Jump to content

User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some comments

[edit]
  • This sentence needs rewriting to avoid name repetition :
New editors and Wikipedia have what seems like a problem - editors and Wikipedia want to work together, but Wikipedia's rules and standards usually look complex to new editors.
Now "Editors and Wikipedia want to work together, but Wikipedia's rules and standards usually look complex to new editors." --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolves the issue.AshLin (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please rewrite this section. It is very difficult for a newbie to understand. Could use simpler language, clarification and expansion.
Editors often need copy or move text from one place to another. Cut, copy, and paste facilities are almost essential, but some are not available in most situations in web browsers. Most operating systems avoid this limitation by providing their own cut, copy, and paste, which do all the real work and can manipulation the information used in the browser. Even this version of cut and paste work only in boxes - for example text boxes or combo boxes. But the operation system's copy can also copy from other sources such as fully-layout text, for example in this section, and the editor can paste the text into the edit box.
Had go, see what you think. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did some copy edits to take it still further. Modify/revert any of my edits as per your desire. It seemed simpler to do it on the essay rather than comment here. AshLin (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not understand the bolded sentence in the paragraph below. Please rewrite it for clarity.
"Verifiability" says that a statement for which a good source cannot be found can be undone by anyone. This may sound harsh, but is essential to enforcing the principle of "No original research". The definition of a good source is important in "Neutral point of view". "Verifiability" is usually abbreviated as WP:V.
I think it was a mistake to squeeze RS into V - the next paragraph says enough about RS. I think I've made it clearer. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. AshLin (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a general copy edit for the upper part of the article. More later. feel free to revert or correct any of my edits.

AshLin (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just seen this and will see what I can do. --Philcha (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we do much more copyediting, I'd like your comments on the style of wording. At present it's all "Editors should ...", etc., which is the way text is usually phrased on WP. But I'm inclined to use a less formal style, e.g. "You should ...", to put the reader at ease. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most important, do you think I've missed anything that the readers need? -Philcha (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a good copy edit before you rewrite. Some grammar and spelling corrections need to be out of the way before you rewrite. It will give you more time to ponder over what style you would like for your essay. Its a bit difficult to tell you immediately what you are missing out - one has to think laterally for that. Perhaps, another essay on "Wiki ettiquette for beginners" may be more useful than more on the skills aspect. AshLin (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we have different methods. I work in the sequence coverage, structure, content and finally copyedit - but will tweak a little as I do, e.g. to make the logic clearer. I also think that we to resolve "Editors should ...", etc., versus "You should ...", etc. before spending effort on copyediting. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present I think techniques and tools are useful than "Wiki ettiquette for beginners", as the techniques and tools will decrease frustration. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider it as an optional follow up, if you still feel like contributing further. AshLin (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've reinstated for now the "dangers" and "basic editing" in "New articles". Some editors will try to create new articles without working on existing ones first, and the essay assumes that readers can start with either existing or new articles. But if we said e.g. "work on existing articles first, to see articles and editing work, "dangers" and "basic editing" would be need only in "Existing articles". --Philcha (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be the essay writer's choice - your choice. AshLin (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes

[edit]

Small suggestions

[edit]

Hello Philcha, I will comment here so as not to clutter User talk:JimmyButler. The article is very helpful, however I have noticed some fairly minuscule things:

