User talk:Phoebe/book

\o/ Have fun writing :-) Are you going to talk with folks like James Forrester? he helped lots of people understand how the wiki community works. -Kim Bruning (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia documentation.

Essential: WP:5P, m:Foundation issues

Some useful ones: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (When it's done), Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, Be BOLD, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, WP:ENC, bold revert discuss

Just for fun: The zen of wikipedia. compare: User:Zenwhat/Zen_guide, attempted by an actual zen-type-person, apparently

--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can edit?

I think you will have to walk a narrow line between making Wikipedia editing sound unrealistically simple, on one hand, and providing so much information that people throw up their hands in despair, on the other.

Bon chance! Wanderer57 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PS There a few good links on my user page, you might want to look at them.

PPS The Wikipedia:Help desk is a huge treasure trove of information. You likely already know that.

Old comments

Essays wanted!

What are your favorite essays about Wikipedia, or pithy descriptions of the site and how it works? User essays, guidelines, mailing list posts, quotes... all are fair game.

1. Categories : meta + enwp
2. on Commons, on Wiktionary, on Wikibooks?
3. User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is an excellent collection of thoughts about Wikipedia and the personalities on the site. don't stuff beans up your nose is an essay which can be applied everywhere. Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles on Meta is a hilarious essay about vandalism and how it could be prevented. Graham87 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Most of the relevant posts on my blog. Then again, there is one topic I wish I had written on -- comparing Wikipedia to the national academies of knowledge/scholarship that were founded all of a sudden in the 17th/18th centuries (the best known being the Royal Academy of the UK, the French Academy, etc.). In other words, a bunch of serious amateurs got together to share their discoveries & create a forum that was independent of the fickle realities of patronage. I'm sure that the contemporary experts looked down on them for the same reasons as do many of Wikipedia's critics. -- llywrch (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
5. The first half or so of User:Raul654/Raul's laws, before people started getting sloppy and repetitive, is about the clearest explanation of how the site works, including the disagreements. Quoting one of the authors of the book, the one I always remember is Charles Matthews: "The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter." - BanyanTree 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies

What do you see as being the most important policies on en:wp? What encapsulates the site, or contributes most to its day-to-day working?

Tips

What are some especially useful tips that would want to share with other editors, or frequently asked questions that you get from new editors?

1. see the above, for starters
2. Laws and Rules
3. Crib sheets from WP:STYLE
4. Always remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Before clicking on "save page", ask yourself whether you would find the page your are about to create in a paper encyclopedia without any size or time limitations. This goes a long way towards avoiding deletion of new articles.Examples: Would I find autobiographies in an encyclopedia? No, so don't create one. On the other hand, there's a good chance articles about various species of bats will be found in an encyclopedia, but aren't found in Britannica due to space limitations. MER-C 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

   Absolutely. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z

5. Sampling a few entries from a paper encyclopedia gives a general idea of what we expect in terms of style. You can also read today's featured article and other featured articles to the same effect. MER-C 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

   While some FAs aren't that great for this, asking people to have a look at a paper encyclopedia would help. A lot. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z

6. Get someone else to read your draft article, preferably someone not familiar with the subject and ask for his/her feedback. MER-C 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your best stories

What are some really defining stories or incidents from the hairy past of Wikipedia? What things have really changed how the site works? What debates have led directly to policy? What epic arguments do you remember as standing out? For instance...

1. Gdansk
2. Userboxen
3. Essjay
4. BLP wars Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Santa on Sleigh Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
6. British vs American English Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
7. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, the subsequent readminship of Carnildo and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano Graham87 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
8. The Seigenthaler controversy and the Essjay controversy. the Nature study was also important in showing that Wikipedia was doing reasonably well at least in science topics. Graham87 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
9. The Wikipedia Signpost is a good source of information about the history of Wikipedia since early 2005. Graham87 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Satan's inclusionist helpers trying to destroy Wikimedia, and the cabal of fascist deletionists trying to destroy Wikimedia. (PS I'm a deletionist who doesn't like unnotable unsourced fancruft.) -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z

The perfect book

What would your perfect introductory (printed, dead-trees) guide to Wikipedia look like?

• one answer...

1. History
2. Using MediaWiki
3. Using Wikipedia
4. Policy
5. Profiles
6. Future

History will be probably be deficient before it's printed, so focus on the really big themes. With policies focus again on the big themes. Profiles will probably be more trouble than good. The future is good - the big picture and the future. And wide margins for editing the book ;). -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z

What do you want to know?

