Wikipedia talk:The End

Suggested changes

I thought I'd suggest a few changes here, since some of them are of a more substantial nature, so I'll check for consensus first. I think it might be good to have a more general heading for the first section (right after the lead) and just title it something like "How can I contribute to Wikipedia without getting bogged down by rules?" Then it would start with advice not to worry too much about rules - ie. tell them to be bold and dive in, and expect that someone will disagree etc. Then they just need to know that the important watchwords are collaboration and consensus, and they can remember "Ignore all rules" if someone tries to throw the book at them. When this page was first suggested, I thought, great idea, but I mentioned the need for "Ignore all rules" to remind people that most of the policy pages are only guidelines. I think some people fear that some other unpleasant editor will hit them over the head with procedures and so on, so they need to see how "Ignore all rules" is there to support them if they choose to be bold.

Also, at the bottom, I think we should provide a brief description of what's behind each link, ie. annotate the links section, and add a few more. They don't need to click on them (and we can emphasise this), but they may want to know what is the next port of call if they just feel there's no one out there behind all the procedures. I would especially suggest adding a link to the general projects site, because there, they can quickly find a group with a common interest, and get the collaborative editing going. Wikipedia only works because of the social interest, even if it is resolutely not a networking site, so if people are getting frustrated by procedures, it might be because they haven't had a chance to get in touch with the right people. If they can find people who want to help them editing their favourite pages, they won't notice the procedures so much, because they will be in touch with a group, and they will be able to work from that point outwards, incrementally learning procedures, policies, and (more importantly) editing and stylistic guidelines. IBE (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It should be as friendly, open, and welcoming as possible. I especially like your ideas for the links at the bottom.--v/r - TP 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree w/IBE's suggestions as well.--JayJasper (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll start doing these things, slowly at first, starting with annotating the links. Obviously feel free to do likewise, but I'm happy to handle most of it, so long as there's no rush. IBE (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no rush. I also had someone in IRC give the essay a read over. He said he liked it except that he wishes it had examples for each section; so I'm going to get started working on those.--v/r - TP 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer's guide

What do ya'all think about converting this into a "Newcomer's Guide"? Basically, split the sections into individual pages where each page covers a particular subject and then has a "Next page" button at the bottom. Using a look similar to Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. It would contain the same shortcuts and would be a circular guide.

The End -> Be bold -> Have patience -> User Interface ... Ask For help -> Policies and Guideliens -> The End

Thoughts?--v/r - TP 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Great idea! Very user-friendly. One suggestion: include a link on each page which links to the full essay, for the benefit of users who may prefer the full page format to clicking back and forth between pages.--JayJasper (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

copying comment from my user talk page as a courtesy

Context: see my talk page if needed in full, but briefly: agree with reservations to the idea of breaking up the essay, and basically agree with the idea of turning it into a guide. Full response is as follows, cut and pasted from my user talk page.

My point is that we can have the broken up version, as well as the unbroken version. With the broken up version, basically I think some things should be left out, such as "Have patience" - by all means say this, but I don't think it should get a separate page. As far as people knowing they can stop and finish later, my belief is they will tend to want something complete. At least, if you wish to adopt this approach, although I would advise trying to limit the number of pages, I would also suggest having an index, either at the end or the beginning, with a one sentence summary of each point on the index page. That way, at least they have an overview. The problem for them is to decide just where they will give up and return later. I once did a ridiculously long internet survey, answering over 100 questions, just because I'd started, so I wanted to get to the end. I didn't want to waste the time I'd already spent, and I figured if I didn't complete the survey, it was definitely wasted. Then I got to the end, and found I didn't have JavaScript turned on, so it was all lost anyway - and the form didn't preserve my clicks when I went back. I never tried it again. Our problem is to try and keep those sorts of people who want to get to the end of the overview. Once they've started, many people won't stop, just to see what's going on. Then afterwards, they'll say, well, never again. I'm keen on the idea, and above all the visual format - this will hold people for a while longer because it looks good. I would suggest if it is to be broken up, keep the number of frames to about 6-8, include a photo on every page, and above all, include a marker at the bottom: "page 3 of 6" etc. I also like the text "You can continue on to the next page of this guide or you can stop here, it's up to you," but (as you have done so far) I would only put this once (though I'm assuming you already agree?). Basically I agree mostly with this format, especially with the idea of teaching them how to understand the user interface. That is a potentially brilliant idea, but don't tell them everything - just get them started. Presumably you agree here also, though. I wouldn't know how to do the graphics side of things here, but I would suggest bright red circles around the key bits, especially the things at the top of the page, such as the tab for the talk page/user page. Then, if someone can do it, just a bit of simple text clearly associated with the circled component, explaining it, in a format that clearly stands out on the page - but I don't know if there's a graphics whizz out there. Perhaps we could try recruiting someone within Wikipedia? Let me know if you think this is too elaborate. IBE (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the look of it. Kinda brilliant to have something more filmstrip-like than our typical wall of text essay. Kudos. I REALLY like the format.

To get the number of frames down, cut some of the weaker parts like IAR (it really is a pretty abstract topic that puzzles RFA candidates). TCO (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)