  • The first section seems to jump right into the meat of the issue without addressing some things. In my mind, it may be more helpful to start of by explaining the purpose/goals of wikipedia.
    It's a good idea :-) I've added a section at the top. It's very short as I want it (and the whole essay) to be simple and practical. How to you think? --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in the "Building citations" section, you could provide a link to this fairly helpful page.
    Last time I looked at one of the toolserver citation tools it didn't produce markup to paste into the article, and I found it more convenient to use refTools. But I see magnus's tool (now) does that. I'd prefer to show new editors just one tool. As you've had experience with magnus's citation builder, what do you think of the 2 approaches. --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made me think of something else - I've been assuming that new editors should register, which is required for refTools. But if we recommend another tool, it may be useful for non-registered editors. --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How many more assumptions have I made!? You're doing a great job! --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in this section, it would be helpful to explain the difference between the different types of source (i.e. journal, newspaper, website...).
    "Updating existing articles" has an introduction to this. I agree that we need the full list, and suggest a good place would be where we describe the citation builder. For now I'd added a placeholder. --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, how to manipulate references (ref id's and specific page numbers for one book/article, things like that).
    Ref names are in "Building citations". I think page numbers of a book will be in the list of required inputs, when done. --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to devote a separate section to vandalism (since, at least in my experiences, new editors are a bit confused on how vandalism is monitored). If this cannot be included, the link to the wiki-article is okay.
    Ouch! I'd like to recommend that new editors don't revert as this is dangerous ground. I need to ask a friend admin about what I should recommend. --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my ambiguity, I meant educating new users on what they should do to avoid vandalism that they may or may not be guilty of. It seems self explanitory, but I remember having some of my first edits reverted due to supposed vandalism without being sure why (maybe that was just me). --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you remember why someone thought some of your edits were vandalism. --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was some time ago, but I remember changing some minor wording in an article that I guess was a little over my head in the first place (I didn't purposely change anything to be funny or whatever, I was just trying to help), but regardless, my edits were reverted.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think edit history may be another fuzzy area to new contributors. I would explain how it is possible to monitor the edit history of articles (including the whole "compare selected revisions" tool).
    Help:Watching pages is too thorough! I'll have to think of something - what? --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beside these things and what you already have mentioned, wikipedia is a fairly easy place to get used to!
!!!!!! --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to answer your previous question, I would leave it in third person (seems more professional).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted

[edit]

Hi, SunCreator, I'm grateful you've taken an interest. But at present I'm work on principle (?) that it's seen from the viewpoint of the new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. --Philcha (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, edit as you wish. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edits

[edit]

Hello Philca, I went through about the first half of the page. I focused on grammatical flow and changing second person pronouns to third person ones. Revert anything you feel takes away from the page. I will read through the rest later today or tomorrow.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start this discussion but you got here first!
Although I reverted, I'll go through the diff and restore specific points.
My main issue about your edits of last night (I'm a Brit, and had just gone to bed) is tone:
  • The more I see, the more I prefer an informal tone.
  • Your change from "some simple techniques can make editors' work much easier" to "Some basic techniques can make editors' work much easier" raised my concerns. "some simple techniques ..." is just what it says. IMO "Some basic techniques ..." has a rather schoolmaster tone, as if to say "you have a lot to learn (and you'll need to listen to me for long time)". OK, I'm caricaturing, but IMO lecturing is wrong. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought the change from " It must be provided by a reliable publication, in other words which must have a good reputation in this field and must be independent of the author" to "Information has to be provided by a reliable publication which has a good reputation in this field. The source also must be independent of the author" was actually wrong. IMO "must have a good reputation in this field and must be independent of the author" is the definition of a reliable publication, while "a reliable publication which has a good reputation in this field. The source also must be independent of the author" assumes that "reliable publication" is already defined (where?) and "which has a good reputation in this field. The source also must be independent of the author" are just notes (why?) on the assumed definition. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'll go through the diff of your changes and restore some points. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff of changes I've restored, in some cases copyedited as well. --Philcha (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those restorations were fine (I was more concerned with fixing grammar as opposed to altering content). But why, for instance, do the sections Updating existing articles and Creating new articles have the same two closing lines? --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present, because I can imagining that some new editors only want to improve existing articles while some others only want to create new articles. If there were 5 common items, I might put them in a separate section, with links in the existing and new articles sections. It might best to review this when we think the rest is stable - and you've suggested several improvements :-) --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

Hello, and thankyou for your message and link to your essay. It was an interesting read, and I thought I'd make a few suggestions / queries, although I fully understand that it is still under construction;

  • The article could do with more internal links, especially in the first half & introduction,
  • In similar fashion to the message you sent me, the grammar and sentence structure remains rather inaccurate, and could do with some fixing up,
  • When it comes to talking about removal of content, you say because it is seriously wrong. If this was published in the main Wikipedia space, intelligent vandals / page blankers would use this as an excuse to verify their actions, because, in their opinion the deleted text would be incorrect (even though that is nonsense on their part). (I hope you see what I mean?) I would therefore suggest encouraging starting a discussion on the article's talkpage / or the relevant WikiProject before deleting, or, at least replacing seriously wrong with blatant nonsense. Or, if not, delete but include a full description of their reason in the edit summary.
  • One of the main reasons why new editors are put off from reading essays on Wikipedia, is because they are lengthy. This article is also growing to a rather lengthy size, making it not too different from current essays. It is an instant offput when they see a small scroll bar at the right hand side of the screen. If you really want to make a proper difference, why not use short, easy to understand sentences that are to the point. I see you regular include links to other essays, so how about a bullet-pointed structure like this;
[Statement] + [Link] + [quick explanatory sentence]

