Wikipedia Wants Me
I love Wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I love what it stands for, and I love what it's trying to achieve. I'm also very interested in issues surrounding intellectual property, copyright laws, users' rights, public domain, and the tremendously powerful lobby that is set on retaining the rights to our entire culture in perpetuity, so the decision to attend Wikimania (the annual international conference of the Wikimedia Foundation) was a complete no-brainer for me.
And then I spent two days listening to people talk about how much they want me. Well, maybe not me-me, but still. Wikipedia isn't attracting new editors at a sufficient rate in general, and not nearly enough women in particular. Now, I happen to be a reasonably well educated and articulate woman, who is both willing and able to contribute to Wikipedia.
The obvious question, then, is why am I not a Wikipedian?
Depending on who you talk to, it's because there are too many rules, or the rules aren't clear enough, or the seasoned editors aren't welcoming enough, or they're too controlling or rude or they don't even think there's a problem, or the user interface is problematic, or newbies start out writing a new entry which promptly gets deleted because it doesn't conform to community standards and so they leave, or Wikipedia is so large that there's simply not much left to write about, or potential editors are too used to things just being there and don't like looking under the hood, or seeing how the sausage is made, or other metaphors. I'm probably leaving some stuff out, but you get the picture. Wikipedia acknowledges that there's a problem, and a whole bunch of people are talking about why the problem exists and what can or should be done to fix it.
What none of these people have done is ask me why I'm not a Wikipedia editor, which is why I'm writing this. Because Wikipedia says it wants me, and I want to contribute to Wikipedia, and yet I don't, and it's not for any of the reasons I've heard so far (disclaimer: I haven't listened to every single editor-related talk at Wikimania, as there have been plenty of talks on subjects I was more interested in going on simultaneously).
When I first heard about the 2011 Wikimania, I found a call for volunteers. I was thinking I could volunteer, so I looked around to see if someone was in charge of coordinating this. Since there wasn't anyone I could contact, I figured the next best thing was to check out the discussion tab for that page.
The discussion tab says three things. First, that the page does not exist, but that I could create it. Second, that I should keep my contribution on-topic, and the third was a warning that I was creating a page that was previously deleted. It goes on to say:
Excellent! There's a log I can look at, might help me figure out what's going on. It's provided for my convenience, right there:
Oh. Okay, now I'm confused. I gather that Az1568 deleted the discussion page. I can even click through to his profile and learn more about him. There's also a link to "Talk:Volunteers" though it doesn't exist because it's been deleted. In fact, I'm looking at the log of its deletion. The added information "Author request: Blanked" links to nothing and might mean something to someone, but that someone isn't me. So, dead end there. Still, I'm not that easily deterred. I want to help, and there must be a way to do it. So I go back to the original call for volunteers page and start over.
The page includes two tables with lists of volunteers (one online, one offline). I guess I could edit myself in there and hope that someone contacts me. So I go to the edit tab of the page. Now, I'm no computer whiz or anything, but I can plainly see that the editable bit doesn't include the tables with the volunteers. It's just the top bit that talks about wanting people to volunteer, which I have no intention of editing. Still, I look for clues.
Scrolling down, I can see a whole lot of information regarding the editing of this page. There's a bit about agreeing to the TOS and the license and ticky boxes and a bunch of characters and symbols, something about not writing if I don't want to be "mercilessly edited" and about not using non-public-domain resources and a link to an editing help file, and even a request that on talk pages I sign my name using ~~~~, whatever that means.
At the bottom of the page there is a list of 8 templates used on "this" page.
Though I'm not sure which page that is or what these templates are, I figure it's my only lead at this point, so I click the link titled "Template:Offline volunteers" which takes me to a page that houses the volunteer list table separately. Result! Again, there's no discussion, but there is an edit tab, so I can add myself to the list and so, hopefully, eventually end up talking to someone about volunteering at the conference.
I'm not familiar with the format, but there's a copy-paste thing I can do and just replace the italicized bits with my info, which seems simple enough. Except I don't have a user name yet, so I register, and when that's done, I go back to edit myself into the list. Of course, the page my user name links to is empty, but that doesn't seem to matter, so I ignore it and move on. The thing is, I notice that the other people on the list have a system for the language part of the table where they note the languages they speak and at what level, and I'm not familiar with this system, so I go in search of the codes used for languages and proficiency levels. I can't find anything about it, but I remember seeing something on the profile of the guy who deleted the discussion page I was looking for earlier, so I go back there, and, true enough, there's a green box that says "En-N" and next to it it says "This user can read and write at a native level in English."
AHA! Now we're getting somewhere. N means native level. Also, the word English is in lovely link-blue, so I check it out, and there's an actual list of levels of fluency and their codes:
Also, there's a list of pages (apparently user profiles) who are in the useful category "User en."
