Grants talk:IdeaLab/Make it more intuitive

Name

Ouch-- perhaps you might want to change the name of your article from "Dumb it Down" to something else. The use of such a title in response to efforts to include more women in Wikimedia implies that women are not as intelligent, and thus need Wikipedia/Wikimedia coding to be brought down to their level. Such a title implicitly sends a very negative message, one that seems counter to the goals of the "Inspire" project. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memasmit (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, good point. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So agreed. This is embarrassing. And besides that, everything is difficult at first but eventually you get used to it. Every newb I've seen on the site is confused about something and, I assume, plenty of them are guys. Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I find lumping demographics of people into male or female as ideologically driven and sexist. Activities should easy to seek out, understand, explain, and perform and not obfuscated by some academic or engineer with far too many years in college. After all this is Wikipedia, not Nupedia. Dispenser (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But why do you despise people who "too many years in college"? Being smart is not a bad thing... By the way, you repeatedly bring up free-to-play games for a design goal for Wikipedia. Are you sure that we should abandon being a reliable encyclopedia for being a "dumbed-down" Internet game of writing about stuff without having to learn some editing (and sourcing) skills? I mean, I spent zero days in university, but I don't find the editor hard to use. Oh and you managed to insult women, by calling your proposal "Dumb it down", implying that to make WP more interesting to women we should make it more "dumb-proof". Women are more dumb according to you? --Rev-san (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Don't accuse people trying to propose constructive solutions of thinking women are dumb. Assume good faith. 2. There's an important distinction between sourcing skills in the sense of good scholarship and familiarity with wikipedia's particular sourcing syntax and technology. I can pick up a new sourcing syntax faster than most people, but this doesn't mean I'll make better calls on what to source. Wikipedia can extract a lot of value from people who don't pick up formal languages quickly. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wall-of-Text/Stream-of-consciousness warning. I've spent over four years in college and continue to be told to dumb it down. Do not take it as an insult. Universities are businesses, not some idealistic learning institution. I also suggest reading Gamasutra's essays on F2P games, its a fascinating look at human psychology and addition. Dispenser (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This idea is about editor retention -- the attempt to keep new editors coming back and not leaving out of frustration. So some of the ideas/thoughts here are kind of valid but not directly related to the topic of decreasing the gender gap. And the problem is that this idea is too heavily based on insulting stereotypes. Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read it? Dispenser (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit shocked to see this listed as an idea for improving the gender gap. despite that, I read the idea itself and it may have its own merit. But this probably shouldn't be listed as a way to attract women contributers. Autumn Wind (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

While I like the ideas contained in the proposal, I agree the name of the proposal needs work. Simplifying Wikipedia's workflows is a good idea for its own sake, not because some people are too "dumb" to otherwise contribute. I am not too sure of the rules regarding modifying other people's IdeaLab proposals, including coming up with new names. Siko, thoughts? harej (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab is a collaborative space, there's no rule here against constructively helping improve ideas created by someone else :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that thinking of a good alternative name for this idea will greatly help the framing the issue that it is addressing. I suggest that we brainstorm new titles. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Workflow Rework would be the obvious PC title, but that doesn't critique the sexist nature of this form (WP is missing more than just women) nor does it draw eyeballs. Dispenser (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename: Simplify all the things

A rename focusing on {all the things} or the specific things you want to simplify, would be helpful. –SJ talk  18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Right now the proposal has multiple ideas of problems and solutions that are related to the idea that they could benefit from being simplified. We need to narrow the focus to one or two that could be worked on right away. Let's pick the best ideas (most impact, easiest to achieve?) and list them. And rename to focus on them. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Opposition

(This section has been moved from the idea page per the IdeaLab How it works guidelines)

• One of Wikipedia's biggest public image issues is the fact that it can be openly edited by anyone. While we regular Wikipedians know that this does not equate with a general influx of useless or incorrect information, a large portion of Wikipedia opponents cite this as one of their main arguments against the notion of a free, openly-edited encyclopedia. Right now, we've got a relatively good thing going with many of the more important and visible articles have been written chiefly by people who know what they are talking about, being experts in their field or people with personal, hands-on research into the subject. True, this can make it difficult to understand, but this is why there are in-site links to define words and terms those who are not well-versed in a particular field can use to better understand what is being talked about. If we were to "dumb down" the general aptitude level of these articles, it is very possible this could lead to an influx of authors who are not well-versed in the subjects they are writing about, thus lowering the quality of the articles and bringing even more laypeople into the forefront of these articles. This could also ostracize those who do know what they are talking about, being outnumbered by a large majority that does not know what they are talking about.

