user (a bot disguised as a user, reverting vandalisms and sending automatic messages 24/7) reverts the newbie cause he doesn't put a source, the newbie gives up. At his second day he have new messages saying ''You didn't put the source. Put a source or I'll revert you againd and again.'' -so, he: ''How could I do that?'' - and the user: easy: ''<Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>''
True story.
Something have to change about the sources. I learned put sources after one week trying to learn and not miss the code.
If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to newbies.
MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 04:14:28 +0200 From: cimonavaro@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the process goes something along the lines of "oh, it says I can make the changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS
TEXT
MEAN"
I've been editing nearly 8 years and I get that reaction ... here's to usable WYSIWYG!
Purely aside from the clutter effect of all those tags, particularly the references syntax is remarkably opaque. I would imagine a huge part of non-stickyness of edits and the subsequent demoralisation, stems from the steep learing curve for citing sources, Personally I have added a few refences, and each time had to pore with considerabe expense of time over the relevant help and policy pages. It really is hard to remember how the syntax works. Would it be overwhelmingly hard to program a pop-up dialogue which would first ask which type of source the editor is citing from, which would lead to a form with labeled textboxes for the various elements of a reference citation with an asterisk beside the elements considered vital. My guess is that quite a few of the elements of such are already in the code.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
There are a lot of tools available to make the life of a Wiki editor simple. The problem is that by the time you come into them, you have already learned how to do things, where to find templates. I think we need to develop a kind of wizard similar to the one used in Commons. For example something like: *What is the article about? with specific instructions for some of the commonest categories (biographies, films, geographic places *Write the text *Wikify it *Add references. Is it a book? A website? The templates are straightforward to fill but difficult to find *Preview and proofread *Save it
Cruccone
The learning of the new editors have to be more instinctive and less bureaucratic. Seriously, who here, at the first time editing Wikipedia, read the policy BEFORE editing a lot? None. Everyone just reads the rules a long time after the beggining of Wikipedian life.
I think a system like used in Commons too, but now about editing Wikipedia. Could be used for IPs and accounts with less than 100 editions, for example, and concealable, of course. A system whick teach to newbies about the syntax ( that's the most complicated thin to teach newbies: [[ ]], {{ }} and of course, <Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>)
It has to be discussed. It would be a important system, essential nowadays.
-----Mensagem Original----- From: Marco Chiesa Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:02 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
There are a lot of tools available to make the life of a Wiki editor simple. The problem is that by the time you come into them, you have already learned how to do things, where to find templates. I think we need to develop a kind of wizard similar to the one used in Commons. For example something like: *What is the article about? with specific instructions for some of the commonest categories (biographies, films, geographic places *Write the text *Wikify it *Add references. Is it a book? A website? The templates are straightforward to fill but difficult to find *Preview and proofread *Save it
Cruccone
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*Seriously, who here, at the first time editing Wikipedia, read the policy BEFORE editing a lot?
/me raise her hand! o/
I read all the links in this {{welcome}} template BEFORE edit: http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Bem-vindo%2... in use whe i was a newbie) _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 2 November 2011 13:51, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
The learning of the new editors have to be more instinctive and less bureaucratic. Seriously, who here, at the first time editing Wikipedia, read the policy BEFORE editing a lot? None. Everyone just reads the rules a long time after the beggining of Wikipedian life.
I think a system like used in Commons too, but now about editing Wikipedia. Could be used for IPs and accounts with less than 100 editions, for example, and concealable, of course. A system whick teach to newbies about the syntax ( that's the most complicated thin to teach newbies: [[ ]], {{ }} and of course, <Ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>)
It has to be discussed. It would be a important system, essential nowadays.
-----Mensagem Original----- From: Marco Chiesa Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:02 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
There are a lot of tools available to make the life of a Wiki editor simple. The problem is that by the time you come into them, you have already learned how to do things, where to find templates. I think we need to develop a kind of wizard similar to the one used in Commons. For example something like: *What is the article about? with specific instructions for some of the commonest categories (biographies, films, geographic places *Write the text *Wikify it *Add references. Is it a book? A website? The templates are straightforward to fill but difficult to find *Preview and proofread *Save it
Cruccone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/01/11 4:43 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
The newbie still has to find out from somewhere that he should download the software. Even something as simple as needing to right click isn't obvious.
Ray
Well, no newbie will wake up and say: "I want to place references in Wikipedia articles today" - they do because one of us asked them to do. And all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more of our time ask them to use it. In fact a message explaining how to use the software is far more simple than one explaining how to insert the {{cite web}} template (and I know because I already send both to newbies). _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
On 3 November 2011 08:40, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 11/01/11 4:43 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
The newbie still has to find out from somewhere that he should download the software. Even something as simple as needing to right click isn't obvious.
Ray
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 November 2011 09:45, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no newbie will wake up and say: "I want to place references in Wikipedia articles today" - they do because one of us asked them to do. And all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more of our time ask them to use it. In fact a message explaining how to use the software is far more simple than one explaining how to insert the {{cite web}} template (and I know because I already send both to newbies).
Wikipedia should be a more or less complete web application. Suggesting people who've never edited before download software first strikes me as an effective way to reduce the new user pool drastically.
- d.
On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to newbies.
The essential problem is that the Wikipedia community is newbie-hostile.
Not actively - mostly - but passively. They view newbies as trouble and work.
Hence all the pushes back against newbies - trying to further restrict page creation and so forth, the problem with citations, defending the impossible markup, open hostility on Special:Newpages ...
So how to make the other side of the newbie experience not suck for the incumbents?
- d.
