User:Omegatron/Interviews with Normals
This is where I will post abridged versions of interviews with my non-Wikipedian friends, in which I try to gauge the site's usability and the way it is viewed by the outside world. I recommend that everyone else do the same.
It's easy to get entrenched in something and forget what it was like to be an outsider or newbie. But with a project like this, casual editors and passers-by are our lifeblood; the site should be tailored specifically to welcome and encourage these people, with as low barriers to entry as possible.
Chat with Emma Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Emma: i'm discovering the usefulness of wiki
Me: oh? how so?
Emma: they've got the entire koechel listing, and the movements for every piece mozart wrote. thank god. i've been searching for movement names for weeks. i'm stupid to not have thought of it sooner.
Me: :)
Emma: though, a lot of the other information they have is not entirely correct. Sigh. and whole sections without citations...which also happen to be the questionable sections.
Me: so point it out on the talk page. or fix it yourself
Emma: If i wasn't afraid of getting swept up in some sort of uproar i would
Me: just leave a note on the talk page like "this bit:... looks wrong". and others will figure it out.
Emma: you're a bad influence.
Me: i'm not even telling you to edit the article or get involved! just tell other people.
Emma: foot in the door! foot in the door!
Me: or edit the section and put {{accuracy}} at the top of it
Emma: I'll think about it. maybe when i'm not so busy...
Me: oh c'mon, it takes two seconds. just push "edit", type "{{accuracy}}", and press "save". why don't you want to? what are you afraid of? we need to reduce these barriers and figure out how to get normal people to press the damn edit button instead of just whining off-wiki.
Emma: I will, just not right now. I want to look at my books and make sure i'm right
Me: so it might not be wrong after all?
Emma: I'm positive i'm right
Me: then point it out. doesn't matter if you're wrong.
Emma: but before I start editing i want to be able to make some references
Me: it will get others to look at it. no one will know who did it. you don't need to edit the article directly. you just need to point out that it looks wrong to you. "someone please check it", etc.
Emma: there is already a notice on the page saying "if you can add citations please do"
Me: :)
Emma: except I can't. mostly because it's wrong. I could if i had solomon in front of me, but he's at home gathering dust.
Me: you can point it out without referencing anything. what do you think is wrong? you realize people edit these articles and add stuff like "joel is gay penis penis penis" every five minutes right?
Emma: why?
Me: high school vandals aren't afraid to edit it, but intelligent people are. we need to figure out how to reverse that.
Emma: because intelligent people know the value of a bibiography
Me: so? why are they afraid to make even the smallest change? when other people aren't afraid at all to fill the project up with garbage that we then have to clean up. you're just pointing out a potential error, and you're afraid to do even that.
Emma: because i'm afraid of being wrong. I want the security of my books behind me.
Me: if you just say "this looks suspicious to me", you can't be wrong.
Me: hmm... what if there were a button on the page, that said "if you think there is an error in this page, press this button". would you press it?
Emma: yes
Me: interesting
Emma: but that would lead to a form
Me: yeah probably. asking for a short sentence explaining what is wrong. would you do that? not attributed to you in any way?
Emma: i might
Me: hmmm... but you won't start a new section on the talk page because...
Emma: i'll want to come back and talk about it
Me: we WANT you to drop drive by criticisms though. there are probably 30 people watching that page who will jump all over it and try to fix the problem if there really is one
Emma: yes, but like you, i'm prone to getting caught up in intarnetz warfarez
Me: :)
Emma: and you know it.
Me: sure. i'm just trying to figure out how to get more people to add stuff. no need to get fully involved just to fix stuff or point out errors as they see them. notify us; not actually edit. there seems to be a very high barrier for some people.
Emma: the thing is, that people who are smart enough to see errors are usually the ones who are prone to getting involved
Me: not to mention the code is atrocious
Emma: code?
Me: the code you need to edit to change things
Emma: ooh. you like have to go into the html and shit?
Me: kind of. it started out really simple, but they keep adding more and more features, and yes, it has become very HTML-like. i think it's a very bad step, and we need more graphical web 2.0 type tools instead.
Emma: yeah. I mean, i know what to look for in html, but it's a pain in the ass
Me: how are people like my mother supposed to edit articles about quilting, for instance. HTML is a pain in the ass even to people who know it.
Emma: probably why i never bothered learning more than absolutely necessary for survival.
...
Conversation with Emma at Fri 15 Jun 2007 10:28:30 PM EDT
(11:04:15 PM) Emma: Oh, and as i promised, i'm going to the wiki article i was looking at to flag it
(11:04:50 PM) Me: :)
(11:08:04 PM) Emma: i told you i would
(11:08:12 PM) Me: what article
(11:10:08 PM) Emma: mozart requiem
(11:10:50 PM) Emma: whoever wrote the section on constanze hasn't read the latest books about her
(11:16:54 PM) Me: what did you write on the article?
