At the risk of confusing new editors with a plethora of alternative options, more could be made of the {{Help me}} template. By using it, new editor can ask for help on their own talk pages, without having to worry about whether they're asking the right person. It could perhaps be improved by putting a "request help" link in, say, the toolbar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do like the idea behind that template. We asked about it in the survey but not enough people had used it to get a fair rating of how well it works. So it would definitely be nice to promote it better in the redesign. Perhaps (thinking out loud here) we could make it easier to add as well by using a link that preloads the template onto the users talk page and they just need to add their question. the wub"?!"17:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding a "get help now" link, letting the user type their question, and adding the question in a help me template on their talkpage, telling the user they will be notified of new answers on their talkpage, and will know when the answer is provided when they get the Orange Bar? While the help pages are badly organised (and need love too), we do excel at providing personal help, as long as we can reach the editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been true from day one, so kudos here for the effort to fix! Learning wiki is a nightmare. However, the biggest problem to editor retention is the way people are treated.PumpkinSkytalk09:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last year I tried to reorientate Help Contents towards readers and new editors. No, I was told, there are already planty of pages for babysitting the noobs; this page should be about quick access to more advanced topics for editors who already understand the basics. Perhaps I should have been more stubborn but I gave up. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise. It's true that the more advanced topics ought to be findable too, but that shouldn't get in the way of helping readers and new users to the extent it is at the moment. the wub"?!"17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of development work would you like to see around help? Personally I like the idea of adding more help within the software, though to an extent that can be done by volunteers using MediaWiki messages. It's something I'm planning to investigate more after my fellowship ends. the wub"?!"17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A design which grants good user experience may not be something which crowdsourcing necessarily produces. The image in this article mapping the help pages just seems like something that, for example, Apple would never allow iPhone applications to do. Blue Rasberry (talk)12:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is little question on that we can and should improve our help. As a semi regular helper on IRC, I also notice that help with references and images often comes up. I find however that in general, the problem tends to be the actual processes. In case of images, by far the most asked question is 'how do I add this image of a company logo?' The answer is very complicated, because the process is quite complicated. (download file, upload if autoconfirmed, use requested upload if not, provide copyright information, provide fair use rationale, provide trademark information). The general response is 'cant I just link to the thing?'. No amount or quality of help pages will ever change the answer to yes. This will always leave the asker less satisfied. For references the same thing goes. It just is (currently) that complicated. 62.140.137.140 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is true. There have been some moves forward (specifically the File Upload Wizard and the enabling of RefToolbar for everyone) but many of our processes remain extremely long-winded and hard to explain to a newbie. the wub"?!"17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite true that new editors and experienced editors have very different needs, and that experienced editors often "add[] links on their own userpage when they find useful pages, building their own navigation system, so that they don't lose the useful page." That's why I created the Editor's Index to Wikipedia - so that experienced editors had an alternative to building their own navigation system. I hope it is made clear to experienced editors, in any reworking of the help pages, that this resource exists. -- John Broughton(♫♫)18:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad to hear that the Help Pages issue is being examined! :) For several years I have felt that the majority of our so-called help pages are a serious embarrassment. I have felt it necessary to tell newbies basically to avoid our help pages, except for Article Wizard and Upload Wizard. I would be very glad if the whole system could be overhauled and streamlined. Perhaps we can do something like having separate "easy" versions for newbies and "advanced" versions for the experienced editors. Invertzoo (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news, a major overhaul has been LONG overdue, good luck with the task Peter. From my very 1st involvement here in 2005 I have avoided the "help pages" like the plague, they just became the "unhelpful pages" and a massive time sink, mainly due to poor coordination, non existent structure of web site page hierarchy and consequent ineffective and non functional navigation for new (and other) users. My thoughts are; 1) get the navigation issues sorted out first; 2) Tidy up, the documentation, merging and simplifying where needed and also expanding where needed. Just some thoughts. Good luck with the project. --Cactus.man✍18:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to consolidating and rewriting help pages, I think more images and even videos would be extremely helpful for new users. I'm frequently surprised that, for example, a help page on a Wikipedia gadget does not have an image of how it looks like and what it does. 155.201.35.58 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Op-ed