[Wikipedia-l] RE: Some answers and more questions for the gang

Fri Feb 22 18:18:40 UTC 2002

Julie's comments preceded by ------

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:56:49 -0500
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Suggestions from Magnus, Mark, and Jimbo
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com

At 03:16 PM 2/21/02 -0800, Julie Kemp wrote:

>Magnus -- I don't mean to offend, but you don't speak
>customer -- and I don't expect you to.  But to
>demonstrate my point, you just suggested I start a
>page (article?) with wikipedia: -- as if I know what
>that means!

I'm not sure I speak customer, but one of the things I've done as an
editor is translate, including between techies and non-techies, so I'll
try.

----That used to be my job, too...which is why I find this frustrating.
But not as much as about a week ago! ;-)

>Are you saying that, if I do that, it
>will create a special page and show up in the bar at
>the side?  I know you went to the FAQs and added
>stuff, but I really think you and the others are so
>closely involved in the programming side that you
>assume that we all get what you're talking about.

I don't know the answer to this.

>There are lots of people out there who have
>programming backgrounds -- but lots more who don't.
>You also seem to think users are intelligent beings.

Users are intelligent beings. That they don't speak tech doesn't change
this, any more than my not speaking Chinese makes me stupid.

-----Um....I was speaking from a training perspective.  One has to
assume absolutely no knowledge as well as a desire to know only what
immediately affects the user, in order to make sure that the info can be
assimilated by everybody.  Perhaps intelligent wasn't the best word
choice -- but having dealt with users a lot, my experience has been that
some of the smartest people I've met (except the techs) turn glassy-eyed
when faced with technical details.  The information should be there for
people who actually have an interest in software design, etc., but my
experience in training has taught me that too much information (without
understanding it fully) leads to a lot more frustration and a LOT of
requests for changes that drive programmers up the wall.  Plus, most
users (of any software) really do   have a profound lack of interest in
how the program works -- they just want it up and running.  Kind of like
car owners -- most folks just want the car to run, and do the least they
can themselves to keep it up and running.   (oil? Water? Huh? ;-) )

>Sorry, but years in customer service and training
>(including training in DSL, telco processes and an
>online SQL-based transaction coordination package)
>have taught me that you have to teach to the lowest
>common denominator.  Even people who are really bright
>about most things have trouble getting their heads
>round computer stuff.

Okay, but I don't think it helps to suggest that we're creating an
encyclopedia written and edited primarily by the unintelligent. <snip>
>3)Is a namespace the same as an article and/or a page?

No. A namespace is a set of articles. "Talk:" is a namespace. So is
"User:" Like the main wikipedia, they can have unlimited numbers of
articles within them.

-----That helps immensely -- now, when an article is created in the main
wikipedia namespace, does it not automatically create a related talk
page in the "talk:"  namespace?   I'd like to be able to explain this in
a way that keeps people from adding /Talk at the bottom of all "their"
articles.

>4) Mark mentioned using parentheses rather than a
>slash in an article title to indicate what used to be
>a subpage (I think).  Does this mean that the article
>is independent, or that the parentheses associate it
>with a main article in a similar manner? How does this
>relate to the talk page generated with each article?
>(and for my own sanity, are they related at the same
>level or do sublevels even exist?)

The parentheses are to distinguish between two or more things of the
same name. Rather than have subpages, the wikipedia now uses a "flat"
namespace--everything is on the same level. (The following examples are
invented, probably not reflecting current actual wikipedia content.)
"Niger (river)" and "Niger (country)" distinguish between two entities
of the same name. Sometimes we can avoid parentheses by careful naming:
the former article could be named "River Niger," for example. But
neither is part of the other.

I don't think we have subpages anymore; if I'm wrong, please, would one
of the programmers correct me?
----we don't 

>5)If the system still functions in a way that says
>"subpage" to the users, is there any reason to even
>dicuss functionality?  It seems to be that the UI may
>still look like a duck and walk like a duck -- even if
>it doesn't talk like a duck behind the scenes -- so
>why not let the users think it is in fact a duck?

Does it function that way, though?

We allow the specific existence of "Talk" pages--but we don't want other
subpages. If we make it look and talk like a duck, and call it a duck,
people will start creating a whole flock of other waterfowl.

I hope some of this helps.
-----It does.  And I think that it just needs to be more accessible.  
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org

-----And from Magnus:

I expanded the http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:PHP_script_FAQ
page a little. Please check if this is sufficient (for the questions
asked, of course). Feel free to write a manual (or something) in your
own words, based on your experiences and this page. If you do so, it
would be nice to put it into the wikipedia namespace. To do this, just
call it [[wikipedia:My little manual]] instead of [[My little manual]]
;)

----Read what you've written, and I think it still needs to be less
techie.  What if I just wrote out a bunch of text (a user translation,
so to speak) and sent it to one of you guys/gals to proof, and then you
could create a "Changes to the System" or "New System features" special
page.  I say this because that way it would be really obvious.  The
problem is that, unless people know where to look, they don't know how
to search... ;-)  For example, PHP script FAQ assumes that users know
what PHP script is -- and that it has something to do with posting
articles.  I would also take what you and Vicki and Mark have explained
about namespaces, weed it a bit, and then NOT use the word namespace so
often.  Even if not accurate, I think there are probably non-tech words
that are more easily understood -- analogies can be our friends!

----Also, would it be possible to have a link on every page (at least
for now) to the Bug reports?  When I hit an error, it would be so much
nicer to be able to describe it immediately, rather than finding
"utilities", "bugs", go back and forth several times to make sure I
documented everything... Or maybe just put a "utilities" link on
everypage (or in the side bar.

Or add more questions to the FAQ page; we'll try to answer them as
customer as we can...

----Actually, I think it would be good to duplicate the info in several
places...people approach things in different ways.  There are still
people who don't know what FAQs are!

Thanks to all of you guys (in the both-genders-inclusive sense) for your
help!!

Julie

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com