Is there anything you're curious about, but don't understand about Wikipedia? (besides meta-theoretical debates...) Any pieces of syntax or procedures that are especially confusing or that you have a hard time remembering? Don't know how to get involved in something? Something about the site's history you've always been curious about?

• I know the answer to this one, but it's an interesting angle: It would be cool to explain how the Main Page gets put together - what are all the different discussions and decisions that go into it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please put much emphasis on WP:V and referencing (the cite templates are not as important, but a short description on how to use one, e.g. cite journal, would be nice). -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z
• How about finding some newbies with warning templates on their talk pages, look at their contributions to see what newbies do wrong, and write how not to make those common mistakes. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-08t14:22z
• A basic understanding of the principles underlying the rules about image copyright, free images, licences, and all that stuff. Maybe a quick "how to" on putting into Wikipedia a photo you made. (Here's a idea for a chapter title: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/31000.html ) Wanderer57 (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

How would you market and distribute such a book? What audiences do you think would be interested, or who do you think really needs a how-to guide for Wikipedia? What special features should be included for different audiences?

• We are imagining teachers, journalists, librarians...

• Maybe have something reviewers can latch onto - I'm thinking of WP:NOT and explaining that criticizing WP (and WM projects in general) for having incorrect info is like criticizing water for being wet. The powers that be failed in giving us a free encyclopedia, and WP will have to do until they come up with the goods (or we produce good stable versions). -- Jeandré, 2007-12-06t15:18z

Current outline

Here's the current outline of our planned book. Please feel free to annotate with signed comments.

1. Introduction, quick start guide
2. What's in Wikipedia? -- Content policies and what you can expect to find
3. History and background: Encyclopedias, free software, wikis and Wikipedia
4. Navigating, searching and browsing
5. Basic editing

   A walkthrough with code examples and expected results in the style of many programming books would be a good idea here. Essentially, what this entails is creating a user subpage by copying some unwikified text and gradually making it look like a real article. MER-C 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Manual of Style, good writing and research
7. Cleaning up, processes, and things to do
8. Working with articles
9. Advanced Syntax
10. life cycle of an article
11. Becoming a Wikipedian
12. Communities and communication
13. Policies
14. Dispute resolution and coming to consensus
15. 200 languages and counting...
16. Sister projects: Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons and more
17. Foundation and Meta

Featured content could probably do with its own chapter. MER-C 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some 250+ languages with a Wikipedia and some 50 still need their MediaWiki localisation. The differences between the projects are sometimes quite stark. The success stories show that a Wikipedia can become significantly important for major and minor languages. Within the projects there is a long tail where people do care but do not make their projects a success. GerardM (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Any specific examples that come to mind? -- phoebe/(talk) 00:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Visitor comments

everyone can edit?

I'm concerned about the elitist, self-inflicting, mini police-state that has evolved around Wikipedia/Mediawiki administration, and all the ongoing noise about banning (see the support mailing lists for endless necessary discussions not possible within Wikipedia). So long as any admin can ban anyone, especially as a resolution to a fight they themselves are in (or even started), there will be a nasty undercurrent of negativity and fear to the Wikipedia/Mediawiki experience. Wikipedia is not free and open to all. What few understand is that banning is bad for the person who bans, it makes them callous and full of themselves as superior and elitist, and becomes a "Shoot first, permit no questions" police state, whenever an admin feels even slightly uncomfortable or challenged. Admins do not see themselves as service support staff, here to help everyone, anyone, and Wikipedia/Mediawiki is the worse for it. I will always see Wikipedia/Mediawiki content and community as full of holes due to the missing contributors, intimidated contributors, and compromised contributions from play-it-safe contributors, so long as Wikipedia/Mediawiki has not developed a work around to prevent banning, and to encourage admins to help, not hurt. -- Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PS - See also http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/comments/

official book site is full of ads

The official book website, which is linked to a couple times, is one of those disgusting parked/squatted domains. Seriously? No Starch (or whoever was in charge of the site) couldn't pay the hosting bill for more than a year or two? If you have any control over it, please do something useful with it. Or turn it into a redirect, at the very least. Domain profiteers are the cancer that is killing the Internet. --69.209.198.91 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)