Talk:Welcome to Wikipedia (Bookshelf)

Please use this space to suggest ideas of improvement. Thank you!

Review comments

Hello, the version looks really good. Here though a couple of remarks:

The page numbers are only provisional? Page 1 should be the very first one, the title page. In this case it will be left away, and the next page (the first with page number) will be page 2.

There is still a small group of expressions for the same thing: "Wikipedians", "contributors", "editors", "active users".

Try It - boxes: The mouse pointer looks as if it is now the task of the reader to do something online. But mostly it isn't.

pp. 1 and 17 contain the same list. Actually the second appearance can be dropped.

p. 3 "repository of encyclopedic content": Sounds not sympathetic.

p. 4/5 Still, there is a picture with a face covered by a text box. On this double page, Sara says: "Who wrote this article?", but there is no article to see, but the main page.

p. 6 Most problems I have still with this concept of "roles". It can really confuse, it sounds as if a Wikipedian is attributed a role; "look out what you are doing, cos that makes you be attached to a role!" Especially the question contributes to that impression. Maybe helps if the "roles" are always in quotation marks.

p. 7 "What just happened? The edit I made to the article..." Sara says, but this page does not cover edititing an article but editing the user page. Alternative: "What just happened? I just made an edit to an article, but now it is gone. ..."

p. 9 ... "and your interest in particular articles". That would be usually rather particular subjects, not articles.

p. 10 "Most successful articles start small..." Actually, I believe that they start already as a large article written by one author. Most articles are written essentially by one-two good authors instead of a crowd. But I know that that description is more useful for the message we want to give here.

p. 11 The word "expert" is used on this page in a way that it sounds that on the one hand there are "Wikipedians", and on the other are "experts", as if a Wikipedia cannot be an expert himself. (There exits usual anti-Wikipedia propaganda that Enyclopedia Britannica is written by experts, and Wikipedia is not.)

p. 12 "lead section" and "summary", two expressions for the same thing?

p. 13 "Some writers and editors..." Why not simply "editors", don't they include the writers?

"Community: All contribtions to Wikipedia are freely licensed to the public. That means that no editor owns any article." Hm, when we say that no one owns an article we mean that the technical unit that is an article is not a place where one Wikipedian is considered the boss. This has not so much to do with the license question. I wouldn't mention the license question here.

p. 15: Is it really normal practice to copy the content of a sandbox article, rather than renaming?

Try it!: Isn't it true that a new article has also a name as an "element"? Every article has an article name or title.

p. 16 Titled: "A Wikipedian" - why?

p. 17 "... knowledge that can be accessed for free!" I would not expect this "for free" here. Proposal: "knowledge that can be accessed so easily!"

--Ziko 21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• P. 10-11: I am not sure the peer review process is present on every Wikipedia. (The English page has about two dozen interwikis, one of them pointing to the Hungarian Wikipedia, where there isn't a peer review any more). --Bdamokos 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zico and Bdamokos: Please note that I did not respond to the current review comments since this feedback should essentially serve as an input to the next Bookshelf iteration (if there will be one.)...just wanted to let you know that while we haven't responded, we are listening. :) Aradhanar 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• The brochure makes a couple of references to edits not being checked (e.g. on page 3: "it would be almost impossible to have a team large enough to review and validate every single change made to the encyclopedia"), while this is something that does happen for every edit on wikis that have Flaggedrevs enabled. The check might be superficial (i.e. not expert review), but still, it might warrant some changes in the text to produce a flagged revs compatible version (for e.g. the German,Hungarian, Polish, etc. Wikipedias). --Bdamokos 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• I mentioned this at the localization guide page, but might be more useful here: The Roles_Globe.svg file in the Placed/Page Elements folder seems to be out of sync with its PNG version used in the Welcome to Wikipedia booklet on page 7, making editing the globe a bit complicated. Localizers might want to do slight adjustments to make the map slightly more realistic for languages that are not speaken worldwide - although not much can be done, with the current projection of the globe. --Bdamokos 11:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• The Create account guide misses the extra step after clicking on "log in / register" you have to again click on "Create an account". --Bdamokos 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Locators

• You might want to include some URLs. For people who don't know what Wikipedia is... and for the Wikimedia Foundation footer.
• Text on the last page: s/explore/learn about (exploring civic leaders?)

Sj 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Roy G.

