Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Blank page 210

Notes

Kelly Martin was sort of before my time, but I understand they're something of a firebrand; why quote them? It's not like the point hasn't been suggested a zillion times. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor who sent in the question was led to believe that she was the origin of the idea. Is this not so? Skomorokh 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before my time, but my understanding is she isn't around on en.wiki (I could be mistaken). But even if she was the first person ever to consider the idea that Wikipedia should be more closed (which I doubt), a zillion people have thought of it since then, good faith editors who can debate the position on-wiki if desired. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting by that; if it is her idea it should be properly attributed, surely? Skomorokh 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the first recorded instance where a Wikipedian ever said "water is wet" was attributed to Greg Kohs, then no, I don't think we need to say: "According to Greg Kohs, water is wet. Comments?" - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a "water is wet" statement, it's a specific and early theory on the state and future of the project (not one that I agree with, but important nonetheless), directly attributable to its source. I don't know why would not want to follow proper reporting standards and credit the source of the idea, some sort of latter day WP:BADSITES-esque concern? As it happens, I've demoted the question as one of the less relevant ones, so this may be moot. Skomorokh 14:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the questions seem a bit in-your-face. If Sue doesn't want to answer some of them, will the article run with a bunch of "no comments"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the submissions; we have not been in a position where an interviewee has declined to answer that I recall. There will need to be a lot of editing to make the questions and answers cohesive and relevant, naturally, so we intend on linking to the full set from the final draft so readers can be sure it wasn't unfairly doctored. Whether notable omissions need to be mentioned isn't something we hadn't considered. Skomorokh 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question

It has been said more than once that the markup in Wikipedia articles puts people off editing (notably but not exclusively women). It is possible to massively simplify the way the average article edit pane reads. Is this something the community should be prioritising?

Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the question, Rich! I think this has already been in development by WMF developers for the last few months though? Seee mw:Visual editor and the update at mw:Wikimedia_engineering_report/2011/November#Editing_tools... Skomorokh 01:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh I phrased it badly, perhaps.

It has been said more than once that the markup in Wikipedia articles puts people off editing (notably but not exclusively women). It is already possible to massively simplify the way the average article edit pane reads. Is this something the community should be prioritising?

Note the added word "already".

Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Off track

I'm uncomfortable with the direction this is going. It seems to me that some people think of Sue (and the WMF generally) as part of the Wikipedia community, some don't, and some are in-between. I'll simplify and just consider the two ends of the spectrum; feel free to interpolate if you're in the middle. If you think of Sue as part of the community, then why the interrogation? This reminds me a bit of Arbcom elections ... but Sue isn't running for a community position, and the general consensus on Wikipedia is that if it won't serve a purpose to grill someone, we don't do it ... it's just not Wikipedian. OTOH, if you see Sue and the WMF as divorced from our community, as outsiders, then you shouldn't expect Sue's reaction to be any different than that of any outsider who potentially has a lot to offer us. If Sergei Brin came to the community and said, "Google would like to offer you all sorts of help with editing, but we've got a few concerns about the direction you're going and we'd like to talk about that", and we said, "Sure, but first, we've got a few questions of our own", and then launched into questions like the ones here, what are the odds that we'd successfully coopt him to our cause? If it doesn't make any sense to you that Sue might need to be "coopted", then you're saying she's already part of our community ... but this isn't the way we generally deal with people in the community. Just sayin'. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this addressed to me? Skomorokh 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could do this as a conversation. As a member of the community (rather than in your role as a journalist), what do you want to see happen here? - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. I solicited questions for an interview; of the 50+ I got I picked the more relevant half and edited for a consistent (and in most cases less abrasive) tone and then posted them overleaf to get feedback on possible improvements – consolidation, rephrasing, winnowing down etc. The goal is to get a manageable number that best reflect readers' responses and interest in the editor retention issue as outlined by Sue Gardner in her WMUK address, and ask her to respond. Skomorokh 21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave it a shot. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to an email (not from Skom, but I'm addressing Skom here): standard disclamer applies, namely, I don't keep up with the "big issues" and probably don't know what I'm talking about, I'm just a copyeditor. I have nothing against incisive questions from journalists, we need more journalists willing and able to do that, but there's a dissonance somehow with a member of the community directing these kinds of questions to another community member, it's not generally our style. And to the extent that Sue is (or is perceived as) outside the community, then the question is: how should we ideally treat a very influential outsider who has a lot to offer our community? A hard-hitting journalistic style is probably not the best way to elicit cooperation. Of course, a "soft" interview is also going to be criticized ... I guess all I can say is, there's a reason journalists don't usually try to conduct hard-hitting interviews with people higher up in their own food chain ... it's generally a lose-lose situation. But kudos to both you and Sue if you can pull it off. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, just a copy-editor? Now, you do underplay your skills and contributions! BTW, it would be great to see you at the SP newsroom and pre-pub. pages if that's your thing.

Tony (talk)

15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony, that's very kind. I'm available for copyediting at the Signpost in emergencies, give me a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]