So now I have the fluency codes from 0 to N, which, yay, but I don't have a list of language codes. Since I can't seem to find a comprehensive list, I go for the next best thing and look for users who speak the same languages I do. It takes a while, since I'm clicking through to a limited pool of profiles, and they don't always have that handy bit on the side with the languages they speak, and some profiles redirect to other places. Still, there's some interesting people there, so I don't mind sifting through profiles.
Sadly, this is the point where my memory fails me. I think I managed to find all the relevant languages eventually, but I never did edit that template to add my details to it. Thinking back, I can't remember why I made that decision at the time, though I might have come to the conclusion that even if I did edit myself in, there would still be no way for anyone to contact me about it, and I know that by the time I got to that stage, I didn't feel like creating a profile page for myself. Or maybe I just got distracted. I guess we'll never know. Either way, if you found this description tiresome and long winded (which, really, you should), imagine how I feel.
The process of editing this teeny tiny bit of a template within a page isn't technically demanding or complex, and doesn't require any particular familiarity with Wikipedia rules or standards. It also doesn't involve any contact whatsoever with seasoned editors, welcoming or otherwise. Those things are not the problem. The problem is at a much simpler and more basic level than people who are familiar with the system seem to be able to either imagine or remember.
I was talking to some people from the Hebrew Wikipedia earlier today, and they told me that once you edit a page, you get a Welcome to Wikipedia message with information on editing. As a potential contributor, this seems a bit ass backwards to me. I don't want to waste my time editing when I have no idea what I'm doing, just to get to the point where I get to find out how I should've done it. From their perspective, most people create an account and never come back or contribute anything at all, so there's no point in trying to welcome each new user individually till they've actually done something. I'm not saying this isn't a valid POV, but if that's the case, then there should probably be some way for those who do want to start contributing to get an idea of what's going on before they start. Well, as it turns out, there is actually a page with a list of experienced users who are willing to adopt a newbie, which is excellent. The only problem is that unless you know it's there, and where to find it, you won't know it's there or where to find it.
You need to know how things work in order to find out how things work. Unless you know where to look, you can't find the pages that tell you where to look. Those pages exist. They're tremendously useful. All you have to do to make use of all this wonderful information is reach the point where you don't need it anymore.
I'm a pretty resourceful woman. I can figure out the syntax and the UI and how to deal with other editors and what the rules and guidelines are. What I can't figure out is where they stashed the door. So, the answer to the question that no one asked me?
The only reason I'm not a Wikipedian yet is that I'm not a Wikipedian already.
You can comment on this entry using OpenID or your Google, Facebook or Twitter accounts. Sorry I couldn't enable anonymous comments :(
And then I spent two days listening to people talk about how much they want me. Well, maybe not me-me, but still. Wikipedia isn't attracting new editors at a sufficient rate in general, and not nearly enough women in particular. Now, I happen to be a reasonably well educated and articulate woman, who is both willing and able to contribute to Wikipedia.
The obvious question, then, is why am I not a Wikipedian?
Depending on who you talk to, it's because there are too many rules, or the rules aren't clear enough, or the seasoned editors aren't welcoming enough, or they're too controlling or rude or they don't even think there's a problem, or the user interface is problematic, or newbies start out writing a new entry which promptly gets deleted because it doesn't conform to community standards and so they leave, or Wikipedia is so large that there's simply not much left to write about, or potential editors are too used to things just being there and don't like looking under the hood, or seeing how the sausage is made, or other metaphors. I'm probably leaving some stuff out, but you get the picture. Wikipedia acknowledges that there's a problem, and a whole bunch of people are talking about why the problem exists and what can or should be done to fix it.
What none of these people have done is ask me why I'm not a Wikipedia editor, which is why I'm writing this. Because Wikipedia says it wants me, and I want to contribute to Wikipedia, and yet I don't, and it's not for any of the reasons I've heard so far (disclaimer: I haven't listened to every single editor-related talk at Wikimania, as there have been plenty of talks on subjects I was more interested in going on simultaneously).
When I first heard about the 2011 Wikimania, I found a call for volunteers. I was thinking I could volunteer, so I looked around to see if someone was in charge of coordinating this. Since there wasn't anyone I could contact, I figured the next best thing was to check out the discussion tab for that page.
The discussion tab says three things. First, that the page does not exist, but that I could create it. Second, that I should keep my contribution on-topic, and the third was a warning that I was creating a page that was previously deleted. It goes on to say:
You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:
Excellent! There's a log I can look at, might help me figure out what's going on. It's provided for my convenience, right there:
07:15, 11 May 2011 Az1568 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Volunteers" (Author request: Blanked)
Oh. Okay, now I'm confused. I gather that Az1568 deleted the discussion page. I can even click through to his profile and learn more about him. There's also a link to "Talk:Volunteers" though it doesn't exist because it's been deleted. In fact, I'm looking at the log of its deletion. The added information "Author request: Blanked" links to nothing and might mean something to someone, but that someone isn't me. So, dead end there. Still, I'm not that easily deterred. I want to help, and there must be a way to do it. So I go back to the original call for volunteers page and start over.
