Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I really hate to sound like an idiot, but

...I have no idea what IRC is, or how to use, or even if I can use it on my computer, and the fact that its being used here of all places is a little unsettling if only because those of us who are technically incompetent (like me) have A) no way of participating in the discussion(s) and B) no way of finding out what was discussed [to my knowledge]. If it works for everyone then by all means use it, but please endeavor to make at least a copy of whatever was discussed available so the rest of us can keep up. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually used IRC yet myself, but it seems as though it won't really require any more technical savvy than being a regular Wikipedia editor does. JAlexander provided links in his email that give instructions on how to use IRC and to access the channel we'll use. You can even just access it through your web browser (Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc.), so there's really no question about whether your computer can do it. I think if you give it a shot, you probably won't have any problems. With that said, I also have no doubt that anything of importance that comes out of the discussions will be shared with everyone involved in the project. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I just tried it and all you have to do is follow this link, type in whatever nickname you want, type in the captcha and you're there. That's really the whole thing. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, had the wrong link typed in at first. It's fixed now. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Aye, the link can make it much easier for you but I will actually just post the full transcipt too. Benefit of logs :) Jalexander--WMF 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there an actual channel for Wikiguides as yet ? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There isn't, if we want to make one it's easy/fast to do. I held back because in general I like to let others join in (though we could always move to -office for meetings or other things). Would people like one? Jalexander--WMF 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Can there be temporary ones? I went looking for you earlier to see if you got my mail and had to trawl through several channels - didn't find you though lol. I don't even know what nickame you use Jfur, Jamesofur or Jalexander etc. on there though, or which channel come to think of it:¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent out my first batch

Got the email, posted on the Talk pages of my 10 people. One was an advert'er with "MLS" in the username who was trying to post a link to some Canadian real estate site, and two had a post history of nothing but posting Facebook links and getting them reverted, so will be interesting to see if those are salvageable. One posted a very large chunk of decently written, but unfootnoted and probably OR info on Music tourism, while another made some pretty informed edits on Keplerian physics. So pretty wide spread. Here's my welcome (and I put in little details like "see you're having trouble with your links to Facebook getting reverted", etc.):


Will let folks know how it comes out. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent mine out too. Thanks for the template. I used yours and the other two above based on my user's needs.--v/r - TP 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sent mine a couple hours ago. Haven't gotten replies yet, maybe some people don't check to often. I'll send a message via email if they don't respond. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It's great to see people stepping stepping onto things so quickly, it will be interesting to see how quickly responses start coming in. That looks like a very good template (especially as a start with the more specific details you talk about) Jalexander--WMF 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the untweaked base model of my emails, which I'm about halfway through sending out:


Then I'm trailing that with a talk page note something like this -- three links to basic stuff, plus usually another with a note based on what they've had issues with already. So far, that's been WP:PIC and WP:ELNO. It's been a bit disheartening to find half of the talk pages are plastered with bossy warning templates already, when they've really not done anything too terribly wrong. This project is long overdue. Katherine (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I sent one email this morning to see if that worked out, and it did, I received a response from one of the users. I liked Katherine's template, will use a slightly modified version of that and will send my e-mails shortly. Diego Grez (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Just got my list. Only got to one editor (talk and email). Having a prob finding some. no time to chat....gotta run! :-)... Using MV's template with a little tweek to personalize. Good luck all!Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
First talk page contact complete. McBride's tracker was a big help. I had tried to find them myself and no luck except for one. Example of my post...
  • As part of the current WikiGuides trial program, I've been given a list of 10 new editors to contact and offer to assist. My user name is Buster7. I've been an editor here for almost 3 years. Wikipedia can be frustrating to start out with, and there are a ton of long policy documents, technical discussion, and such that can be alienating. That said, a lot of the basics aren't too bad, and a lot of the bumps are easier with someone to help you roll with them. Feel free to write me at any point with any question by hitting the "Talk" button in my signature and posting on my Talk page. Give me a shout if I can assist you over some of the early hurdles. I'll send you an email explaining the Guide project ASAP. In the meantime, Good luck! Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. If I noticed that they had done some editing, I started out with Congrats!
  2. I personalized the thread with their name (--Hello Macaroni--)
  3. I copy/pasted the first and didn't change the timestamp on the rest for speed. Will that be OK?
  4. I mentioned that I would be e-mailing ASAP which I will start soon.
  5. like Katherine, I also noticed that many had already been templated with very little cordiality (sp).
  6. I used a numbering system in the edit summary for my future reference to help me remember the evolution of the template that I was altering Buster Seven Talk 06:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from any of mine yet (had just posted on their Talk), so sent out emails today. In the subject line, though maybe this is over-defensive, I used Greetings from a Wikipedia Guide (real person). I just really don't want to be mistaken for a 'bot and ignored, so I'm trying to play up the personal aspect. As a lot of folks have noted, several of mine have a bunch of repeated 'bot warnings, in one case because the guy just tried to add the same Facebook link over and over, so I imagine that must have been frustrating. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help with deleted article

Somehow it already seems as though I'm in over my head. One of my first set of users has a message on their talk page about an article they created being deleted. The problem is that this article creation doesn't show up at all on their contributions page and I also have no idea how to view the content they tried to create the article with. I could really use some help. -- Fyrefly (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats part of deletion, when the article is deleted contributions to it are also erased. We need an article or user name if we are to help out further. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
They can ask for the content to be put in their user space. I think the link on the deletion notice will tell you about this... See WP:USERFY. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Aye, You can ask an admin to let you know what was there (or give you the text, like Ariconte said they can put it into the user space). If you let us know here I or one of the other admins in the project can look it up for you too :) Jalexander--WMF 20:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is Atma Mumbai. I'm still surprised that nothing at all remains in the contribs simply because it gets deleted. At any rate, I'll just give the user a more generic statement about the article deletion. Thanks all. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Atma is an NGO based in Mumbai, India. They create partnerships with educational NGOs that serve underprivileged children and young adults in the Mumbai area.