  The problem with dividing work up into different categories for different people is that it muddles the research and writing process. The method by which academic research goes (and has gone for a very long time now, before Wikipedia) is idea, brainstorming, research, writing, citation. If the people doing the writing are not doing the citing nor the research, what basis do they have to be writing at all? This would likely lead to a lot of confusion and misinformation among the community and its respective articles.

  The fact that this is listed under one of the ideas to make Wikipedia more women-friendly does seem rather insulting, as if women don't like Wikipedia because it's "too smart". Perhaps they don't like Wikipedia because of all the implications that women don't belong in an educated community and might feel more at home if they didn't have to work hard. Research, editing, and writing is hard work. It's not for everyone. That doesn't mean we should change it to make it for anyone. Futur3g4ry (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is very vague, and also insulting to those who happen to have a deep understanding of certain subjects. The word "nerd" is still often (contrary to the claims of many) stigmatised, and it is quite rude to say "You are all a bunch of nerds that need to get a life. Dumb things down so that everyone can understand."

  Had you actually read Wikipedia's stance on this, you would have noticed that it said that articles had ought to be useful to, and written by, both experts in a subject and those that are not experts in a subject. Tharthan (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  I've written software for maintaining various aspects of Wikipedia from featured article tools to disambiguation page auto generators. Did you read the proposal? Or rush to oppose? Dispenser (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  I've read your proposal, but (again) the idea is not a good solution as far as I am concerned. Tharthan (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamify the editing process

Barnstars are typically biased towards veterans. Add automated achievements so that users can feel a sense of progress when they contribute. Some examples:

• 1st edit, 10th edit, 25th edit, 50th edit, 100th edit, and so on
• Creating your first page, creating n^th page
• Contributing > n bytes/letters
• Patrolling (first revert or something)
• Joining a WikiProject
• Participating in edit-a-thons and other events

There is a lot of potential to incentivize on Wikipedia on which we need to capitalize. SweetNightmares (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And badges for sets of achievements! "Create, Edit, Delete" "World Traveler: Edit articles belonging to 50 WikiProjects" Dispenser (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Folks, this concept was supposed to be sarcasm. If you are actually suggesting that we treat Wikipedia like a (poorly made, generic, mainstream) video game and insert useless achievements, you will only garner laughs. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. Tharthan (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Many large scale websites (Stack overflow, Reddit, Slashdot) have achievements meant to get users to explore. There's also a trend of using gamification in business apps. Dispenser (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, nobody cares about what the current trend is. I suppose we should also change our articles to fit the "trendy" biases too? We should probably also disable Wikipedia on desktop computers, because no one uses those anymore, right?

And Reddit is a far cry from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has been successful in part because it doesn't simply yield to mainstream biases (unless there are no citable sources that lack said bias). It is able to function on a relatively balanced note despite widespread turmoil. Tharthan (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Shhh. The foundation staff is reading and they like trendy ideas. Like Social Justice, espousing Reddit/Twitter influences to museums, forcing unhinted "beautiful" jaggy fonts, and hiding 'useless' language links. Dispenser (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your implications of me by that comment, if only because I am a linguist and I hate sexism. So please don't throw baseless, covered-up accusations at me regarding my character that are based on naught. Tharthan (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You edit Wikimedia projects because you believe in Wikimedia cause to spread knowledge, not gaming it. This is counterproductive and attract trolls and people who only go to Wikimedia projects for playing game, please cease thinking such idea, thank you.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been running a disambiguation 'gamification' contest for years. It's rather productive and people win T-shirts now (finishers have 40-100 hour/month engagement). Dispenser (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not even remotely the same thing.

But, I mean... if you want to come off like this fellow, then do whatever you want.

Go add ads to every Wikimedia page too, and make it a subscription service. Oh! And you could also add small little animals to the corners of every page. And, we could have a merger between the Wikimedia Foundation and everybody's favourite friendly and understanding Google! Clearly great ideas that stay true to the efforts and values that have allowed the Wikimedia projects to grow and flourish up to this point.