This hostility is being reflected in the drop at the number of the editors.I agree with the ''automatic-message theory''. None likes automatic messages. In my view, it should be reserved for vandals. Newbies needs a special priority. Something like: ''Hi, thanks for your edition! We hope you become part of our team. If you need anything, just talk to us''. It's not hard to do, is it?
_____________________ MateusNobre MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 23:45:33 +0000 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to newbies.
The essential problem is that the Wikipedia community is newbie-hostile.
Not actively - mostly - but passively. They view newbies as trouble and work.
Hence all the pushes back against newbies - trying to further restrict page creation and so forth, the problem with citations, defending the impossible markup, open hostility on Special:Newpages ...
So how to make the other side of the newbie experience not suck for the incumbents?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Mateus Nobre mateus.nobre@live.co.uk wrote:
This hostility is being reflected in the drop at the number of the editors.I agree with the ''automatic-message theory''. None likes automatic messages. In my view, it should be reserved for vandals. Newbies needs a special priority. Something like: ''Hi, thanks for your edition! We hope you become part of our team. If you need anything, just talk to us''. It's not hard to do, is it?
It's not "hard" as in difficult but it would be "hard" as in laborious and time consuming.
I went through a phase of attending to my watchlist and whenever I saw a user-page red-linked and the associated edit was a positive contribution I went ahead and Twinkled them a user page welcome notice. I'd welcome tens of people a day this way.
I'm afraid there is little chance of me welcoming tens of users with even a personalised message I had written myself and could simply copy and paste. The task would simply be too dull and repetitive for me. Even with Twinkle it's still boring. If I wanted to bore myself in my free time I'd take up a job that paid.
If we wish to welcome the huge amounts of newbie editors with a form of personalisation, I suggest we invest in artificial intelligence. If nothing else the results would probably be hilarious and bring unintentional joy wherever it attempted to help, like those sites devoted to Engrish.
I read a quote recently which ran something like "enjoyment of one's tools is essential to great work". For the most part I find MediaWiki very pleasant to use and things have definitely moved in the right direction since I joined in 2004. But I was familiar with the concept of mark-up having dabbled with HTML when I began, so I can't really empathise with the average web user who is immediately baffled by what they see when they click 'edit' for that first time.
Bodnotbod
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't remember if we ever asked, in our general surveys, how and when contributors discovered that they /could/ edit. But perhaps after they've edited it's too late becauser they've already fallen in the category "I don't remember, I've always known it".
I remember how it happened for me. I was just browsing and I clicked on a red link expecting to be taken to a page on the subject. I was presented with the editing interface and was utterly confused. I thought I'd broken the site, that the site had catastrophically failed somehow.
I remember one of my early contributions was to somewhere like the Village Pump saying what I'd experienced and what my initial reaction was and positing that maybe other newbies would assume they'd broken the site too. But I think the response was "no, I don't think people will believe they broke the site." It didn't really generate much discussion as far as I recall.
Bodnotbod
On 31 October 2011 12:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impact of changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ?
Thank you for that, that was hilarious to read through all those reversions.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 02:08:24PM +0100, Svip wrote:
On 31 October 2011 12:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impact of changes like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ?
Thank you for that, that was hilarious to read through all those reversions.
Now you understand the true source of wiki-power: A sense of humor, and a keen sense of fun. <grin>
/me almost forgot wikipedia used to be that way. :-)
sincerely, Kim ':-)' Bruning
I don't think simple text or link changes will really do the trick. I think popup bubbles could be more successful.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 31/10/2011 12:29:
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
What's the impact of changes like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=201306... ? (Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit anyway, usually.)
Nemo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
hi David, what you wrote fits exactly my experience!
Today, my opinion is, that we must focus our efforts on a small portion of Internet users. It is not that WE just do something very great, everyone is doing something! In very different ways. Maybe even Facebook users are doing something useful, but I can not judge.
In Austria, with our heritäge cultural monuments-project we started different approach to animate new and old user. This project started in the very beginning with maybe 5-6 active users and is now being carried out with 220 Wikipedians only in Austria. With varying intensity, but that's normal. We won estimated 30-50 new Wikipedians, also many who have been inactive for quite some time.
Crucial was, that we started with a clear communication structure with newsletter and a portal page from the very beginning. And personal meetings.
And what I found most important, was the effort to welcome the contribution of EVERY new wikipedian to welcome his/her contribution accordingly. Saying: Thank You for your contribution! No automated greetings with an hello-template, but a very personal one. Maybe WikiLove as its best, but very, very consequently.
In the course of this project, 2,400 articles (lists) are created and edited with a total of 36,000 listed properties. These lists are directly connected to another 4000-5000 other articles and about 20,000 images. At this time, we realised with this particular project only one third - maybe just ten percent - what we have set ourselves as a target. This means that we still have years to work on it. It is difficult to estimate how many new articles we will still get from this project in the future.
This project culminated in September wiht the WLM-project in which Austria has achieved a very excellent result, getting 12.500 pictures. And another 20 to 30 new user. Some of them prefer to work without registration. I don´t like it, but I have to accept it.
Our policy was: The best, the most significant, the most important contribution is the edit of an new user.
I think that every single project requires a communications manager who is also directly familiar with the project. Part of this communication efforts may also need the support of newcomers.
The mentor program is, in my view, too inflexible and too static. And also too impersonal. Very few people will accept an request of prerequisite tutoring.
The best of all: During the whole period we had no conflicts between us and no article-vandalism within this thematic area.
h.
Am 31.10.2011 12:29, schrieb David Gerard:
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org