Atma uses a consultancy model to provide resources to other NGOs. They create 3-year intensive partnerships with selected educational NGOs to address their organizational gaps and enable them to increase the depth and range of their services.

Atma was founded as a trust in 2007. They have five current partners and three graduated partners.

Couple of suggestions

How about we start by reorganising these pages?

This one is getting pretty big!

Can we separate out to pages like:

  • New user experiences
  • Resources for New Users and Guides
  • Email welcomes
  • Progress

etc. and then link to those from the project page? We can always transclude them if there is a need.

The GOCE pages are pretty well organised for that sort of thing, especially the tabs usage and drop downs for progress on the drive pages, for example we could keep track of Guides, New users and contact made in a similar way.

Chaosdruid

AW = already welcomed
W TP = welcomed using my template
m = email
m2 = email2
corr = correspondence started
nr = no reply
c = corporate/coi
v = vandal i1 = one issue editor
nr = states not returning
P/C/D= Page created was deleted

To edit the page : Click here

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! I was thinking of something along the lines of the tabs as well (we used them for the fundraiser too. I like them) I'll probably get something up soon but if people start first and/or adjust what I do all the better :) This one is WAYY to long now ;) Jalexander--WMF 00:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the Wikipedians new user experiences (to here), put a section on the main page to link through (here), added a link at the top of this page, and put some teasers on the main page to try and attract people through to it.
I will leave it at that for now while we discuss tabs etc.
I really think we should have a little consensus gathering on tabs, colours and uses. Should we assemble some links to examples so that people can see what choices we are talking about ?
I use tabs in a very simple fashion on my talk page User:Chaosdruid
The GOCE pages, here, are more comprehensive and involve sub-tabs, such as when clicking on "Drives" (6th tab from left, 4th from right) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi all

Just a little tester to see how people feel about having it there, I have added an infobox. Colours chosen were just sort of random blue theme, as the picture was blue. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Buster Seven Talk 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I like it :) We need to do some clean up here too, I like the suggestion above about tabs. Jalexander--WMF 06:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Any Replies from Users?

Is anyone getting any responses from the users we were assigned yet. I've emailed and put a link on the talk page and no response from those users yet. :-( ► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 01:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I had one email back, but nothing else yet... Chaosdruid (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I got one very prompt thank you note on my talk page. Hopefully the rest will respond ,or at least acknowledge, their welcomes.Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just one talk reply from the only editor that seems somewhat active.Buster Seven Talk 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
reply from my lone respondent:Buster Seven Talk
Hello Buster,I got inspired to contribute to Wikipedia for two reasons: (1) reading recently that there are not enough women contributing; (2) working on a project of Yiddish and Polish theater music in Poland between the wars (with Beth Holmgren, chair of the Slavics Department at Duke University), and realizing that some people who are described as 'very famous' in my Yiddish reference books do not exist at all in Wikipedia. It distressed me not to see them there.I don't know how many more of these I'll want to do but it's been fun to give it a shot. One question is: when I used one reference for much of the information, how do I show that? ref seems to imply the reference material proves one assertion, but I wouldn't want to be putting a bunch of footnotes all pointing to the same document.Thanks Jane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Peppler (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good Buster! I wouldn't be too worried if you guys haven't gotten a ton of responses yet. It's 1. been a relatively short amount of time and 2. there will be drop off, it's one of the reasons I "originally" was thinking of sticking you all with 50 or so at once ;). My guess is you'll get responses from a couple who aren't too interested in doing a whole lot more and then you'll get 1 or 2 who are interested in becoming much more frequent contributers (Jane seems like a great person to reach out too, obviously the Ref name question is a great start but if she's willing to ask now it means she will ask again :) ). Jalexander--WMF 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I got a single reply by email - and I quote "thank you". No extra contributions, but at least I feel good ;) WormTT 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have gotten a reply from one user who's first page was speedied. We have been emailing back and forth several times, actually. So far nothing from the others.--E♴ (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing back yet, but, as recently occurred to me, many of us probably have a warped sense of WP response times, being used to immediate reactions from experienced editors. I won't even begin to write mine off as "non responses" until at least a week goes by after I've both Talked and emailed them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy Request for New User

Hey, this specifically for admins: I would like to have a deleted article userfied to one of my guidee's userpage. The deleted page is: "10:22, 24 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Freddie Neese" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" The userpage is User:Soopaphilb. I would like to walk him through the sourcing process and look at notability issues. To page designers, we might need a "Guides Requests" page for this sort of thing (if there is already one, point me the way.) Or alternately, I guess I could talk to RHaworth. Thanky, The Interior (Talk) 04:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed it to you. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Philippe, I've userfied it to his page, so we'll see if he is still interested in working on it. The Interior (Talk) 05:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Keeping track

