[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (O'Reilly, Dec 2007)

[Anthony]

On 10/21/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really, most users will have very little interaction with the
> wonderful world of our Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and the book synopsis
> reflects that.
>
Really?  I think many users are introduced to Wikipedia's
"idiosyncrasies" quite early on.  Upload an image?  Get hit with 20
canned messages on your talk page telling you why it's about to be
deleted (which often don't even apply to the particular situation).
Create a new page?  Welcome to the world of speedy deletions or AfD.
What's "rv" mean?  How come you're allowed to do it but I'm not?  Why
can't I edit this article about myself?  I'm have a PHD in Quantum
Physics, why do I need to cite a reliable source to correct this
obviously incorrect crap that some moron put in this article?  What do
you mean "no consensus for this change"?

There should be a chapter just on Wikipedia newspeak.  Forget
everything you know about the meaning of the word "consensus" or
"notable".  Wikipedians pretty much never use the term in this sense.

"How many experts have been driven away by the agressivity of some of
our members ? How many new editors just were discouraged by the
difficulty of editing a table or a template ? How many newbies were
blocked because they just did not understood quickly enough how to use
a talk page ?"  This book could almost be the answer to these musings
of Anthere.  If only it were free :).

> "...gives you practical advice on how to create articles and
> collaborate with fellow editors, how to improve existing articles, and
> how to work with the Wikipedia community to review new articles,
> mediate disputes, and maintain the site.
>
>     * Basic editing techniques, including the right and wrong ways to edit
>     * Pinpoint advice about which types of articles do and do not
> belong on Wikipedia
>     * Ways to work with page histories and how to use the site's "talk pages"
>     * How to use templates and time-saving automated editing tools
>     * Tools for fighting spam and vandalism
>
> ..."
>
> So four "practical" aspects, two of which veer into community
> interaction, and one "theological" one.
>
> The target audience for this isn't rule-lawyers looking for a new
> trick; it's people who've heard of us and like the idea but have no
> idea how to contribute. It's *exactly* the sort of thing we want for
> opening up new groups of editors.
>
I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was for rule-lawyers looking
for a new trick.  On the contrary, I would hope the target audience
was good-faith-contributors who need to learn how to deal with the
rule-lawyers.