So instead of;

"Neutral point of view" requires that you must present in a disinterested tone all majority views and significant minority views , and in rough proportion to how much they are represented in good sources. "Neutral point of view" is usually abbreviated as WP:NPOV

you could have;

"Neutral point of view", (WP:NPOV) - present information in a neutral, disinterested manner, with no viewpoints.

That maybe more appealing to the new users. Just some ideas. I don't mind if you disagree, and if you which to clarify or discuss further, I'll be more than happy. But some good work going on here. All the best, Orphan Wiki 09:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orphan Wiki.
Jolly good. :) I'll put the page on my watchlist, and if ever I have more than my usual amount of time... I'll see if I can make further suggestions / assist in any way. Orphan Wiki 09:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more suggestions

[edit]

I have a little free time now, decided to give your essay another read through (it's looking really good):

  • "You can improve an existing article in several ways, including: Spelling and/or grammar."--Should it be explained here that, in many circles, this is called copy-editing?
  • "'Verifiability' says that a statement for which a good source cannot be found can be undone by anyone."--This sentence needs rewording...I think I know what it's trying to communicate, but it's a little difficult to follow. Perhaps: "'Verifiability' dictates that when a reliable source cannot be found for a statement, it must be removed."
  • "So "Significant and distinctive" depends on how much is supported."--Is Significant capitalized here for a reason?
  • "In the worst case, that could remove all the text, and the article may be deleted in minutes."--Awkward wording
  • "That means the [...]"--Unclear what that...means...
  • For storing potential citations, how about a drop down menu on the talk page, like here?
  • "summarises"--is this word spelled with a "z," or is that an American English thing?
  • In the first full paragraph of "basic edit facilities," I don't think "cut, copy, and paste" needs to be linked twice.
  • Under "User sub-pages," should "User" be capitalized throughout?
  • "This form must have: / immediately before >, otherwise an error message will show; and must have no details of the source and no final </ref>, otherwise there will be less severe but visible errors."--not sure how the info after the semicolon connects to the rest of the sentence.
  • "The makeref can format a wide range of citations: books; articles in academic, business and other fields; Web pages; news reports; press releases; encyclopedias; and maps."--I think I changed this from what it originally was, but the punctuation is weird.
  • " You may be able to offer incentives including: knowledge or experience in some fields, but remember WP:V, etc.; access to sources that are hard to find, especially if they can be shared, but without breaking WP:COPYVIO."--hard to follow this sentence as well.
Nice work Philcha, I like the second person P.O.V. and the loose feel of the essay. It's informative but not constricting. I'm open for discussion on any of my comments (also, I've taken care of some typos on my own, if you see anything I did that took away from your essay, revert it).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treat this essay as a candidate for GA

[edit]

I've wrote this as things came to me, and I think should now think about coverage and structure.

Gaps to be added in coverage:

The relationships new editors develop with others is a big part of the Wikipedia experience. However, I think its more of a situational thing that can't really be summarized in just a few paragraphs. Perhaps all that is needed is several sentences on decorum and such (?).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NYMFan69-86. Would you like to draft some sentences on decorum? I confess I'm not the most decorous editor on the block, and a terrible example to newcomers. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a lapse in your decorum thus far! I'll be glad to help. Perhaps before the sentences are developed, we could make a list of things/situations new editors need to be careful of (feel free to add):
  • Reverting and how to handle the situation (from both sides) properly.
  • Collaboration during article expansion.
  • Talk page etiquette (talk page of article and user pages).
  • Proper response time for comments.
Once it's felt that the list is complete (I need help with the list because I don't think I've experienced even half of the possible situations that are out there), we can work on sentence structure and such.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the things on the list so far, how's something like this (perhaps under a section or subsection called Relations with other editors)?
The relationships you develop with other editors will be an integral part of your Wikipedia experience. Remember that their is no ownership on Wikipedia and that people are not payed to edit articles. Therefore, you should feel free to approach other editors with Wikipedia-related questions or issues. When directing a comment at a user, always do so on their talk page: a place where discussions and, if needed, arguments are started/held. When conversing with another user, always assume good faith and respond to their comments in a timely manner (within several days). On Wikipedia, editors will talk about various things on talk pages: past, present, and future work on articles, arguments about articles, and involvement in Wikiprojects among other things, including reverting of edits.
It's fairly rough and it seems like more should be added. The things in bold could probably be Wikilinked.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ideas coming.
How to prevent the new editors from being doormats? --Philcha (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps involvement in a project...or maybe the forming of a partnership with another editor on a particular article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My own experience is that WP Projects are a very mixed bag. If the newcomer finds the type of parter, that could be good experience. I'd expect in most cases the partner would be experience, but might find help with checking use of citations, prose, etc. I'll soon have to update the essay. --Philcha (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The edit history of the Bog turtle will show that Malleus was a very valuable partner of mine!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist Wikipedia heading for bust