Throwing this out there in case anyone wants to borrow it -- here's my method of keeping track of my new users, and what contact there has been so far. By viewing the related changes for that page I can keep an eye on their talk pages, looking out for activity from them or other users. Seems to be doing the job so far. Katherine (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Using User:Katherine/WikiGuide first. Thanks for a great tool. The other looks confusing but I'll figure it out. Buster Seven Talk 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have set up a similar log at User:Fæ/Underworld/Wikiguide with a template that lists relevant user links and provides me with a pre-filled email template page to click on (based on Katherine's email suggestion).
Unfortunately out of the initial 10 random users only 5 were suitable to welcome, of the others one was already welcomed, one was an apparent problem user already welcomed and warned, two had blatant conflict of interest and one had their only contribution deleted due to the article being deleted (which I have no opinion about as I can't see it). Fæ (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think these tracking efforts may be too public.... If I was being 'mentored' I would not like it. I see the effort as between the guide and their assignees .... with the foundation looking over our shoulder collecting statistics as to weather it helps 'retain' new editors and make them productive. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't have a huge concern with these in general (obviously you wouldn't want to be posting email addresses or private emails etc) but from what I've seen I'm ok with. It's a good discussion to have though (we talk about users in far worse ways I think in some areas on wiki). One thought is that we could put the {{NOINDEX}} template on the page to hide it from google etc. I'm interested though on what others thing, I'm happy to support any decision you guys decide for on it (we could also do a google doc or something like that).
On a separate note though I'm interested in the users you skipped Fæ . I'm not totally sure I would agree with though I can see some of the thinking both from you and others. Both of the COI users probably do have a conflict but I'm not sure that is something that should be used as an automatic skip. We probably want to help them change their name (names that affiliate with the foundation can sometimes be a problem because it looks like a Role Account) but they both actually made good edits (removing vandalism and fixing some information). I've always been of the opinion that a Conflict of Interest is not in itself a problem it's trying to make sure that they don't whitewash the articles (or create articles that don't belong). That's of course always a concern (it is incredibly difficult to not be bias about your own group) but I've seen a lot of success stories where experienced users have helped them make better articles or provide better information especially releasing new images etc. as well as a couple users who even turned into active Wikipedians in other areas. At the very least they could help us improve a notable article.
For the users who had already been welcomed I'd say still reach out! :) Just because they've received a talk page welcome (especially templated) doesn't mean they've 'really' been welcomed that's one of the reasons I think emails can be really nice. Unless they log in again they may not even realize they've gotten a talk page welcome and if they did it doesn't mean someone is following to try and answer questions. Jalexander--WMF 06:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Brainstorming only. I agree that "worthyness" is not a judgement call that we guides should make. We should not exclude any of the 10...(soon to be 50). Business, COI, vandal, welcomed/warned, graffitti artist, silly 10 year old, senile old geezer. Say "Hello" to them all. How can WE know what's really happening at the talkpage that we are at. Who's to judge what the potential is...or...who will see our welcome...or...what result a positive and out-reaching hello might create to shift what might otherwise be a negative path.. Im sure we all agree that The Wiki Guide Project is about personal contact and communication and building Community not about judging who is worthy. Just my 2 cents. Buster Seven Talk 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been logging all my guide infomation and communications into a huge Word document, the format I have seems to be working. It does not contain any email addresses or anything that needs to be hidden, so if anyone would like to see it I would be fine with passing it around, before it is finished. Also, Jalexander, is there a way I could get another batch or two, before the end of the week? Thus far, I've had a 90% drop off rate and have pleanty of time to welcome some more people. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 03:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
At least for this week I think I'm going to want to do one batch (need to get a better system) BUT I'll shoot you an email. I just had 2 users who are specifically looking to find guides specifically and since you offered :) !! Jalexander--WMF 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok! I'm wathcing my email=) Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors we encounter

What to do about editors we come across that want/need help?

For example I was using HG earlier and I found two editors, one that was needing assistance and one that specifically asked for it as I nominated their pages for deletion - one was non-notable advertising, but he really did mean well, the second was a "stub in extremis" which I told them they could add hang on to after they just deleted the AfD tags twice. The third one I encountered wasn't too bad so I did an extensive copy-edit and wikified it.

The fourth was telling me that the BLP about a teenage hacker should not be deleted or he wouldn't have a fair chance in life later on...The first two I would have given the project page to, the third also probably, but the fourth probably not!

Is the project fixed in number? can we extend ourselves? (I am not part of the mentoring programme) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to stop you from helping anyone you find who needs it! They can also be really interesting to see how the experience is. We probably don't want to include them in the general statistics since they weren't part of the random samples but I never think we should turn down someone who is interested in help. Jalexander--WMF 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I didn't want to end up sending people here for adoption if it was going to interfere with any stats, so we could perhaps put them on that adoptions page as long as we remind people not to put them in any stats collecting that you do.
I don't think there are any resources/sections that would affect that. I think I will start renaming the sub-tabs on the "requests" away from the stats labels they have now, and get someone to delete the old ones. Are you or Phillipe en-admins? If not I will just ask for deletions.
I have started to join IRC en-help as well - it is surprising how much one can learn. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely :) I have learnt at least as much, likely much more, then I've taught in that channel :) Jalexander--WMF 06:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

I created a userbox that users can add to their pages to show that they're part of the project: WP:Wiki Guides/Userbox! Feel free to improve it (especially the background color, it doesn't exactly match the image :p). As well, it adds you to the category Wikipedia Wiki Guides, just a convenient place to see users who identify themselves as Wiki Guides (not that there isn't already a place for that, but this is in addition to it). demize (t · c) 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

well, it's certainly going on my userboxpage! userpage (promoted!) good job! Chaosdruid (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have converted it away from a level userbox (these vary in colours by level, and we have yet to agree if wiki guides are appropriate for levels), made the box a more standard height and added some optional parameters so that users can recolour the scheme for their preference. Fæ (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"dedicate an average of four to six hours a week"

