https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section says pretty much the same:
> The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's > topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic > is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent > controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established > in the first few sentences. that is, the intro section should be a short standalone article: > As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four > well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. For an extreme case, [[World War II]] gets *five* long paragraphs for its intro section. - d. On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: > > In my little duckpond (svwp) we have guidleines for the introduction > part of the article. > > It should use (simple) language to enable 14-16 years old to understand > it (while the rest can use more complicated vocabulary) > > It should hopefully only be 1-3 sentences, and to state what is all > about and not a summary. > > We do not live up to this recommendation all the time, but I have > noticed that he introducion part on enwp generally are very long, in > comparison > > Anders > > > > Den 2018-12-30 kl. 11:39, skrev Zubin JAIN: > >> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two > > important things about them. They have a very short attention span and > > difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized > > information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable of > > watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20 > > pages from a book. > > > >> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate / the > > best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know the > > answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise > > the rest of the text does not make sense. > > > >> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like to > > be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious. Articles > > must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need to > > be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with more > > voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just > > further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next clip. > > > > These are gross generalizations and the ideas are similarly flawed. > > Anecdotes do not prove anything and while there is some evidence to suspect > > that attention span is reducing ( Though there has yet to be consensus and > > one should naturally be sceptical of any psychological finding given the > > fields replication crisis). Under 18 people such as myself probably use the > > site the most compared to any other demographic and most of us are capable > > of using it as well as anybody else. > > > > The idea that Wikipedia needs to be dumbed down has abousltley no basis on > > fact and data, is only supported by anecdotes and stereotypes. This is not > > to say that simplifying some Wikipedia articles and creating more video > > content is wrong, Wikipedia should be inclusive to all including those with > > disabilities or conditions that make the traditional encyclopedia > > unsuitable but making those changes out of ageist assumptions of > > generational decline is insulting. > > > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 17:21, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I still believe we need to "explode Wikipedia", by which I mean split > >> curation templates, categories, lists and all other articles into more > >> easily editable and curatable parts. This enables better linking to > >> discrete Wikidata items while reducing the tedious task of curation for > >> extremely long articles. Your comments, Peter, are still based on the > >> 18-year-old idea of "it's the info that matters". It's no longer just the > >> content that matters. Content curation, once advertised as being super > >> simple (and still in the byline as "everybody can edit"), has become a > >> tedious and complicated task, and efforts to make it easier have resulted > >> with the visual editor for mobile, which still doesn't work for uploading > >> to Commons. We need better upload interfaces for fixing spelling mistakes, > >> adding blue links, categories, media, and all other common tasks. We should > >> not let Google decide which sentences to index first, but we should be > >> enabling those decisions to be made by human editors. Findability should > >> reflect editability and it doesn't. > >> > >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:18 AM Peter Southwood < > >> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Yaroslav, > >>> Several recent developments relate to this situation which I think you > >>> have described reasonably well. > >>> Short descriptions help a bit. But they are too short to help much > >>> Simple Wikipedia tries to keep things simple and easily understood, but > >>> perhaps concentrates too much on a small vocabulary. > >>> I do see a real need and a use for a "Readers Digest" or "executive > >>> summary" version of long and complex articles for people who don’t have a > >>> need for the full story, but as a complementary version, possibly linked > >>> from the top of a desktop view, and possibly the primary target in > >> mobile. > >>> This would not be needed for all articles. > >>> Cheers, > >>> Peter Southwood > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > >>> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter > >>> Sent: 29 December 2018 23:34 > >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List > >>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent? > >>> > >>> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of > >>> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand > >>> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to > >>> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The > >> target > >>> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily > >>> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first > >>> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I > >>> apologize in advance. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Yaroslav > >>> _________________ > >>> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia. > >>> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but > >>> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly > >>> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am > >>> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues, > >> but > >>> there are typically many other things going on there which make the > >> picture > >>> more complicated. > >>> > >>> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001, > >>> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million > >>> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have > >> already > >>> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point > >>> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on > >> an > >>> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many > >> articles > >>> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and > >> they > >>> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular > >> basis: > >>> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and > >> so > >>> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since > >>> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in > >>> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not > >> so > >>> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been > >>> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia - > >>> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first > >> hit > >>> — they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance. > >>> > >>> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or > >>> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could > >>> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film > >>> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in > >>> 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the most > >>> famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the > >> number > >>> of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content > >> in a > >>> meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some > >>> field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a > >>> professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to > >>> Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a > >>> professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made for > >>> many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They > >> have > >>> been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a > >> large > >>> scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However, > >>> despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough resources > >> to > >>> maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no > >> problems > >>> - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed one > >>> is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on subjects > >>> pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on > >>> differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American > >> view > >>> dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that these > >>> drawbacks are not crucial, and Wikipedia is atill a useful and > >> sustainable > >>> project. Wikipedia clearly has its ecosystem, there are no competitors to > >>> talk about, and all attempts to fork it were unsuccessful. There is a > >>> steady development, and everybody is happy. > >>> > >>> Does this mean that everything is fine and we do not need to worry?, just > >>> to wait until missing articles get written, or even to help this by > >> writing > >>> them ourselves? > >>> > >>> Absolutely not. To understand this, we can look again at the editor base. > >>> There are detailed studies, but, for a starter, it is a nightmare to edit > >>> Wikipedia from a cell phone. It is possible but not much easier to edit > >> it > >>> from a tablet. The mobile version is different from a desktop one, and it > >>> is not really optimized for editing. This is a known problem, but one > >>> aspect of it is clear. Most Wikipedia editors actually own a desktop and > >> a > >>> laptop. This brings them into 18+ category. There are of course > >> exceptions, > >>> but the fact is that the editor base gets older, and this is a problem. > >> The > >>> problem is not so much at this point that we all die and there will be > >>> nobody to edit Wikipedia. The problem is that the next generation (18-) > >> has > >>> very different ways of getting information. And I guess they are not > >>> interested in editing Wikipedia, and they will not get interested when > >> they > >>> grow up - possibly beyond introducing minor corrections, which can be > >> done > >>> from a phone. > >>> > >>> Traditionally, students were always among the core of the editors base. > >>> They already have some knowledge and they still have time to edit. When > >>> they graduate, find a job and start a family, they have way less time and > >>> typically stop editing. The next group are retirees. Between students and > >>> retirees, we have a tiny fraction of dedicated enthusiasts who are ready > >> to > >>> take time from work and family, but they are really not numerous. Well, > >> and > >>> very soon we are going to lose students as editors. And we should be > >> happy > >>> if we do not lose them as readers. > >>> > >>> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know two > >>> important things about them. They have a very short attention span and > >>> difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized > >>> information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable > >> of > >>> watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read 20 > >>> pages from a book. > >>> > >>> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate / > >> the > >>> best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know > >> the > >>> answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive, otherwise > >>> the rest of the text does not make sense. > >>> > >>> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look like > >> to > >>> be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious. > >> Articles > >>> must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they need > >> to > >>> be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with > >> more > >>> voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just > >>> further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next > >>> clip. > >>> > >>> This is a paradigm shift. Currently, the editors generally consider that > >> it > >>> is good to have long Wikipedia articles - because long means more > >> complete. > >>> Sometimes there are even proposals (fortunately isolated and without > >>> followup) to delete all short articles even if they describe notable > >> topics > >>> and contain verified information. Clips are almost not in use. Of course > >>> they still need to be made, but this is not such a big problem - there > >> are > >>> plenty of school students who have their own youtube channel, if they can > >>> make clips, everybody can. > >>> > >>> The most difficult question is how this can be realized. I believe it is > >>> not possible to just transform Wikipedia like this - make articles > >> shorter > >>> and simpler and spit them. First, this might be good for the young > >>> generation, but this is still not good for the 18+ generation. Second, > >> such > >>> reforms should be either be approved by Wikipedia community through > >>> consensus, or be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation who owns the > >> project. > >>> The likelihood of either is zero. Just to give one argument, the > >> community > >>> is, well, the community of editors, of the same 18+ people with laptops > >> who > >>> have no difficulties reading long texts. > >>> > >>> I envision it differently. Ideally, we have the Wikipedia as it is now, > >> but > >>> on top of this, every article has a collection of shorter companion > >>> articles, simple and a paragraph or two long, so that each of them can be > >>> read in half a minute, They should not have excessive markup, references, > >>> categories or anything else which can be found in the main article if > >>> needed. References in Wikipedia are required not for the sake of having > >>> references, but as a means to ensure that the information is verifiable - > >>> and if the main article does it the companion articles do not need to. > >> Some > >>> of these companion articles can be in fact clips - there is a difficulty > >>> that clips can not be edited collaboratively, but I am sure this one can > >> be > >>> solved. If anybody wants to solve it. > >>> > >>> The status of what I have written above is science fiction. I am sure if > >> I > >>> come with this proposal to a village pump of Wikipedia, it will be dead > >>> within a day. In addition, it requires some modifications of MediaWiki > >>> which can only be done by the Foundation. And I am not really looking > >>> forward for the Foundation implementing this either. I have a lot of > >>> respect for some of the Foundation employees, but it has now grown up > >> into > >>> a big corporation now and behaves as a big corporation, where some people > >>> care less about the product and more about other things, and some look at > >>> Wikipedia editors, aka "unorganized volunteers", as some annoying > >>> phenomenon, which they can tolerate but are not willing to listen to. My > >>> forecast is pretty pessimistic. Unless a miracle happens (and I > >> currently, > >>> at least not from my perspective, do not see any reasons for a miracle to > >>> happen), soon or late will realize this, It might be a startup company, > >> or > >>> a non-commercial. And Wikipedia will stay as it is, and, after the > >>> standards change many times, it will not be readable / accessible to most > >>> of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were were > >>> doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and > >> happens > >>> to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of > >> pieces > >>> of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now. > >>> > >>> Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia, 125 > >>> 000 edits. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >>> https://www.avg.com > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
