On 12/29/10 7:26 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you could
convince admins to
be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to
Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature.
Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing
statistics, it won't address the trend.
We know from interviews and departure messages that the editing
interface creates an initial barrier for entry, but for people who get
past that barrier, various social factors, such as incivility and
bureaucracy, limit the time they spend contributing.
For me the usability projects always had the unstated intent of
broadening the pool of good editors. More hands to ease the burdens of
the beleagured admins, and also fresher blood that wasn't quite as
ensconced in wikipolitics.
But overall I agree.
Making editing easier could actually be
counterproductive. If we let
more people past the editing interface barrier before we fix our
social problems, [...]
This is an interesting insight!
I have been thinking along these lines too, although in a more haphazard
way.
At some point, if we believe our community is our greatest asset, we
have to think of Wikipedia as infrastructure not only for creating high
quality articles, but also for generating and sustaining a high quality
editing community. My sense is that the Wiki* communities are down with
goal #1, but goal #2 is not on their radar at all.
So we probably need an employee dedicated to this. (I think? Arguments?)
When the Usability Project closed down, the team was also unhappy with
the narrow focus paid to editing. Research showed the most serious
problems were elsewhere. We then said we were going to address UX issues
in a very broad way, which included social issues. Unfortunately the
person in charge of that left the Foundation soon after and in the
kerfuffle I'm not sure if we now have anybody whose primary job it is to
think about the experience of the user in such broad terms.
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar ( <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>