)
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(a)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(a)gmail.com
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
