zlacker

Wikimedia needs to make some serious changes if it wants more editors to join. They need to do a lot of UI work to make the process for creating a new article or discussing new changes. When I tried it I found the process very confusing. Why is all communication done in a wiki page editor?

>>Polyla+(OP)
For sure, the learning curve is too steep. It's improved with the visual editor but wikipedia is too difficult if you want to participate actively.

>>Polyla+(OP)
They have! I contribute very sporadically, and both Commons and Wikipedia became a lot easier to work with thanks to improved tools.

>>nicbou+33
How recent was this? I tried to add an article a year ago and found the process to be pretty crap

>>Polyla+(OP)
> Why is all communication done in a wiki page editor?

Dogfooding, essentially. This guarantees that all participants eventually become broadly competent at using it.

There are newer tools to streamline common interactions, though personally I think they make the learning curve steeper in exchange for making it start off a little easier.

Plus, wiki is often an exceptionally good way to hold discussions. The fact that other contributors can, e.g. fix broken links and that freeform layout can be used... that multiple contributors can seamlessly collaborate on a single comment. It's very powerful.

Wiki for discussion also builds community and trust, because people could screw up your comments but they don't. (and if they do, it'll get fixed promptly and they'll have helpfully identified themselves as someone either totally clueless or having difficulty with self control)

>>nullc+Yc
Dogfooding helps you build better tools for experts, but it doesn't help you build friendlier tools for newcomers. Those who have the power to improve the tools are well past the point where they need friendlier tools.

>>Polyla+F3
They added a lot of WYSIWYG tools which are much better than the plain text ones. Wikimedia lets you specify licences for the files you upload, and find categories for them.