(11:17:14 PM) Emma: i'm trying to figure out how to say something on the talk page
(11:17:27 PM) Emma: i'm too slow to comprehend
(11:17:32 PM) Me: tell me when you figure it out
(11:17:39 PM) Me: it needs to be made more obvious, then :)
(11:17:47 PM) Emma: I'm so exhausted
(11:18:01 PM) Emma: words mean nothing right now
(11:18:09 PM) Emma: it's hardly wiki's fault
(11:18:35 PM) Me: sure it is
(11:18:45 PM) Me: on any other site it would say something obvious like "leave a comment"
(11:19:27 PM) Emma: oh so i'm not being stupid
(11:19:33 PM) Emma: it really doesn't exist
(11:19:39 PM) Me: it's the tab with a plus sign on it at the top of the page
(11:19:50 PM) Emma: wtf?
(11:19:54 PM) Me: I could probably change that...
(11:20:01 PM) Me: "new comment"?
(11:20:10 PM) Emma: Yes
(11:20:16 PM) Emma: "Leave a Comment"
(11:20:21 PM) Me: if you hover over the tabs, it tells you what they are
(11:20:31 PM) Emma: not on my computer
(11:20:33 PM) Emma: old browser
(11:20:46 PM) Me: good point [I've seen the title tag argument used for short tabs before, but it's apparently not a good argument]
(11:20:54 PM) Me: "Leave a comment" is a good phrase
(11:22:30 PM) Me: on the talk page for the "edit this page" tab, people were arguing in favor of "edit" because it is shorter and will fit on their screen with lots of other tabs
(11:22:42 PM) Me: but c'mon, you don't make things so that they serve experienced administrators
(11:22:43 PM) Emma: Seriously!
(11:22:50 PM) Me: you make them so they serve complete newcomers
(11:23:05 PM) Emma: "Please check the information about constanze: I believe more research has been done since Opus Ultimum and "Constanze Mozart..." and therefore this information is no longer quite correct." good? or do i need to be smarter than that? meaner?
(11:23:14 PM) Me: perfect
(11:23:45 PM) Emma: good, i'm too tired to do anything even slightly more complicated
Chat with Joe Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Joe: Wikipedia really is pretty freaking rad
Me: it is
Joe: so thanks to Wikipedia's awesomeness, I am able to look up the definitions of things that I don't understand, while reading these books about circuits, so I am starting to understand.
Me: excellent. I probably wrote some of the stuff you are looking at.
Joe: probably. I am reading about circuit diagrams, "electrical circuits", "theory of electro-magnetism", "capacitor"
Me: have you seen any penises yet?
Joe: ... no ... why?
Me: are you aware of how the site works?
Joe: apparently not
Me: how do you think it works? don't read any help pages or anything; I'm interviewing people I know who don't edit the site, because I think we present ourselves in a bad way
Joe: I have no idea what you even mean by "works"
Me: how do people write it?
Joe: um... no idea
Me: :) are you aware that you can edit the pages? without logging in or anything, and your changes go live immediately?
Joe: no
Me: I think that it should be immediately obvious to newcomers that that is the way the site works
Joe: I thought that you had to be registered or something
Me: nope. see the edit tab at the top?
Joe: yup
Me: you can replace the entire page with "Joe is gay" if you want, or porn, or lies
Joe: um... wow
Me: :) the reason the site is so cool is that there are about ... 40000? ... people editing it, and when you replace the page with vulgar nonsense, someone will see it and change it back usually within a few minutes.
Joe: wow
Me: that's what "wiki" means. so at any point in time it can be vandalized or have errors. usually it's perfectly fine, but I think we give people a slightly bad false sense of security
Joe: I have noticed a lack of citations
Me: yeah, citations are good. sometimes they're needed, sometimes they're not.
Me: it's a wild and woolly place that usually has very good information
Joe: haha yes
Me: but you have to read it with a slight amount of skepticism, which a lot of people don't realize.
Me: it's better than the internet in general, but it's not perfect. (then again neither is anything else.)
Joe: i've noticed some stuff that is downright erroneous before, about things that I know. but of course stuff like this I have no idea.
Me: yeah, and so the idea is that you fix it right then and there by editing it. :) and that's why you aren't required to log in
Joe: nifty
Me: yup. so if you see an error in an article what should you do?
Joe: EDIT!
Me: or
Joe: PENISES
Me: haha
Joe: flag it
Me: yeah. you can also discuss it or flag it. can you figure out how to discuss things, children? I think our user interface is not very obvious to newcomers.
Joe: nope. so wait ... to make a new article, you have to create an account?
Me: oh, right. because it got to the point where 90% of new articles were about stuff that high school kids made up in school or whatever
[Examples from the deletion log]
Joe: so there is an actual quality control
Me: yep
Joe: who is responsible for that? members?
Me: all us damn volunteers
Joe: awesome
Me: it's an anarchy, self-policing etc
[Discussions of site's anarchy, bureaucracy, laws, etc.]
Joe: its pretty cool. i'm glad I have nothing to do with it and can still use it. thanks dude.
Me: :) well you can always leave notes on the discussion page if you see something wrong
Me: Now I want to see how easy it is for you to figure out how to do that. it should be trivial, but I dont think it is.
