On 11 December 2011 14:13, Tony Sidaway <[email protected]> wrote:
> Our own internal discussions have long reflected on the unfriendliness and > undue bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Generally we're good at the trade-off but > if we start claiming with a straight face that it's benign rather than a > necessary evil we'll have lost something important. > > While the complainant here might not have prevailed on the merits, his > complaints about the spikiness of the interface were legitimate and should > not have been met with defensive comments that sought to reflect the > criticism back onto him. > > I would agree that it is well worth pondering the nature of the interface between the administrative pages (in the Wikipedia: namespace) and the "general public" who may wish to access them. I don't know any single onsite explanation of "processes" and "noticeboards" which would be a good starting point. Then I haven't looked for such a thing. A "main page" explaining the whole namespace looks like an inherently good idea (whether or not those who need it would find it). That said, I deprecate getting "design" issues mixed up with others. The use of emotive terms such as cold and unfriendly implies things about intention and fault that aren't exactly helpful. I don't know whether arguing that WP is "sui generis" is defensive or not. I can think of several issues where it allows a reply like "you'd have more of a case if WP were ...", to fill in to taste with "staffed by paid workers"/"for profit"/"offering a different service"/"run on a billion dollar budget"/"Facebook", etc. These answers seem to me to offer analytical insight. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
