[Foundation-l] Ideas for newbie recruitment

[Béria Lima]

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