Talk:Welcome to Wikipedia (Bookshelf)/2013 edition
It might be worthwhile to look through how we have structured the 6 week Writing Wikipedia Articles course, and also possibly the page I put here on Introductory edit-a-thons. What I think is reflected most strongly in both of these is my growing sense that (many of) those new to Wikipedia are more interested in getting a cultural orientation, to understand the philosophical and desicion-making aspects of Wikipedia, and that the technical pieces tend to more or less fall into place once that need is addressed. This is of course not an absolute truth, but I think it's something worth considering in a rewrite of this brochure. Happy to discuss in more depth if you like. -Pete (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Pete! I'll definitely take a look. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I will be reworking this course as part of a university course in the spring semester; one of the ideas we will be actively exploring in the coming weeks is creating two "tracks", based on the two badges we created. The first, simpler track would be oriented toward a learner who wants to gain a basic understanding of Wikipedia and make a few edits; the second, to a learner who wants to substantially improve a specific article. I wonder if something like this might make sense for the brochure as well; for instance, on each page the bottom 25% of the page could be shaded with a different color, labeled with some fun word reflecting an ambitious newbie, with tips on how a self-motivated learner might delve in deeper. This may be a worthwhile way to bridge the competing notions of "we will give you everything you need to be a productive contributor" vs. "in order to be a successful Wikipedian you must have some motivation to learn things on your own or actively seek out answers from your peers." -Pete (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I forwarded LiAnna’s email to the French folks who made the equivalent French brochure − of which there have been three revisions already, in May 2011, April 2012 and September 2013.
It turns out that though they based their work on the original “Welcome to Wikipedia” brochure, they diverged quite heavily from it. Benoît (User:Trizek), who lead the work with the Wikimédia France volunteers and the Wikipedia-fr Projet:Aide et accueil, has be so kind to summarize these changes:
- Very useful, thanks, Jean-Frédéric! It's always good to know how others have adapted our work, and good to see there's some of the changes already suggested implemented in the French version! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I think that the brochure should be sharper about its goals. It is impossible to create a new article and substantially contribute based on a few pages explanation - at least, if you want to save the poor person from frustrations and worse. Ziko (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if the brochure could be designed in a way that is possible to present, even approximately, in a wiki format. There should be a version on Wikisource (or perhaps Wikibooks or Wikiversity.) This need not be as graphically appealing as the printed version, but it would make translation easier, and also make it easier for others to improve and fork the brochure to, for instance, speak more directly to specific audiences. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pete, making a version adapted for the wikis is something we'd like to do if we get a chance — both for this and the Illustrating Wikipedia Commons brochure. No promises, but I think it would be useful in both cases.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi! One of my concerns with Wikimedia Foundation is the high number of complex terms. Please remember that many readers have other first languages. Also, when we translate this book to other languages, these complex terms will also confuse readers. Some of them are is:
- "Amassing sum of all human knowledge requires..." -> "Collecting..."
- "Wikipedia has many guiding principles and policies that shape the content development process." -> "... that describe how content should be developed."
- "Wiki markup" -> "Wiki code"
- "you can start the page from scratch" -> " you can start the page from zero"
- Thanks NaBUru38! I've done some copy edits to address your first and last bullets. I'm leaving wiki markup for now; it's a piece of jargon that will probably be unfamiliar to many newcomers, but it gets defined pretty clearly (both in the body when the topic is covered, and in the glossary). "Code" is a simpler word, but also one that is much more flexible and easy to confuse. There are lots of different kinds of code on Wikipedia, and we want the reference to this kind of code (markup) to be unambiguous. The wording from your second bullet is already gone. If you have any more specific bits that stand out as too complex or potentially confusing, let me know.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been instrumental in printing 500 copies of English edition during 2011. I used it for outreach programs in India. I am glad to know about the new edition in works. We initiated the translation to Telugu recently on wikisource, with additional appendix for Telugu setup and keyboard selection. We would like to have the new edition simultaneously released in Telugu and would be happy to contribute to make the new edition more global and easily localisable.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! We will set up the text for translation, once the English text is close to final. And if there is anything specific you see that will make it more global and easier to localize, we're eager to hear from you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)