That sounds a lot. Way more than most Wikipedians would be able to spare, and way more than I have spent on mentoring people in the past. I have dealt with some problematic users in the past, whose behaviour demanded attention, and while considerable time would be occasionally spent in dealing with both the user and those who had problems with the user, only one person, who was under ArbCom sanctions, needed to have that amount of time (and more actually!) spent, but that wasn't every week - that was just during flare ups. I am keen on this project, but would not commit to it, if it is true that amount of time was needed. Could it be clarified what is involved, and why that amount of time would be needed. SilkTork *YES! 06:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

4 to 6 hours over the span of 7 days doesn't seem like that much to me.. It's less than an hour per day helping a newbie. Of course one needs to take into account how much time one spends overall in editing Wikipedia. -- Ϫ 08:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As OlEnglish said this is spread out so it can frequently not be as bad as it seems but I also think it may actually be less then that for many people. It really depends on the new users involved. The most time consuming part (at least as one chunk) is the initial out reach I would imagine (seeing what happened and emailing the new users). It would be nice to see what some of the current guides have found. Jalexander--WMF 09:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It took me about two hours to formulate an email and user talk page note... including time to post each. It will be faster with the next ten. There has been no reciprocal contact. But I spent about 2 hours improving one of their articles. So maybe 4 hours for the week. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally I havent spent nearly that much on the project. I've got 4 adoptees who take about 4 hours a week total, 9 mentees who take around 1-2h a week total and so far my guidees haven't engaged, so besides welcoming via email and talk pages (took about 30m) I'm sitting pretty. I'd expect guidees to be closer to adoptees if they do engage with the project, you get a batch of 10, expect to spend an hour a week on any that engage, but since they are allocated guides, not chosen to, I think few will actually engage to that level. WormTT 10:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My Wiki time is variable. Since becoming a house parent I am able to spend less time on Wiki than I was able to when I worked in an office. Both in terms of day time because I can only snatch moments here and there - I have to keep my main attention on my daughter, and in terms of the evening, because these days I am pretty exhausted come evening, and will often simply fall asleep in front of the TV. I tend to nip in and out, and not often can I managed sustained periods. It sounds like I won't be suitable, as I can only give attention to Wiki when I am able, rather than when Wiki demands. Is there a way I can help this project with casual and occasional assistance? SilkTork *YES! 14:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Report: 2 weeks, 10 users

Just writing to update. Of my initial tranche of 10 users, contacted 26 Feb and thereabouts, only one responded back. Then it turned out that his sole interest was making a page for himself made up to look like the bio of a WWF wrestler "so it can look like im famous". Had to convince him that wouldn't work, then expand that "no, your family or friends cannot write a bio for you to avoid COI." Trying again with the new tranche assigned 9 March. Do we have some system to update by specific iterations of this project, or just put it up here on Talk? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the best place to post stats. I've been keeping a log in a Word document, which I then emailed to James and Phillipe. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm using User:Katherine/WikiGuide's tool from up above here at #Keeping Track (see User:Buster7/WikiGuide. Seems efficient and easy to use...which reminds me to go back and check for activity by my first batch. (I also have only one semi-active editor). I have no idea how to use the spreadsheet that User:jalexander made available. Is anyone else having any luck with that? Buster Seven Talk 05:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm still using my little banner drop down (see gold bar above). Was the spreadsheet for us to edit or just for us to get info from? I use my own spreadsheet to keep local copies. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just been editing the empty columns in the spreadsheet for my updates. It seems simpler and that way and then anyone that wants to check up on it can see it without having to go to my user pages. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do note that the only guy who wrote me back from Tranche 1 replied via email. I posted on the Talks of 20-some of Tranche 2 yesterday, nothing back today, but when I re-contacted them all via email this afternoon one replied just an hour later. In my limited experience, emailing makes a difference, so I'll see if that bears out over time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with going the email route from my experiences as well. I actually chose to forego the talk page welcome and just use short welcome emails, which netted me 4 responses so far out of my group of 20. That's probably higher than average though. (Amusingly, I got an automated response from someone's work email that they were out of the office) -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me out?

I've got a potential new editor that just needs some quick introductions and a quick email about how to help. Is there anyone who can take it on?  :) I know that some of you already have a pre-constructed email for this... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Send me the info. The Interior (Talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Things that I have no idea how to fix (right now) but would love to do something about

1. Ease of editing. I don't want to learn html. Or wiki-language. Or confusing parameters and intimidating rules and regulations about this or that or reference upyours. I WANT TO EDIT. I WANT TO HELP. Easy. Fast. Quick. On my cellphone. When I have 3min on the subway ride to my gf's house. "This article should be a candidate for deletion" - one button, one click. "This article section needs clean-up ...badly" - one button, one click.

2. Ooooh that looks cool I think I'll go look up the reference and read about that. Yay. NAY. The reference is in some notation that I don't understand and is too hard to figure out and all I can tell is that it's someone's name and page numbers and WHAT - you want me to try to figure out what book that person wrote and where it is and how to access it? Forget it. I'll just go do something else. Gimme a quick easy link to where I can find that on the internet. For free. I don't pay for knowledge. My parents did and sucks to be them. References should be super easy to understand and always be hyperlinked by default.