Roy G Biv would be proud of this booklet. I'd love a high-contrast greyscale version too (with limited use of fades and blurring, which could be misinterpreted as a problem with the reader's eyesight). Sj

Hi SJ, I am not sure if I understand your comment correctly. Is your concern about printing the reference guide in black and white (b/w)? If so, just so you know that we did take the necessary precaution - during the testing stage, we printed the material in both colored and b/w formats to check if the readability was OK. We found that the results were good. Is your experience otherwise? Aradhanar 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he might have been concerned about visually impaired or colour blind people in this case. The fact that the B/W version is readable will be helpful in situations where a colour printer is not available. --Bdamokos 07:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

some comments

Overall, I find that booklet quite good. Two comments though, one minor and one more significant

How can I contribute

I like very much the idea of helping future contributors to understand that "participating to wikipedia" is not only about being an author of content, but that participation can cover activities, such as uploading images or copyediting. Precious.
However, I fail to see how the globe represent this. It might even confuse people into thinking that geography somehow has an impact. I am not quite sure which image could best represent this diversity, but right now, I think the globe just does not fit there. But arguably, that's a minor issue.

My main concern is related to the "create a new article".

First, practically speaking, I think most new editors start by doing a modification of an article. Not a creation. If only because in some languages, a new editor just can not create a new article. So from that point of view, it would be more logical to offer a page on "Modify an article" rather than "create a new article".

But beyond this, reading the process you indicate to create a new article, I frankly got horrified. I suppose you did not invent it, so is that really how editors create new articles on the english wikipedia ? As new user... do they really first have to understand how to create a subspace in their personal space ? Then have to write the new article in their personal space ? Then find someone knowledgeable and willing to "validate" their article so that it can finally be added ? That's horrible :) With such a process, I suppose it is a true miracle when a new contributor create an article :)

The process is so horrible that it really suggest that this little booklet should just not even try to explain how to create a new article, but limit itself to "modify an article"

Beyond this, with the idea in mind that these booklets are meant to be translated in other languages.... this suggest that all languages wikipedia work this way. I know for a fact that this is not the process followed on the French wikipedia. Does that mean we should translate a process that actually does not fit the current creation process ? Probably not... but it would be a good idea to produce guides globally valid rather than valid only for one language.

Anthere

Hello Anthere,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, maybe you are right about the globe. Bdamakos previously commented that for the Hungary version of Wikipedia, there is probably not as many global users as on English Wikipedia, and it's certainly true for Swedish Wikipedia. Perhaps instead people symbols in a ring around a computer screen would be a better idea. I'll forward this suggestion.

When it comes to the other thing: yes, the process sounds horrible, Creation of new articles differs from language version to language version, and English Wikipedia has one of the toughest processes, probably. Since I don't participate on English Wikipedia much, I cannot suggest a better way to describe how a new editor should go about trying to create a new article. Maybe somebody else can? (If so, please do.)

The third thing you mentioned was about localization. The idea is for different language versions to develop their own versions of these materials. No two would be exactly the same, and shouldn't be. I've tried to push on this in the new version of the localization guidelines which is now linked from the main page.

Thanks again.//Hannibal 07:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Front page

Hello, at the Dutch members convention I saw the printed version. We were positive about the booklet, but everybody said that the front page was wasted. A long sentence instead of, for example, a picture of Sara or another attractive element. The small "Welcome to Wikipedia" below stands in the shadow of the large quote. --Ziko 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. The long sentence could be smaller and the logo (which is at least interesting to look at) and leaflet title could be bigger. MartinPoulter 15:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just translated the booklet in dutch . I would like a new font cover any ideas / anybody willing to let his creativity loose on this . indeed i agree that the "Welcome to Wikipedia" shoudl be much moor prominent, the James Wales quote shoudl still be on there, would these pics be useful ?

--DerekvG (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arabic version

I have finished the Arabic text for this guide, and already downloaded the Scribus software but I had two problems:

1. Scribus does not recognise Arabic text and tends to reverse letter order, besides the need to reverse the page order from left to right to right to left.
2. I downloaded the source .zip folder and tried to open the .sla files but I always get an error message from Scribus that the file is in an unaccepted format.

I can redesign the whole document using Microsoft Publisher and convert it to .pdf, do you have any other alternative? Note: I shall upload the Arabic text to the parent page of the guide in a day or two. --Haytham^Abulela 06:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Abulela,

For some reason the Welcome to Wikipedia guide was produced with a developmental version of Scribus that is not backwards compatible with the actual release version. See Localization_guidelines_(Bookshelf) for the recommended version numbers on Windows and other systems.