The page includes two tables with lists of volunteers (one online, one offline). I guess I could edit myself in there and hope that someone contacts me. So I go to the edit tab of the page. Now, I'm no computer whiz or anything, but I can plainly see that the editable bit doesn't include the tables with the volunteers. It's just the top bit that talks about wanting people to volunteer, which I have no intention of editing. Still, I look for clues.
Scrolling down, I can see a whole lot of information regarding the editing of this page. There's a bit about agreeing to the TOS and the license and ticky boxes and a bunch of characters and symbols, something about not writing if I don't want to be "mercilessly edited" and about not using non-public-domain resources and a link to an editing help file, and even a request that on talk pages I sign my name using ~~~~, whatever that means.
At the bottom of the page there is a list of 8 templates used on "this" page.
Though I'm not sure which page that is or what these templates are, I figure it's my only lead at this point, so I click the link titled "Template:Offline volunteers" which takes me to a page that houses the volunteer list table separately. Result! Again, there's no discussion, but there is an edit tab, so I can add myself to the list and so, hopefully, eventually end up talking to someone about volunteering at the conference.
I'm not familiar with the format, but there's a copy-paste thing I can do and just replace the italicized bits with my info, which seems simple enough. Except I don't have a user name yet, so I register, and when that's done, I go back to edit myself into the list. Of course, the page my user name links to is empty, but that doesn't seem to matter, so I ignore it and move on. The thing is, I notice that the other people on the list have a system for the language part of the table where they note the languages they speak and at what level, and I'm not familiar with this system, so I go in search of the codes used for languages and proficiency levels. I can't find anything about it, but I remember seeing something on the profile of the guy who deleted the discussion page I was looking for earlier, so I go back there, and, true enough, there's a green box that says "En-N" and next to it it says "This user can read and write at a native level in English."
AHA! Now we're getting somewhere. N means native level. Also, the word English is in lovely link-blue, so I check it out, and there's an actual list of levels of fluency and their codes:
Also, there's a list of pages (apparently user profiles) who are in the useful category "User en."
So now I have the fluency codes from 0 to N, which, yay, but I don't have a list of language codes. Since I can't seem to find a comprehensive list, I go for the next best thing and look for users who speak the same languages I do. It takes a while, since I'm clicking through to a limited pool of profiles, and they don't always have that handy bit on the side with the languages they speak, and some profiles redirect to other places. Still, there's some interesting people there, so I don't mind sifting through profiles.
Sadly, this is the point where my memory fails me. I think I managed to find all the relevant languages eventually, but I never did edit that template to add my details to it. Thinking back, I can't remember why I made that decision at the time, though I might have come to the conclusion that even if I did edit myself in, there would still be no way for anyone to contact me about it, and I know that by the time I got to that stage, I didn't feel like creating a profile page for myself. Or maybe I just got distracted. I guess we'll never know. Either way, if you found this description tiresome and long winded (which, really, you should), imagine how I feel.
The process of editing this teeny tiny bit of a template within a page isn't technically demanding or complex, and doesn't require any particular familiarity with Wikipedia rules or standards. It also doesn't involve any contact whatsoever with seasoned editors, welcoming or otherwise. Those things are not the problem. The problem is at a much simpler and more basic level than people who are familiar with the system seem to be able to either imagine or remember.
I was talking to some people from the Hebrew Wikipedia earlier today, and they told me that once you edit a page, you get a Welcome to Wikipedia message with information on editing. As a potential contributor, this seems a bit ass backwards to me. I don't want to waste my time editing when I have no idea what I'm doing, just to get to the point where I get to find out how I should've done it. From their perspective, most people create an account and never come back or contribute anything at all, so there's no point in trying to welcome each new user individually till they've actually done something. I'm not saying this isn't a valid POV, but if that's the case, then there should probably be some way for those who do want to start contributing to get an idea of what's going on before they start. Well, as it turns out, there is actually a page with a list of experienced users who are willing to adopt a newbie, which is excellent. The only problem is that unless you know it's there, and where to find it, you won't know it's there or where to find it.
You need to know how things work in order to find out how things work. Unless you know where to look, you can't find the pages that tell you where to look. Those pages exist. They're tremendously useful. All you have to do to make use of all this wonderful information is reach the point where you don't need it anymore.
I'm a pretty resourceful woman. I can figure out the syntax and the UI and how to deal with other editors and what the rules and guidelines are. What I can't figure out is where they stashed the door. So, the answer to the question that no one asked me?
The only reason I'm not a Wikipedian yet is that I'm not a Wikipedian already.
You can comment on this entry using OpenID or your Google, Facebook or Twitter accounts. Sorry I couldn't enable anonymous comments :(