3. Women and wikipedia. How about we (the male editors, about 85% strong) start by getting some bloody content for them? A) keep a running tally on the most common women's searches on the web. Now - B) make sure that the top ten of those always lead straight to a really good wikipedia entry. Don't care what. In the meantime the males here will no doubt keep generating pages that are "notable" for ...imaginary characters in Grand Theft Auto 14 - Mass Rape Effect. Yeah, okay. Whatever works for you. Granted, http://www.google.com/trends doesn't break down by what gender searched for what. But put 5 women in a room together and they can tell you what the stereotypical female searched for. Reinforce that stereotype might not be the best thing, but it'll pull in women. Think of it as a moral loss leader.

4. It's way too hard to find an easy way to communicate ideas and suggestions for improvements to other editors. There's no forum. There's no "Click here to see if your suggestion is already being voted/worked on."

5. [New user account enabled] [New screen] Hi and welcome to Wikipedia, this interactive screencast will take you through the basics of editing and click THIS BUTTON HERE and we'll take you through an interactive flowchart-type experience where we let you make your very first real edit! Then CLICK HERE to make your very first page from scratch!

Simply put, Wikipedia has a long long ways to go to become user-friendly. I'm a reasonably smart person. I have two degrees. I speak four languages. I'm a self-taught internet film-maker. I've been coming here for years and years and I have no clue how to do even basic things, because that information is hidden pretty well. There's not even a "Wiki: How do I..." search box in the basic layout. Wiki, why do you make it so hard for me to learn you? Pär Larsson (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the ideas. I don't know if all of them are something this Wiki Guides group can tackle, but they're helpful anyway. Steven Walling 02:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. In Special:Preferences, go to the Gadgets tab, and tick Friendly and Twinkle. Click Save at the bottom of the page. Now you have tools that can do almost all of this. We tend not to want newbies to go around tagging everything. But IMHO refTools should be enabled by default.
  2. See my essay involving this subject. If refTools were used by more people, more links would tend to get entered. But do note that some references simply aren't available online, or at least not for free. Have you seen what pops up when you do a Google News archives search lately? The large majority of articles about obscure things are pay-per-view.
-- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 03:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of these things. I don't totally agree with the woman issue. I have found that a lot of women, who have a passion for information, would be glad to help with editing. There are a lot of article here that are not just the male view. One way to help in this is to better choose the featured article. I mean as of today 4 of the last 5 FA are male orientated.

On that note, I would like to suggest a section of the editing pages for a toolbox for spellchecking. Those of us who are dyslexic or those who do not spell the language that they are editing very well would benefit. Big Roger (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummmmmm, am I allowed to comment? As a mere woman (lol! I'm grinning here!). Bear in mind you may have more female editors than you think. It's not unknown for females either to decline to provide information about gender, or to take on a pseudo-male persona. Partly because of fears about stalking, and partly because we (sadly, still) seem to get less condescension and more acceptance from the male community if we 'fit in' a bit better. There are loads of females out here with a passion for certain interests (no, not just 'feminine interests') who can start off playing with their pet subject and then move on, stretch out, and so on. Coming across comments that suggest that 'poor little females' may not be good at standard-Wikipedia and need special stuff just for them ........ I'm pretty tolerant, but yer 'average wumman' may possibly take offence! (And then possibly decide not to edit again ...) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
More than "allowed" to comment, you're encouraged... even begged to comment. And the point you raise is a good one, and I request that everyone stop and read the post by That (un)Pesky Commoner above, and attempt to see the world from that perspective. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought: why not bung up some TFA's about females who do adventuresome, unusual stuff? Showing that WikiHombres do appreciate that there are some feisty, go-get-em, super-high-achieving females around in skill areas and pursuits that men don't normally associate with women? It might make the females feel more appreciated and more likely to join in if they see that they're not always viewed as 'feminine interests - need special care' people. Nothing 'yer average wumman' likes better than an article pointing out that women can beat men at their own games, lol! ...... ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Featured articles are not chosen. Do you perhaps mean Today's featured articles? I think User:Raul654 (who is in charge of TFA) would be happy to use more female orientated articles, but is limited by the featured articles available. I like the spellcheck idea though. Yoenit (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the OP

  1. Twinkle solves this mostly. Still a more newbie friendly method of creating wiki syntax would be nice. Has anybody ever made a tool which can convert .doc files to proper wiki markup or something like that?
  2. Just no. Proper references to offline material (including ISBN or DOI) are fine. We are supposed to be the sum of human of knowledge and 90% of that is still located in books and academic journals. If some stereotype modern generation retards don't understand it we should educate them, not drop ourselfs down to their level.
  3. I think a wikiproject dedicated to this would be a good idea.
  4. Well, there is the wp:village pumps. For stuff relating to a single article use the talkpage. How would such a single button be supposed to work? Or a single forum for that matter, what would be allowed there?
  5. We have the tutorials, but a more systematic way of presenting them would be nice. This would tie into the welcome everyone proposal. Yoenit (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, not to be totally destructive, but for anything in life, you need to be willing to put at least some energy into it to learn it. The notion of quick-fast-easy can just as quick-fast-easily produce junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A Polite Request

Before the Wiki Guides focus gets fragmented in an infinite number of directions trying to fix all systemic issues with the wiki, could we try coming to a conclusion on our current set of RfCs, WP:CENT items, and Watchlist alerts? It's great to be helping newbies, but as a editor who's marginally involved (through NPP) I'm getting enough hooks to come to this project to begin to create annoyance. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussion with Sue Gardner, Exec. Director of the WMF

Hey everyone, we're going to focus on editor retention tomorrow during IRC office hours. It would be awesome if some folks interested the Wiki Guides project could be there (times etc. are on the linked Meta page). Steven Walling at work 22:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this Steven! Jalexander--WMF 23:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We have met the enemy and they is us

I'll submit as a fact for the record book that the ones causing the greatest hindrance to newcomers are none other than our selves. Our rules, policy and regulations have merged into a monstrous locomotive pulling a train of military-like disciplinary measures that make editing here less like community and more like boot camp. We do not even pretend to observe AGF anymore, and the once invoked IAR standards we used to experiment with things here have been relegated to the pages of years gone past. These days I wonder if people even try to work with others, with all the bots and templates we have to simplify the process of welcome others here and inform them that their first foray into Wikipedia has failed for whatever reason. I myself find it hard to remember the last time I actually wrote something personal from one experienced user to another.

