Hoi, I hardly ever write a Wikipedia article because there are too many showstoppers as far as I am concerned. The reasons for me are that the policies involved are so overly complicated that I first consult a friend about my plan for an article and its feasibility. The second reason is the large amount of template hell that I am supposed to overcome that are neither intuitive nor straight forward. Finally there are the button warriors; they have their finger ready to destroy. Once they determine that it is "not good enough" they expect you to do better or else and understand the overly complicated processes that may save your work. It includes making sense out of arcane widely distributed lore and templates that exist in so many guises, mostly undocumented or not readily accessible.
Really I prefer not to write wikitext for all those reasons.
A more intuitive interface that removes all the little empires and makes for a more reasoned understanding of what is needed in skills and understanding will help a lot. The point I make about a new interface is mostly that the current interface does not work on mobiles and tablets. Given the work that I do (Wikidata) I mostly look at sources. This is our future. Thanks, Gerard
On 8 September 2014 03:07, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I doubt; the second will be true of any interface.
DGG
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is
all
too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you
have
a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is
not
the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we
are
not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe