[Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness

[Sarah]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 14:28, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In fact a lot of those issues are spelled out very clearly. See
>> [[WP:BLOGS]] for whether you can reference a blogpost. See
>> [[WP:INCITE]] for a quick way to add a footnote. See
>> [[Category:Infobox templates]] for how to add an infobox.
>>
>
>
> See now, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Look at that lovely
> alphabet soup.  I bet nobody can explain why the shortcut to the page on how
> to add references sounds like something involving rioting in the streets.

These are all just shortcuts within [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]
(which, I agree, is far too complex, but trying to cut it down always
leads to shouting):

*WP:INCITE (what an inline citation is)
*WP:INTEXT (when you need to add the name of your source to the text too)
*WP:INTEGRITY (why text-source relationships matter)

It's intended as a memorable way of pointing out three of the key
rules of sourcing, i.e. it's intended to to help people make their way
through the Citing sources guideline mess.

>> The deletion process does look daunting, but actually if you just
>> clunk through the instructions,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion
>> it's pretty easy, and I say that as someone with a template phobia.
>>
>
> Keeping in mind that I too am an experienced editor, it still took me nearly
> 5 minutes plus several open tabs to file an AfD the other day. I keep being
> told "just install Huggle/Twinkle/Friendly/some other script" but because I
> work on a wide range of browsers, these cause problems for me.  Having said
> that, the main issue was time and number of steps, not legibility or
> physical difficulty.

Yes, it does take time. I agree with you about templates, so don't
think I'm defending the template culture. I just think AfD is not the
worst of them. There are a few processes I've never managed even to
complete.
>>
>> We work on a complex website that caters to lots of different needs
>> and skill levels, so there's a limit to how simple these processes can
>> be made.
>>
>>
> Agreed, but the things that we expect even a beginning editor to do should
> be as simple and easily found as possible.  Citing references, in
> particular, is buried in bits and pieces all over the place. A newbie who
> manages to find [[WP:INCITE]] and follows its instructions is still just as
> likely to be trouted because they didn't use the "right" style of references
> for the article ("Sorry, Wikiproject:XXX requires that only Harvard style
> references be used in articles under our aegis. Please resubmit your edit,
> properly formatted.")  We can do better.
>
I agree. There are too many options, too many entrenched views about
them, though the guidelines are clear that editors can choose
whichever style they feel comfortable with (so long as they're not
changing a pre-existing style). A lot of the problems stem from
established editors not following the policies and guidelines -- and
not only about sourcing, but everything. We get endless inquiries from
new editors to the effect that "guideline X says I can do this, but
I'm being told I can't."

Sarah