Different people have different favoured learning styles. Some will copy
others, some will ask others, and some actually go and read the instructions.
Presumably some pay attention to lectures.
In order to make Wikipedia open to all goodfaith editors it is helpful to
support all learning
Dear Aaron,
The policy is already that the introduction should be suitable for a lay
reader, but you are correct in that many articles don’t follow the manual of
style as they lack introductions that are in clear, jargon free English. What
would be useful from the research community is some
I am more active in categorisation on Commons than on Wikipedia, and there is a
difference there as images in a very fine grained category may be the specific
images that one sees if they click on the commons category link in a Wikipedia
article.
But on both I see allocating more specific
Thanks for the link, that was an interesting piece of research.
I’m glad, though not surprised to see that among the regulars women are more
likely to become admins than men. I would like to count that as evidence that
the core community is not consciously sexist, though it may also be proof of
Thanks Pine,
In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing is
our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy with
Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to propose tests.
I am open to being proved wrong if someone
Vandalism used to be dealt with entirely manually, then it became semi
automated with tools like huggle, nowadays much of it is rejected by the edit
filters without the vandals managing to save an edit. So while it is still a
problem, it is much less of a problem than it used to be. Far less
Hi, the second most obvious factor is going to be the availability of internet
access, but also the type of internet access, and how long people have had
internet access.
The unproven assumption is that Wikipedia is written by people with internet
experience and leisure time access to the
I don't see a privacy issue in creating a listing of common/frequent search
terms. Obviously we don't need the data on who is making these searches, nor do
we need the "long tail" of things only searched for by a small number of
people. Aside from being clutter some of those search terms could
Pine,
NEWT is an acronym that has already been used on Wikipedia, and judging from
multiple references in this week's RFB, while that project was suspended
several years ago the acronym is not forgotten.
Jargon is confusing and a barrier to onboarding newbies at the best of times,
but jargon
I would be interested to see how much of the offence and how many of the
attacks are in Wikipedias known and usually obvious stress areas.
Wikipedia tries to neutrally cover every topic that would be considered
controversial in real life, and it also brings together people from diverse
parts
Hi Bowen,
If you are going to promote wikiprojects by recommendation then you need to
test different styles of recommendation. Taking what may still be the two
biggest wikiprojects, MILHIST and professional wrestling, what worked as an
invitation for either might be quite different than what
Dear Amy,
That's an interesting topic, for your database you might want to just filter
your dataset for some outliers that start and close on the first of April
broadly construed (it is more than forty hours from when April Fools day starts
in New Zealand to when it ends in California).
I like to think that in time importance will win out over popularity. If
Wikipedia still exists in fifty of five hundred years time and we are still
using pasteurisation and indeed still eating hydrocarbon based foods, then I
suspect the pop group you mention will be less frequently read about
Some of these things are more difficult to test than others, and indeed some
are easier to resolve than others. I'm pretty sure that we lose a lot of new
editors due to edit conflicts. I suspect we can define the people who become
active editors as being the people who learn how to resolve edit
I'm not convinced that the first three of those tell you much about the health
of a wikiproject. For example when I first reviewed the word staring I
replaced most of them in Bollywood related articles with "starring", or I felt
jaundiced "appearing". That would have boosted the first two
15 matches
Mail list logo