[edit]

New Scientist's After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...it is sad that the number of edits and active editors have declined over the last few years, but, from a scientific standpoint, maybe the weak editors have been weeded out by wikipedial selection!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the vandals and Randy in Boises can wasted good editors' time very easily.
IMO the other side of the equation, growing new good editors, is a number games - as in competitive sports, if you want the stars, you need to start with the grass roots, and accept that most of those level will drop out eventually. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, out of the large number of editors, only a small percentage have/will contribute continually. Also, perhaps the same small percentage will make positive contributions to articles in order to improve them. As for the drop-off in edit counts, I think that has more to do with the fact that once articles achieve an acceptable level of quality, they stop being worked on. Articles that were created and expanded upon during the early days of Wikipedia are largely dead now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most editors are either late to early twenties or at least fifties. The youngsters retire when career and/or family take priority. So even GAR and FAR have little effect on such articles.
I would expect a swing from intellectual to popular topics, as the new editors will be less ready to be lectured to, and will think "unencyclopedic" is just snobbery. --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true too, I neglected to even give age a thought. Nowadays, I expect the popular topics will be things such as music, video games, and television and not things like animals, biographies, and locations (cities and geographic landmarks etc.).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How newcomers enter through the door

[edit]

I'm thinking of going back to a strict "see what the newcomer sees". 2 editors, Waltham and Markdask said they found poor articles about which they knew a bit, and that got them into editing. --Philcha (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most common start may be by a search engine like Google or Yahoo.
  • The topic is whatever interests the newcomer, e.g.:
  • In all cases the newcomer starts as a IP user. The newcomer should register as soon as possible:|
    • An other user may use the same IP number (like phone number) while the newcomer is away, and the newcomer may be blamed for misbehaviour done by the other user.
    • The newcomer gets useful facilities, e.g. sub-pages where the newcomer can store citations and then include these in new articles in the same action, to avoid WP:N
    • Registered editors can create new articles while IP users can't.
    • {{Welcome}} welcomes the newcomer and gives some advice, although some of that is less practical than the advice given here, e.g. WP:MOS will not be priority for the newcomer.
    • Wikipedia:Your first article gives some advice, although some of that is less practical than the advice given here.
    • Wikipedia:How to edit a page includes a video that shows how to use WP's editing facilities. But the video is grossly optimistic about the quality of most articles - most are pretty poor - and some points in the video are out-of-date - you could make a game of how many you find.
    • Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages is important for newcomers.
    • Wikipedia:Editing policy is IMO clear, concise and right.
    • Relative addressing of sub-pages can be use for techniques only some newcomers know, e.g. how to get to and use the edit box. I'd make a table in the my main with the names and brief explanations.
      Inside a subpage hierarchy the following relative links can be used:
      • [[../]] links to the parent of the current subpage, e.g., on A/b it links to A, on A/b/c it links to A/b.
      • [[../../]] links to the grandparent of the current subpage, e.g., on A/b/c it links to A.
      • [[../s]] links to a sibling of the current subpage, e.g., on A/b, it links to A/s.
      • [[../../s]] links to an "uncle" of the current subpage, e.g., on A/b/c, it links to A/s.
      • [[/s]] links to a subpage, e.g. on A it is the same as [[A/s]]. Because of this, linking from a namespace where the subpage feature is enabled to a page in the main namespace with a name starting with "/", requires a workaround: put a colon before the pagename.
      • Linking to an anchor of an ancestor does not work; attempting that gives a link to a page with the name consisting of the name of the ancestor followed by "/".
      • Relative links still work if all pages of a tree are renamed according a name change of the root, including making it a child of a new root.
      • See also w:Wikipedia:Subpages, and the example pages m:Link/a/b and m:Help:Link/a/b. The subpage feature works in both namespaces.

