Mailing List Archive: Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing

Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing

Jul 25, 2009, 8:27 AM

Post #1 of 4 (644 views)

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

Re: Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing [ In reply to ]

h.schlottmann at gmx

Jul 25, 2009, 11:02 PM

Post #2 of 4 (605 views)

Permalink

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: Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing [ In reply to ]

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jul 26, 2009, 12:45 AM

Post #3 of 4 (610 views)

Permalink

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 <zvandijk@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: Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing [ In reply to ]

zvandijk at googlemail

Jul 26, 2009, 1:14 PM

Post #4 of 4 (605 views)

Permalink

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.meijssen@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 <zvandijk@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
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l