Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Ziko van Dijk wrote: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. That's exactly the idea behind the flagged versions. The advantage is, that it is on-wiki, and does not need a media shift. And it can be done by every acknowledged editor, not just OTRS-team members. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. Providing an e-mail address is already encouraged. We could improve the wording a bit, though. But demanding a CV by prospective editors is slightly over the top. Mentoring is nice if optional, but please consider, that we don't have the active user base to mentor each and every newbie, whether they want it or not. Wikipedia once was about writing articles. These days is is developing into a bureaucratic nightmare and I strongly believe your proposal would be another step in a completely wrong direction. Pretty much every proposal nowadays is about control. Control about content and control about people. This is understandable, because of the impact Wikipedia has on public perception and the possible dire consequences for say living people. And we should be proud of the quality Wikipedia has to offer and the working of our quality control. But we should also be proud about the open culture and we should continue to welcom contributions by everyone. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Hoi, What you describe is an additional hurdle to become an editor. This is something that a community can consider only when it has a certain maturity. To me it gives the impression of an elitist approach to being a Wikipedian. The only reason I see why such a hurdle might be considered beneficial is because it is prevents a certain amount of vandalism. In a Wikipedia where everyone can edit, it is the longtime contributors who are the elite. This is for instance seen in giving value to the year people joined the Wikipedia. Even this number is open to interpretation; the first year people can join the Western Mari Wikipedia is 2009.. And I am sure they welcome anyone who writes a proper stub. Proposals for a hurdle like this are welcome on the Foundation list, I find it fascinating that these things are seriously considered. These proposals are targeted to particular Wikipedias. It helps when it is made clear what Wikipedias they are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/25 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or wisdom of the masses or swarm intelligence, that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that anyone can edit. In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of resistance, as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of everyone can edit. My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for instant collaborators (IP users) to contribute (by reporting). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Thank's Henning and Gerard for pointing out where my concept was insufficiently explained. I don't think about asking newbies to turn in a CV, but to bring them from the beginning into a senseful contact with more experienced users. And from my experience at de.wp I don't believe that there would be a lack of users who would like to accompany newbies, in our mentoring programme we are rather in a lack of (serious) mentees. And as I said, I do not believe that the current Wikipedia is open. What if someone wants to improve something in an article? Even for using the talk page he has to learn a little bit of Wikisyntax. Maybe you have forgotten, but the majority of all people (even of all internet users) hate computer language, hate formulas, hate mathematics. The biggest hurdle for newbies is Wikisyntax, the scaring look of a text editor window which starts with an infobox. It reminds me of the difference between old fashion Word Perfect and modern Word. Second hurdle: our rules and regularities. Of course, they make sense, but a newbie has a lot to learn if he does not want to have most of his edits reverted. We talk people in to go swimming in the deep water, but we don't provide them with the proper equipment or training. Why not introduce at least a lifeguard? Kind regards Ziko P.S.: That text David Gerard mentioned is really interesting and totally to the point. How much work is it, for a non programmer, to change a typo in a Wikipedia article? 2009/7/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, What you describe is an additional hurdle to become an editor. This is something that a community can consider only when it has a certain maturity. To me it gives the impression of an elitist approach to being a Wikipedian. The only reason I see why such a hurdle might be considered beneficial is because it is prevents a certain amount of vandalism. In a Wikipedia where everyone can edit, it is the longtime contributors who are the elite. This is for instance seen in giving value to the year people joined the Wikipedia. Even this number is open to interpretation; the first year people can join the Western Mari Wikipedia is 2009.. And I am sure they welcome anyone who writes a proper stub. Proposals for a hurdle like this are welcome on the Foundation list, I find it fascinating that these things are seriously considered. These proposals are targeted to particular Wikipedias. It helps when it is made clear what Wikipedias they are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/25 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or wisdom of the masses or swarm intelligence, that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that anyone can edit. In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of resistance, as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of everyone can edit. My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for instant collaborators (IP users) to contribute (by reporting). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing
[Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or wisdom of the masses or swarm intelligence, that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that anyone can edit. In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of resistance, as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of everyone can edit. My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for instant collaborators (IP users) to contribute (by reporting). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