So now that it has come to this, our site scratching its head trying to figure what went wrong and how to fix it, I'd make a few recommendations to start with and see if they result in a change.

  • First, we need start letting the isp editors create articles again. By allowing them to create articles we can help return the spirit of AGF to the site as a whole. Many people (myself included) hate having to register for anything online, regardless of whether or not the site in question is free. Returning the isp creation capability would help entice potoential users to experiment here. Before you all gang up on me against this suggestion let me point out that our filters, AVBs, and admins have increased in the years since the isp editors were determined to be expendable, and that IMO returning this group to the equation will help things in the long run, even if it does not appear to be helping.
  • Second, we need to totally redefine how we approach new articles written by new users. I submit that these articles should not be deleted on csd grounds (save for copyvio), but instead tagged to be moved to the creating user's userspace along with a simplified explanation of what is currently wrong with the article and how it can be fixed. Editors who have the chance to work on their material in a safe environment can learn as they go along what the articles will need to stay here.
  • Third, I think that we need to be much more liberal in our application of both AGF and IAR as it relates to the noobs. They are going to screw up, and it should be required of all those who arrive to correct a new user that they dispense with the templates which take away a personal level of involvement and leave a customized message explaining why the user in question is being docked.
  • Fourth, we need to make greater inroads into the community spirit here. I know that this isn't myspace or facebook, but we really need to have a greater sense of community here, which means more socializing, more friendly posts, more willingness to allow people to use the site as they see fit to use it even if that means forgoing a little of the encyclopedia element. In this sense then, if in no other, we should look to Esperanza for inspiration, for in the development of that organization came the only attempt by Wikipedia to celebrate the users that comprise our community.
  • Fifth, we need to rethink both the welcome bot idea(s) and the order of operations for talk page message posted by admins. I know that welcome bots are frowned on, but when consideration is given to the fact that most new users are not welcomed to the site with a proper message but rather a template informing them that their article is about to be deleted I feel that a bot leaving a welcoming message would help promote the 'welcome' side more than the 'we do not need your article, but thanks for the target practice' side. Additionally, it should be required of admins on csd patrol to leave a welcome message on an as-yet-to-be-created talk page, then add the csd template, rather than skipping the welcome template and leaving the deletion template.
  • Sixth, we need a new user project, or task force, or group, or something, if only so that those willing to work with the noobs and the noobs looking for help can have a place to go and know that they can get answers for their questions without being molested by those already in the know.