You lot frankly make me think of the big corporations that go to a nature preserve-esque area and say "We should turn this into a theme park!" Terrible.

You had ought to try approaches more similar to some of the other proposals on this topic. For instance, increasing awareness of the blatant and widespread systematic bias present, training admins how to better deal with gender gap issues and the like are great ways to work towards a solution to the current problems.

This is not. Like I said before, Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) are not social networking services. That has always been understood by general editors, and I don't understand why people don't get it now. Tharthan (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I helped build the DPL contest that you're not objecting to. Dispenser (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. It is not the same as (nor does it have the same affects as) this. Tharthan (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. There's pitfalls that need to be avoided, but I think the main benefit of gamification is a means to provide direction to new editors as to what sorts of contributions are needed. Wikipedia has areas where contributions are sorely needed, with huge backlogs, etc, and other areas that are subjected to intense scrutiny. Unfortunately, I suspect newer editors often run into issues when they try to do a "quick fix" on an article that was created only after a long discussion on consensus. While I would oppose enforcing a progression, I suspect that it would both help retention and be more efficient if new editors could be nudged toward non-controversial, simple edits, and work their way up to more complex issues. This would help solve a central issue: people leave Wikipedia because they get reverted.

The pitfalls are mainly in incentivizing unhelpful contributions. Some useful contributions are probably best kept unrecognized, like correcting someone who has applied Wikipedia guidelines incorrectly. These are probably few and far between. I think there's a wide range of tasks that newbies should handle though. For some examples:

• Fix a grammar mistake. (respect regional dialects)
• Add a link in an article to another Wikipedia article. (wikipedia linking policy)
• Add a reliable source for a citation needed tag. (reliable sources)
• Contribute to an existing discussion on an article talk page. (consensus)
• Add an importance and quality rating for an article that is missing them. (wiki-projects)

Just providing a roadmap to get new editors familiar with all the systems that are used to build Wikipedia is a great way to get reduce the complexity into bite sized pieces. Forbes72 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Making it piecemeal would help some of the more menial tasks get done in addition to teaching newcomers. It's win-win. The problem is convincing the hard-headed, confrontational traditionalists who outcried upon the trial of the Visual Editor that these types of changes need deserve to be made if we want Wikipedia to continue to experience growth rather than waste away. SweetNightmares (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

initial thoughts and feedback

@SweetNightmares and Dispenser: thanks for your work on refining the idea, and for changing the title in response to feedback on the talk page. I'd love to see even more refinement of the idea, and additional details provided about proposed activities. In particular, I think the idea of reviewing notability (and other) guidelines - with a lens for how they may enforce power differentials within our communities is very interesting and potentially impactful. For example, from the 2014-07-02 edition of the Wikipedia Signpost about coverage of Indigenous peoples I learned that one challenge when it comes to Wikipedia editing is not just the difficulty of finding/accessing reliable sources, but the tensions among editors over what should be considered a reliable source in different domains. I imagine this to be a shared challenge for all who are working to address systemic bias on Wikipedia articles and (as far as I know ) is not something addressed in policy and guidelines. Thepwnco (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding notability

I got a note at Grants:IdeaLab/Spadework program regarding this proposal, so am commenting here. Over at w:Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies#Women I have at least started a list of highly regarded reference works of a broadly encyclopedic nature which deal with biographies of women. I have a whole [words I will not use in public] list of other reference type sources on other topics, which I have been adding, as time and other factors allow, to the various related articles. I freely acknowledge that I don't necessarily have access to all the works I listed there, or on any of the other pages I've been working on of that type, but I could at least gather together the titles/subjects of at least some of those I can rather easily get to. I believe wikipedia NOTABILITY guidelines would generally acknowledge that a topic which has been subject of substantial coverage in two or more encyclopedic reference works would qualify as notable, whether that subject were individual articles or lengthy sections of broader articles. Examples of a few existing pages of the type that could be made based on such sources can be found at w:Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles. Also, as a note, if you do choose to reply, it would almost certainly get a much faster response if you noted it on my talk page at either wikipedia or wikisource, as I really don't come here that often. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)