I do think Scribus has some elementary level support for right-to-left writing, although it apparently has much trouble with Arabic script: getting it right might need some work and hacking (I've seen some screenshots of integrating xelatex into Scribus to get the rendering right) – it would be great if you could share your experiences on what worked and what didn't: unless you decide to go the Microsoft Publisher way, which might end up to be the faster and easier way although a loss for the initial idea that a design work like this can be done in free software. --Bdamokos 13:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bdamokos,

Due to being over enthusiastic, I unfortunately skimmed the Scribus section. I agree that using a free software is recommended and it would be a good opportunity to explore desktop publishing software as well. I have already uploaded the Arabic translation to my sandbox space - which I learnt from the guide I have translated - till I finish polishing it. If the problem persists, I would produce it through Microsoft Publisher. Wish me the best of luck! --Haytham^Abulela 13:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with global IP block

I have finished the PDF Arabic file for Welcome to Wikimedia reference guideline and tried to upload it, but there is a global block for the IP I am using (it is the service provider's IP not mine!). Looks like the unblock request shall be a tiring and useless effort, could any one tell me what to do?

--Haytham^Abulela 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Upload of files locally has been disabled, so the upload needs to be done on Commons. --Arseny1992 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there was an IP exemption made to my user name and the file is uploaded already at this link. Happy editing --Haytham^Abulela 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some proposed improvements

I'm really impressed with this booklet, and think it could be a great help at outreach events. It's well written, designed and laid out. A few comments though:

• There needs to be an IPR statement in the document itself. Foot of the back page is ideal. The URL of the Bookshelf project should also go here rather than on page 17.
• On the back page, "Everyday people" is a phrase that might be popular in the US but sounds odd to British ears. "Every day, people" would be better.
• The explanation of roles (page 7 and bottom of page 8) introduces a layer of terminology that I never see used on Wikipedia. It would be better to make the same points with verbs: talk about contributing images, rather than being an illustrator.
• On page 10, the terminology of "Wikipedia peer review process" is confusing, and does not match up with how "peer review" is used in Wikipedia. Why not mention "Wikipedia's internal review processes", and when the reader looks into it, they will see that *one* of these is called "peer review"?

MartinPoulter 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia in French

Hi all !

I'm very glad to inform you that Wikimédia France has printed 2.000 Welcome to Wikipedia books. This is the end of four month of translation, adaptation to French Wikipedia and composition. We have released the books for the first time during a special 10 years of Wikipedia day in Rennes (Brittany, France) and they have a great success.

We are currently working on a Wikisource version, because this project have a great success in France. Trizek ^{here or on wpfr} 09:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, very cool!

Oh, I look forward to seeing what you do with Wikisource.//Hannibal (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is here for Wikisource, full in French. Wikimédia France currently hire people in order to devellop many projects. I hope they will integrate this one on their schedule. Trizek ^{here or on wpfr} 22:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

pdf doesn't open

Downloaded pdf with Firefox 4. Error: couldn't open file. Dedalus (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It works for me (Firefox 4.0.1. on Ubuntu). Which link did you use?//Hannibal (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some changes

• Remove Jimmy Wales and put Wikimedia Movement in the cover, because Jimmy is just one guy from de community, the Movement is bigger than him, and there are numerous people around the world who do not know him, but know the community, or at least one community project.
• Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in the world The most important thing is not which is the largest encyclopedia, but that is the largest community, which produces free collaborative content to be the largest encyclopedia is the result of this construction. So would something like "Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Movement, the largest community of free collaborative construction of the world. As a result we have the largest encyclopedia, It is created and maintained by more than 100 thousand volunteers from around the world. Every month, Wikipedia receives over 388 million unique visitors. Wikipedia features more than 16 million articles in over 260 languages. It is free to use, free to edit, is free to distribute and free of advertisements."

I think that's all. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Translate

Can we add translate extension to the page ? -- Naveenpf (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Now as I can see it is tagged (not best way — some retagging should be done) but not marked - while it has a lot of translations and a very long text it would be quite difficult to move all old system translations to the extension's one. --Base (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sara images

• Where can I find the individual drawings of Sara used in this. I found only one on Commons. These could be useful addition for Commons so that they can be used by others in future.--07:36, 2 November 2013‎ Arjunaraoc

• Does Frank or Sage Ross (WMF) have any info or can they alert some one who can help?--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Arjunaraoc. I don't think the others from the original brochure were ever uploaded individually to Commons; they were just in the source file. I've just uploaded them.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Sage Ross (WMF).--Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dutch versions HELP REQUESTED

Could bookshelf admins please help me with the dutch version I've finished the Dutch translation, can some-body please rename the current dutch version to NL-NL and make another copy NL-BE , the only thing that will change between the copies is the chapter contact details on the back page Thanks for the help --DerekvG (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)