This, of course, is not an exhaustive list, its just a compilation of things I've taken notice of since I've been here and what I think we could do to help make this a more user friendly environment. By all means do feel free to start a discussion on the points or to add to the above if you feel I missed something. Apologies for any misspellings, grammar hiccups, or oddly worded sentences. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello TomStar, interesting thoughts. A couple of replies to your points:
1. Tend to disagree. I do a lot of helping on wp:rff, and to help newbies improve their articles you need a reliable way to contact them - the problem with IPs is you can't be sure the message is going to the right person. I think the one minute required to register is v small compared to time taken to create an article.
2. Yes yes yes. Established editors forget just how impossible it is for a newbie to create an article that meets our guidelines on the first try. And my gut feeling is that speedy deletion is so speedy that newbies don't have time to fix their mistakes - I'd really like to collect some data on this at some point.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@TomStar81, a lot of the previous studies and articles in the media raise the same issues and make the same suggestions. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Then why are we still discussing this? We have the evidence that we are being anti-people oriented, we have the solutions to that problem, but we have taken no action to address the issues. All the "why is this happening to us" discussions mean nothing if we do not take some actions on the points raised. Lets shift out of neutral and into first people, and get this train moving. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oke, so new editors are gonna be incapable of creating articles that meet our standards no matter what we do and will get pounced on by pointy Twinkle monkeys. Trying to get rid of the Twinkle monkeys is noble, but practically impossible. How about we protect new editors by taking away their right to create new pages directly. Currently some 80% of articles created by new editors is deleted, mostly through speedies. What if we move the page creation right to autoconfirmed and let new users create pages in their userspace/incubator instead? Sometimes the best and easiest way to protect somebody is to forbid them something. Yoenit (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
@TomStar81 and others, I talked with Jalexander and got his support to start several RfCs here. Below are some initial draft RfCs for the first 5 items you mentioned. I believe the Wikipedia:Wiki Guides qualifies as number 6. If not, we can start on that too.
  1. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Allow IP editors to create articles
  2. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Change CSD to userspace draft
  3. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates
  4. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Allow socializing
  5. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Welcome new users
I'm ready to put effort in to these. Let's get them to where we feel comfortable submitting them to the Wikipedian community at large. Let's get this going and make some progress. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 03:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Why I am not opposed to most of these ideas they definitely need some more work. Userfy everything except G12 and F9? you can't userfy files. And what about attack pages, office deletions, banned users, pure vandalism etc, should they all be userfied as well with "Hey, your page on What Jimbo, your mom and a donkey did last night is not yet ready for mainspace and is now userfied. Please work on it a bit more and add some reliable sources. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something on the userification proposal, but it looks like what's in the draft RfC is to userify a page only if it fell under A1-A10, G1, or G2...all others would still be subject to deletion.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats because I changed the proposal before complaining about it here. Also plan to write a view, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Yoenit (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm on board with the current proposal, as it looks to be a fairly reasonable filter. I do like the idea of encouraging more userspace/incubator use, kind of like a new editor "starting area," so to speak.  Cjmclark (Contact) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of merit to the proposals above, and the six points are VERY well taken. All of them address anxieties and/or errors I made as a new editor (not that long back). There are some wacky people who create an account and make odd edits. But there are many who really want to help, and need guidance that is often hard to find. I still really appreciate tips with links to guidelines. To this end, I suggest another way to help new editors: provide an easy to find index or table of contents of guidelines, policies, etc. Some are devilishly hard to find. Finally, some bots need time delays. Sinebot used to autosign some talk posts before they finished transmitting. For edit bots, perhaps a 10 minute delay would give editors a chance to finish editing before the bot autocorrects. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several types of pages that can be described as "index or table of contents of guidelines, policies, etc" but those pages themselves are hard to find. A few I can name off-hand would be, Wikipedia:FAQ Index, Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Principles, and many others linked from those pages. -- Ϫ 15:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been getting deep in to researching deletion policy, so if anybody wants to move foward on any of the RfC's please do so. Or, if anybody wants me to then please let me know. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 09:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am putting these draft RfCs out to the community for comment. - Hydroxonium (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that no one has suggested pairing up new users or content providers with experienced editors. I was recently contacted by an artist from the Vietnam Combat Artists Program who was anxious to provide information about the Vietnam Era program as well as public domain images of artwork created by the program for a Wikipedia article but felt so intimidated by both the "wiki police" and the lack of knowledge of Wikipedia syntax and policies that he sought to find an experienced Wikipedia editor to assist him rather than tackle the job himself. As I have contributed to Wikipedia, off and on, since 2004, I agreed to help him. I read the new Wikipedia goals summary and realize someone is working on improving the user interface, hopefully providing more WYSIWYG tools. But in the meantime, I think it would be both valuable (and welcoming) to create a registry for experienced users who are willing to collaborate with content providers. In the case of the the Vietnam Combat Artists Program, the artist provided a draft of the article, a list of the internal and external links, reference information and a CD of public domain images with the appropriate captions and credits. He mailed the materials to me and I uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons and created the page that included an image gallery. This process might be especially helpful to non-profit organizations like museums who may have content they wish to share but insufficient staff or skills to create a new page or edit an existing one. Mharrsch (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody suggested it because it already exists: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Yoenit (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) is another useful project. They have editing advice for the cultural sector and a list of collaborations. jonkerz♠ 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Count me in as another supporter of auto-userifying (or "speedy userifying") unsat pages. I've been working at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and folks are a lot cooler with "not ready for publication" than "a robot has deleted all your honest efforts". Touching on an above point: sure, there are a whole variety of helpful forums/intiatives, with Guides, New Page Patrol, Adopt-a-User, etc., however a lot of this (and a lot of even the key WP policies) are barely accessible to experienced editors, much less total noobs. I'm constantly, constantly linking folks on RFF to basic policies like WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources (which I don't mind, it's easy), and sometimes even I have trouble finding less-common guideline pages. Heck, I've been here for three years and created hundreds of new articles, and I'm just now finding out about these mentorship programs, RFF, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Loads of newbies needing your help

There's a major shortage of editors helping at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, where new editors (and a few older ones) ask for feedback on their article. It's often very rewarding giving feedback, as these are the section of newbies most likely to become constructive editors with a bit of guidance. In once case, I helped one editor get a DYK for his first article. It also improves the quality of new articles.

Hope some of you will consider doing some work there, a lot of requests are currently going unanswered. </shameless plug> --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been working this section, but the last few days' worth are mostly me helping noob editors. We could really use at least a few more people over there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've withdrawn from WikiGuides since I'm getting pretty heavily involved in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I don't at all intend to drain folks from WG, but if there are people who are interested in related projects but can't commit the kind of time WG entails, we could really use just a couple more people at RfF, as I'm probably 90% of the replies for the last week. This is a great option for folks who'd like to be in WG but whose available time is scattered in 5-10m segments; a lot of RfFs can be done in literally five minutes to glance at the article and say "Hello, please read WP:Notability (music) and ensure you find footnotes from neutral, third-party published sources to verify this band's notability". I'll continue to watch WG with interest, and will be happy to continue to provide feedback on projects to help out (and not discourage) new editors, but in the meantime I'll be holding the fort at RfF. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Customized welcome template?

It will be 36 hours or so before I am able to reach out to the users that I was given, due to a full weekend of MLB (I am headed to Busch Stadium in a couple hours), but I was just curious if anyone has developed a welcome template that we might be able to use. Outside of the standard templates available via Twinkle, I wouldn't mind seeing a template that explains what we do as Guides, how to contact us, and also still provides the basic information that the existing TW templates give. If one doesn't already exist, I'd be willing to take a shot at building one. Strikerforce (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I used the following, hoping everyone will help to improve it. I'm bad at designing :)... I couldn't find any free welcoming pics either. i also send a welcome email to the new users, insisting that I will spend all my time to help them; just for encouragement.

