Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pagesTalk:New Editor Engagement
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Keep It Simple, Make It Simpler | 0 | 16:33, 22 April 2012 |
| bridging communities | 0 | 00:17, 5 April 2012 |
| EASY way to add new DISAMBIGUATION PAGES | 1 | 23:32, 13 February 2012 |
More? My 'Welcome' to Wikipedia included 65 links, starting with a nine page tutorial to get me started. After reading it and visiting a few of the links, I felt intimidated rather than welcomed. I searched for a mentor with similar interests. The page was hopelessly out-of-date but I found a source of simple self-help. A Wikipedian, Pluma, created homework for adoptees including some fun stuff. In one long evening I learned how to help fight vandalism and patrol new pages as well as basic editing. I felt prepared to contribute to Wikipedia; I think that I have done so.
Looking at the New Editor Engagement page, I worry that too much effort may be spent on adding more. In my opinion, simplifying things for new editor's will help more than adding to an often confusing and intimidating collection of links to tutorials, rules and guidelines. Doctree (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (who appreciated the new 'Global profile' feature)
Guys,
OCLC are looking for a wikipedian in residence.This might be a good place to start in trying to bridge between Wikieditors and communities/disiciplinary groups who use wikipedia as a promotional device.
As "Ideally, the Wikipedian in Residence will work as a community coordinator and strengthen the relationship between OCLC, library stakeholders, and the Wikipedia community" this is the one activity - New editor engagement - which might help provide a common focus. i.e. while the aim for WP will be to engage and retain "new editors", the rest of the world, which is trying to coalesce around disciplinary groups, wants to lead readers from their general search towards a community who can engage them in more datailed inquiry. At the same time there is anticipation by the "average" internet user that (cool) communities will use tools which are far more advanced, and easier to use, than IRC.
My point of focus is around these research networks, where they look to provide the infrastructure (for global disciplinaty groups) and take little interest in "the content". At the moment they are investigating which services they should be providing to their users. Wikipedia, to me, seems like the first one.
Here is my ONE suggestion, Sumanah: A way to create a new disambiguation page by a simple copy-and-paste (i.e., two steps or less).
In the early days of Wikipedia, there was an intrinsic inclusiveness that arose from the transparency and simplicity of process, AND the elegance and excellence of its content. It was a high-performance system.
Technologists need to serve users, not the other way around.
Warmly, Ryn Miake-Lye ryn AT sciencedriven DOT net
Thanks for this great suggestion :). We're always looking at ways to improve the wiki, and make it easier for outsiders to use. I don't think we've targeted anything specifically at disambiguation pages - we have a very small staff, and from a software point of view, disambig pages are pretty much the same as any other page - but we are developing tools to make editing overall much easier, which should (indirectly) help with disambig pages. Have you seen things like the Visual Editor?
