Molly White teaches new Wikipedia users how to edit

[Zoloft]

link

Molly is of course a member here, and I’d like to see a discussion of pros and cons about this (in my opinion) very tidy and appealing tutorial.

[Randy from Boise]

I wish we could clone 500 GWs.

She's the real deal.

t

[Randy from Boise]

Here's your policy book, GW...

[ArmasRebane]

It's almost certainly much better than whatever training people are getting in the WikiEdu stuff. It's probably also targeted more towards a crowd familiar with her (coders, etc) and thus a similar crowd demographics-wise to the current editing base, but you can't change a leopard's spots.

The advice about figuring out stuff 'in contact' is relevant and just giving the bare information on discerning reliable sources seems smart. I definitely feel like some critics of Wikipedia's culture act like Wikipedia's rules are so byzantine that it's impossible to figure out, but in reality you're very unlikely to come into contact with a lot of it, certainly in a casual engagement. No one walking around in society knows all the laws on the books, that doesn't stop people from successfully navigating day-to-day life.

[No Ledge]

Don't Let “Perfect” Be the Enemy of “Good”

if you always aim for perfection, you may annoy your colleagues. Seek your peers' feedback rather than trying to meet your extremely high standards.

Hear that, manual-of-style warriors!

[rnu]

[...]
I definitely feel like some critics of Wikipedia's culture act like Wikipedia's rules are so byzantine that it's impossible to figure out[.]
[...]

Not just critics. If new editors know the rules they are immediately accused of being socks.

[ArmasRebane]

[...]
I definitely feel like some critics of Wikipedia's culture act like Wikipedia's rules are so byzantine that it's impossible to figure out[.]
[...]

Not just critics. If new editors know the rules they are immediately accused of being socks.

Fair point. Although I think there is a shade of difference (though certainly not to all editors) between "I did my research and can perform competent edits early on" and "I showed up in five edits at an ANI thread to start complaining about people just after installing custom javascript gadgets."

[Kraken]

Here's my 30 minute video that takes you step by step through what you need to know to make your very fist edit to Wikipedia. I made this video because I believe you shouldn't need to take a course or have to read lots of policy pages to be able to edit Wikipedia with confidence.

Uh huh.

I don't think I've needed a 30 minute video to do anything in my life ever. It's either something you can do with minimal effort, or it's something better left to someone you pay to do it for you.

Then again, I have simple hobbies, like riding a bike. A 5 minute YouTube helped me use a widely available tool to fix a very common problem that you will encounter if you ride a bike for longer than the average person.

A different 5 minute video convinced me I don't like fixing bikes (rather than riding them) enough to start buying very specialist tools for some very specific and time consuming jobs that also come up and would at a minimum need a 30 minute tutorial video to do, when there are at least three places within a 10 mile radius who will happily do it for a few bucks while I wait.

I have no interest in wood carving or bowl making or rug weaving or any other hobby where a 30 minute video is needed to get you over the first hurdle.

And I'm quite sure I am representative of anyone who might conceivably want to get into Wikipedia editing as a hobby, rather than for far more nefarious purposes (righting great wrongs, promotional editing, therapy).

So who are these people who find this video and think, ah ha, that's exactly what I need? I say they don't exist.

I say she's fooling herself.

[The Garbage Scow]

It certainly hurts nobody and someone could find it helpful, even if only to see not all wikipedia editors are poorly socialized cretins with varying levels of OCD.

[Kraken]

Well it hardly struck me as a personable performance. It very much does feel like a college seminar conducted by someone who has been briefed to recruit more people to Wikipedia and therefore underplay or even excuse many of the things that sadly make it necessary to have a 30 minute video induction before someone can really be confident their first edit will stick.

There is way more enthusiasm from the aforementioned cycling videos I've used. You barely even notice they were produced by a cycle tool company, because first and foremost the presenters are clearly genuine in their passion and enthusiasm for getting more people on bikes and passing on the knowledge needed to do that.

If your product is good and you're enthusiastic about it, you really don't need to spend 30 minutes convincing them and frankly warning them of all the potential dangers and pitfalls of not successfully assimilating into the cycling community.

They will happily put up with the downsides in return for the upsides. One quickly senses the palpalble depressing truth of this video, the reason it was made, namely that the potential benefits of Wikipedia are few and far between. And to get there you've got to put up with a hell of a lot of sweat of the brow and dirt under your fingernails, and assorted scratches and sprains and wasted time and effort from poorly designed tools and a poorly executed product.

She talks about proxies being banned in the first five minutes, and the how's, why's and wherefore's of getting past that barrier to entry. Why? Because without videos like this, offering the excuses and contexts for Wikipedia's product quirks, "anyone can edit" is quickly shown to newcomers to be revealed as a sick joke. Assorted physical, technical and cultural barriers now exist that all need to be addressed in this video. She pretends the issue is still simply fear of breaking stuff and being yelled at. That didn't stop people before.

In Molly's time, anyone can edit was literally the selling point. People edited. It was easy. Easy enough for a thirteen year old girl to do. Things changed. She knows it. She admits it. This is the reason why she's trying to pretend to herself and the world with this video that this change was not the disaster it very obviously was.

[greenday61892]

[...]
I definitely feel like some critics of Wikipedia's culture act like Wikipedia's rules are so byzantine that it's impossible to figure out[.]
[...]

Not just critics. If new editors know the rules they are immediately accused of being socks.

Or if you have an account for several years, only have about 15 edits and decide to speak your piece on a backend board, apparently....

Something something hammer something something nail something