--Philcha (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful to newusers if the three words anyone can edit on the Welcome banner were emphasised in some way to make it more visible on the page? It dont look much like a link as it is. MarkDask 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. But I still advise registration, to avoid the blame for misdeeds other users of the same IP address and to get use of the tools. --Philcha (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can't find the WP Drawing Board!! When I do, will DAB it. --Philcha (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your beginners' guide

[edit]

Hi, as you suggested I read your guide for newbies and I like it. It's smooth and unintimidating. Good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Peppler (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

[edit]

Please don't make a big deal about anti-vandal work. We have had many many good content editors bit till they leave by a guy who joined two days ago and discovered TW yesterday --Guerillero | My Talk 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start but...

[edit]

How to deal with editors who are abusive, assholes, protected by a cabal, etc. GA/FA/FL, etc and how you get torpedoed by one person. How cabals protect vested editors who are dickheads and how to avoid them unless you want to try becoming a member of a cabal. POV warring. How no matter what you do, someone will bitch about it. Drama boards such as ANI, AN. And let's not forget dear ol' arbcom.PumpkinSky talk 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TINC applies. Let's set out a basic approach that avoids these problems. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HA. They're fact. Sticking one's head in the sand only makes it worse and sets newbies up for failure. No wonder wiki is dysfunctional and users, esp newbies, leave in droves. PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta agree with this. Clue newbies in at the beginning, rather than let them fall into the ugly traps that lurk everywhere. The cabal members that are allowed sockpuppets, despite the "policies". The cabal members who are allowed to engage in personal attacks with impunity, and rush to each others' defense, and warn newbies not to make good faith comments in various forums and talk pages. Make sure they understand that equality does not prevail. Tell them how easy it is to be banned for trivial reasons. Warn them not to copy the behavior of the editors that have been around awhile as they are very poor models and the newbie may get the idea that they can comment equally. Rare is the new editor who will "get it" and be able to protect themselves. And so-called "mentors" are the clueless of all, the least helpful and the most gulible. Give the newbies the true picture if you want them to be able to survive! Be clear that being a good editor or article creator is not the essence of survival here but rather knowing how to play the game. Manny may (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here Here! Wiki probably started with the noblest of intentions, but it's become a reflection of the real world, lots of good people overshadowed by the power hungry, mean, and unscrupulous. PumpkinSky talk 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts

[edit]

The intro seems rather third personish, how about..

Hello, and welcome! You've come to the right place to improve Wikipedia, or WP for short, the encyclopedia created entirely by the public. You can contribute by editing any page, and so become a Wikipedia "editor".[1] The main pages on Wikipedia are the "articles", giving the public information on topics. When editing these pages, use the "talk pages" to reach agreement on improvements, and set out your proposals. There are also other types of work in Wikipedia, which you may prefer once you find out more. The Wikipedia community has agreed numerous rules and standards which can look complex at first, but simple basics of the "five pillars" will get you a long way. In most situations the rules and standards can be applied in simple ways, some simple techniques can make your work much easier, and it's fairly easy to see where this approach is enough and to find help when needed.

Following on from that, it would be a good idea to start with an emphasis on WP:V: if you're making minor changes, make sure they accurately follow the cited source and don't distort the meaning. If adding or changing content, find a good source first and either discuss your proposal on the article talk page, giving details of the source, or use one of the convenient tools – always worth trying the Citation template generator before going on to more complex tools! And so on... dave souza, talk 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link goes to Roadrunner - should it?