Joe: haha oh great, a comprehension test
Me: nah. it's the site's fault for being hard to figure out
Me: I want to interview a bunch of regular people and then use it as evidence to get them to change things
Joe: um ... ok
Joe: I see the discussion area
Me: yeah
Joe: but... edit?
Me: that works for editing the whole page
Me: how do you add a new section?
[...]
Me: or, well ... how do you start a new discussion, in general?
[... 1 minute ...]
Me: totally not obvious at all?
Joe: nope, I give up
Me: you press the "+" tab. hover over it and it will say "add a comment to this discussion" in the tooltip
Joe: haha ... oh, sure
Me: I think that's dumb as hell. that should be the biggest tab, since that's what most people want to do, and it should spell it out. "leave a comment" or something.
Joe: yes. just "comment" would be fine
Me: yeah. can you figure out how to respond to someone's comment?
[...]
Joe: ugh. I donno
Me: :) nevermind.
Conversation with Sarah [B.A. in English and American Literature] on Sat 14 Jul 2007:
(12:45:18 PM) Me: if you saw a problem with a Wikipedia article, what would you do?
(12:46:11 PM) Sarah: i'd keep my mouth shut and look at answers.com?
(12:46:56 PM) Me: well, if you wanted to do something about the problem, what would you do?
(12:48:01 PM) Sarah: i'd somehow alert the powers that be, cause i'd probably just make the problem worse. but i suppose someone else would go in and edit it?
(12:48:10 PM) Me: how would you alert them?
(12:48:26 PM) Me: (I'm seeing if regular people can figure out our site)
(12:50:57 PM) Sarah: i'd get lost at the formatting part
(12:51:14 PM) Me: what would you click on?
(12:52:24 PM) Sarah: i'd look for some kind of FAQ first
(12:54:07 PM) Me: let's say you were looking for information about elephants, reading http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Elephant
(12:54:36 PM) Me: and it said "the population of elephants has tripled in the past 10 years"
(12:54:38 PM) Sarah: yes
(12:54:43 PM) Me: which you, as an elephant researcher, know to be untrue
(12:54:56 PM) Me: can you figure out which things to click on to notify someone of that error?
(12:56:50 PM) Sarah: uh...i went to the discussion tab and then clicked on the "if you can improve it further *please do*" and then i'd learn how to edit it, but i don't know how to go back to the original page and actually do it
(12:57:22 PM) Me: I don't even know where it says that
(12:57:33 PM) Sarah: discussion tab
(12:57:34 PM) Sarah: "Good article Elephant has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review."
(12:57:39 PM) Sarah: then the please do is a link to "how to edit"
(12:57:41 PM) Me: ahh, excellent point [The text she was reading is inside a template; it's not part of every discussion page. Maybe it should be.]
(12:57:57 PM) Me: why did you click the discussion tab, by the way
(12:59:29 PM) Sarah: because thats where inconsistencies and disputes go?
(12:59:37 PM) Me: right
(12:59:43 PM) Sarah: but i see when you click that, a tab that gives you the option to edit appears
(12:59:48 PM) Me: yes
(01:00:00 PM) Me: what does that do?
(01:01:17 PM) Sarah: option to log in or not....this is where i'd give up..with the brackets and tildes and whatnot
(01:01:36 PM) Me: can you figure out how to start a new topic on that page?
(01:02:37 PM) Sarah: at the bottom of the box with all the previous discussion
(01:02:40 PM) Sarah: i don't know
(01:03:09 PM) Me: I'm going to give you a hint
(01:03:19 PM) Me: there's a tab that starts a new section
(01:03:25 PM) Sarah: the "+"
(01:03:31 PM) Me: yep [I've tried to change Mediawiki:addsection, but traditionalists prevail.]
(01:03:54 PM) Me: if you click that, is it less daunting than trying to edit the rest of the page all at once?
(01:04:35 PM) Sarah: of course
(01:05:19 PM) Me: if there were a link or tab on the main article view that said something like "report a problem with this page", and it presented you with the blank new section form, would you fill it out?
(01:06:50 PM) Sarah: yes, if it didn't involve a whole bunch of [[ and ~~~~ because i don't know how to do that. i couldn't even format a livejournal back in the day
(01:07:06 PM) Me: but you could put in a subject and a short comment and press save
(01:07:17 PM) Sarah: yep
(01:07:40 PM) Me: does the fact that it says "remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)." deter you?
(01:08:45 PM) Sarah: kind of, just because that indicates that there may be other guidelines that i don't know about
(01:08:50 PM) Me: ahh
(01:08:53 PM) Me: hmm
(01:09:07 PM) Me: we probably want to encourage people to leave comments first and worry about formatting and such later [remove the tilde reminder and use bots to tag unsigned posts, for instance, or add {{unsigned}} automatically in Mediawiki itself if the form is saved without tildes]
(01:10:05 PM) Me: can I publish an edited version of this conversation?
(01:10:14 PM) Sarah: sure