Welcome!

Welcome to our family...

Welcome to our family, Nandaniiser, and I'll be your guide around here whenever you need help. Wikipedia is all about new knowlegable users, wishing to see your contributions around, once in awhile. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there; I'll be happy to answer it soonest. Again, welcome! I'm always here to help: AdvertAdam (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I Like that Adam! User:Acather96 also created one recently at Template:WikiGuide which people may like (transcluded below clearly on a user page "Hello Wiki Guides" would be saying hello to the new user)

Welcome

Hello Wiki Guides and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm your new Wiki-Guide.

My name it gives me great pleasure to tell you that I have been selected as your new Wiki-Guide! When you first join Wikipedia, it can seem very confusing at first - so it helps to have an experienced, friendly user to guide you through your initial edits. I'm here to help, so if you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page, or you can send me an e-mail. Soon, I'll contact you via e-mail to see how you're getting on, and if there is anything I can do to help. Below are some links that you may find useful when making your first edits:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article

Remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (like this: ~~~~), and don't be afraid to ask for help if you're unsure.

Happy editing, ~~~~

Re:The Welcome Above

I refuse to wear that silly hat. We will look like train conductors. I suggest something along the lines of . A bit gaudy perhaps but sure to grab attention. If we are going to wear uniforms let's at least make them fashionable! We could replace the lance with a welcome cornucopia of easily digestible fruit (Basic WP Rules and Principles). Or just a French beret, set at a slight angle. Buster Seven Talk 23:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. Part of 1. is that I transcluded it. I really shouldn't have done that ;) It's very very much meant to substituted. I'm open to different kinds of hats but I'm not so sure about the Beret Idea................. Jalexander--WMF 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    I think a Wiki-globe or a hand reaching oiut would be a good picture to replace it with. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    Beret, awesome. How bout flashlights? I find flashlights very helpful. The Interior (Talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    I like flashlights? with the light ON. Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    Well..... I happen to have a transparent background image of hands reaching out with a small wiki globe :) (we used it for fundraising ;) )I'll get it and whip up a temp option! Jalexander--WMF 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Idea: use a wikilove-type gadget to welcome and email at the same time

The ambassador program has been talking lately about the difficulty of communicating with mentees who may or may not be logging back in to Wikipedia, so we often don't know whether our messages to them go read. So I whipped up a variation of Kaldari's wikilove gadget. See here.

Maybe the wikiguides should make a similar gadget, where basically the default when you welcome or leave a message for one of the newbies is to try to email them at the same time automatically. And you used a transparent template for leaving messages, you could include a hidden category in it to keep track of who has been emailed through the program. Just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. There's a lot that could be done with good customized js gadgets.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sage! I really love the idea and I think it would be a great addition. If people have ideas on templates let me know Philippe and I are going to talk about it as well and we have the meeting tomorrow!! Jalexander--WMF 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiGuide office and discussion hours

I know most of you guys saw the email that Philippe sent out (if you didn't please let me know!) but I wanted to put some of the info here. We'll be having two sessions of office hours later today to discuss the statistics we've been gathering and moving forward!. The first session will be at April 14th 18:00 UTC (PDT 11:00 ) and the 2nd session will be at April 15th 00:00 UTC (PDT 18:00 Thursday evening)
in #Wikimedia-strategy on the IRC Freenode network where other Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels reside. You can click the room name to come join us using the web chat interface or you can set up a standalone product (check the Wikipedia:IRC page or let me know if you need help).

We'll show more of our stats but I wanted to share what was in Philippe's email now. On Tuesday Philippe and I took a look at a randomized sample of all the people who created their account on Monday (April 11th UTC) and started going through them manually to see if they had been warned, if they had been welcomed, what they were doing and where they were editing and the quality of their edits (good, vandalism, very good, amazing, good faith but poor). The first graph we made was for the quality (below) which was very interesting. Our new editors, in general, are making good edits! This is obviously good and probably doesn't surprise everyone but it is important to know and the vast majority of them are doing so without a lot of help, still getting warnings, frequently not getting welcomed etc. How can we help with that? We have some ideas of course but we need you and your ideas! If you have questions or thoughts and can't make it to the meeting feel free to leave them here so that we can see them for the meetings. We'll also post the logs as they finish so that those who couldn't come see what happened. I'll see you there! Jalexander--WMF 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I put a link in the top section as well but the logs from the first office hour session are now Here. Still one more session this evening at 00:00 UTC! Jalexander--WMF 19:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Wiki Guides and thanks for joining Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! We look forward to and appreciate your contributions. I'm a volunteer mentor participating in a trial project that aims to improve newcomer experience at Wikipedia. Here are a few links that I believe you will find useful:

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Alternatively, you can ask questions at the help desk or by placing {{helpme}} on this page.

Happy editing, ~~~~

This one is continually being tweaked. The latest version is in my sandbox. MER-C 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Neat, but the some things you can do is currently an intimidating wall of backlogs. I think we need something less intimidating and more user friendly, with a less cluttered screen that gives choices such as:
  1. One of the things that makes Wikipedia so useful are all those blue links to other articles. Here's how you do it and here are some articles that need links.
  2. Ditto typos
  3. Ditto adding images.
Each needs an explanation of what it is, why we do it followed by some prospect lists for people to practice a new Wikiskill.
ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I like this better than what I'd come up with, which was a modified version of a standard Twinkle welcome template. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/Archive_2&oldid=1136045657"