[edit]

Is this what you meant? Manny may (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

Per your message on my talk page, I took a look, and have to say that I'm not a huge fan. To me the lead seems preachy and almost condescending, and many of the sections contain information that is mainly your opinion. From what I understood your post on my talk page to say, you want this to become a community-accepted piece (you mentioned getting it linked from the main page), and so you're going to need for it to follow community guidelines and practices, without including your own opinion. Specifics:

  • Preparation section - I disagree with the majority of this section with regards to it being recommended prep for newbies:
  • "It's best to register immediately" - best for who? Many IPs contribute significantly to the encyclopedia, and they all have their own reasons for doing so anonymously.
  • "Use the Wikipedia:Sandbox" - AFAIK, I've never used the WP sandbox. I started by making small edits to articles and learned the formatting as I went, using the preview button and changing my entries until it worked right.
  • Subpages - I don't think it's a good idea to recommend that newbies create a bunch of (or even any) subpages for information that they may stumble across in the future. Plus, different users have different ways of doing this and subpages are just one of many methods I've run across.
  • Updating existing articles -
  • WP:NOR is not "the only defense against spam..." - WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, and a host of other members of the alphabet soup family also apply here.
  • "Every paragraph needs at least one citation," - errr, what policy is this in? While this is a good rule of thumb, there are many exceptions and, last I checked, this "rule" appeared in no official policies.
  • "The exceptions are so rare that you should avoid them." wrt SPS - don't tell newbies this, it'll just make them run to ANI the first time they see someone using a SPS going "but the newbie article linked off the main page said to avoid SPS completely and, and, and".
  • "It's best to store citations or even first drafts of new articles in a sub-page of your User page." - again, best for who? Different editors use different styles of creating articles, and so recommending one as "best" is just your opinion. I've met editors and FAC writers who prepare articles directly in article space, in user space, in Word documents and multiple combinations or the above and others.
  • Creating new articles -
  • "New articles face both the requirements for existing articles and a further requirement." - This makes it sound like existing articles don't need to meet notability guidelines...
  • "It's best to store citations or even first drafts of new articles in a sub-page of your User page." - Repetitive, plus my comments above.
  • User sub-pages - In general, I like the tone of this section better. It presents sub-pages as something a user may or can have, rather than something they should or need to have, as many of the previous sections do. One comment, "You may like to first create just one User sub-page, to be used as a Master Index, and create second-level sub-pages from links which you add in the Master Index." - perhaps add that many users use their main user page as this index.
  • Building citations -
  • "Typing all this by hand would be difficult even for most experienced editors." Really? I type all of my citations by hand, and I use the "cite web/book/whatever" family. I only need to look them up when I use a strange one, like "cite press release" or have a strange field that I'm using.
  • "When you've completed all the fields, " - NO! This prods newbies to look for/add information that is either non-existent or not needed. For example, while archive URLs are nice, they are not required, nor are reference IDs, author's Wikipedia pages, editors, etc. needed in many cases. Four authors, isbns, volume, etc., are not going to be found on every reference either, so no, don't have them complete "all" of the fields.
  • Watch what is going on -
  • "the next time you display another Wikipedia." is there a word missing here?

While I applaud your efforts at making things simple, in many cases you're simplifying it too much. WP is a complicated place, and if you present incorrect information it is worse than providing no information at all. I think that this needs significant work to be more fact and less opinion if it is going to become a community-accepted guideline and be linked from the main page. Again, your efforts are noted and appreciated, I just think that much of what is currently contained in this essay could be misleading to the new editor, and some of it is downright wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

feedback from Casliber

[edit]

Okay, I do like the idea of a page like this...but never got round to it myself. I'll try to visualise how I'd do one and compare....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, or WP for short, is an encyclopedia.. - I'd strike the WP. No-one really calls it that, it's just a typing shortcut and clutters the page.
agree with Dana's concern about sandbox or draft subpages. Often new users edit here and then cut and paste material into an article, rather than learning how to Move articles. Best is to keep to article space and use "preview" button.
actually I agree with many of Dana's points above.

I am wondering whether an introduction to content editing has been done elsewhere. Surely so...? One thing that drives me nuts is a myriad of essays on similar topics. I wish some would combine or something. I'll dig around....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Introduction 2 is a pretty succinct page linking to a number of useful content pages. Bit bare but a good start.

I nosed around in Essays but found it hard to find essays like this one. You might want to take a look. I guess I am wondering what you feel needs saying that is not adequately covered in the missing manual above, and maybe highlighting how you are going to improve upon it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ WP "editors" are not managers in publication and journalism, they actually produce the text.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors&oldid=1141439043"