[Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What you describe is an additional hurdle to become an editor. This is
something that a community can consider only when it has a certain maturity.
To me it gives the impression of an elitist approach to being a Wikipedian.
The only reason I see why such a hurdle might be considered beneficial is
because it is prevents a certain amount of vandalism. In a Wikipedia where
everyone can edit, it is the longtime contributors who are the elite. This
is for instance seen in giving value to the year people joined the
Wikipedia. Even this number is open to interpretation; the first year people
can join the Western Mari Wikipedia is 2009.. And I am sure they welcome
anyone who writes a proper stub.

Proposals for a hurdle like this are welcome on the Foundation list, I find
it fascinating that these things are seriously considered. These proposals
are targeted to particular Wikipedias. It helps when it is made clear what
Wikipedias they are.
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/7/25 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>

> Dear all,
> Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in
> practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one
> describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or "wisdom of the masses" or "swarm
> intelligence", that theoretical approach will certainly fail.
> Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that "anyone can edit".
> In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of "resistance", as
> Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude
> comment, are the result and lead to frustrations.
>
> Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of "everyone
> can edit". My concept will make it possible to people have an
> influence on Wikipedia in two ways:
> * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian,
> they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They
> are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be
> better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports
> could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support)
> team we already have.
> * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become
> a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who
> candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an
> e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a
> little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested
> in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link
> him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to
> fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by
> his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie
> politely.
>
> With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and
> help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for
> "instant collaborators" (IP users) to contribute (by "reporting").
>
> Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki
> principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess
> exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing
> people away.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>