User talk:69.181.188.254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! SECisek 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to address some concerns

(see reply below)

First of all, I want to say that I'd be glad to try and address any of your concerns, and would like to help you understand how wikipedia works. I do not agree with you that wikipedia's process is incomprehensible, nor that it is impossible for a layman to use wikipedia. Sure, there is a slight learning curve, but it honestly, basic editing isn't that much more complicated than sending an e-mail. Sure there is a little bit of wikicode to learn, and we have some guidelines and policies, but nothing unmanageable. If there is a specific area you would like help in, I'd be glad to walk you through it.

(the learning curve is nothing close to slight - it is huge. the jargon and complex editing policies make things very complex. If people need to be "walked through" the processes, the system has already failed - see below)

Let me get this thing out of the way. If you want to start a new message on a talk page, you can hit the tab at the top with the plus sign on it "+". This will take you to a place where you can fill out the form as if it were an e-mail. When you hit "Save page" it will automatically post your new topic at the very bottom of the page. When you come back to the topic in the future to edit or reply, you can hit the "edit" button next to the topic's name. Keep in mind when replying, it helps to indent your posts (you do this by adding a colon before your post). Also remember to always sign your talk page comments at the end by typing four tildes ~~~~. For more info see Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

(why can't the system itself add the colons, etc.? that would solve the problem!)

Next, you seem to have come into contact with a semi-protected page that you couldn't edit (I'm guessing it is Christianity). Normally articles that are semi-protected have this template on them Template:Pp-semi-protected. What semi-protection means is that anonymous users, and new users cannot edit the page. Semi-protection of articles usually is a result of excessive vandalism. By making sure editors who are not established users cannot edit the page, we greatly reduce the amount of vandalism on these pages. However, it does prevent good faith users, such as yourself, from editing. Our protection policy is outlined Wikipedia:Protection policy. Semi-protection is supposed to be a temporary thing, however, sometimes certain articles are subject to great amounts of vandalism (like when Steven Colbert encouraged his viewers to vandalize elephant). Therefore, these articles get protected for longer amounts of time due to excessive vandalism. Christianity is an example of this. Instead of having the semi-protection template taking up room at the top of the article, a more discrete (perhaps too discrete) icon of a lock has been added to the top right corner of the page, which links to our protection policy. Also, when you hit the "edit" tab, you will see a message at the top again linking to our protection policy, stating the article has been semi-protected.

(my complaint is not necessarily about protection policies, it is about there being no transparent way for someone to respond when they want a change and it can't be made. Why can't there be a link at such places so people can click it and go direct to taking a specified action - asking for a change in protection, or a specific edit, or directing a request to a moderator, or something else)

(my complaint about the Christianity page, and this would apply to most any page, was the bald statements made about what people believe, but there was no easy way to change it or inform someone of my concerns. There are links, but the links lead one to general policies and they don't make it easy to apply that to the specific page without a huge learning curve, because by the time one follows the links, you would be far away from where you started on the original page that you wanted to edit.)

There are 3 ways to edit a semi-protected page. 1) you can go the the talk page for th protected article (in this case Talk:Christianity) and start a new topic with a title along the lines of "Edit request" or something more detailed, and explain what is wrong with the article and how you would change it, so users who can access the article can make the cahnges for you. 2) you can request that the page be unprotected at this link. The instructions on how to make a request are found at the top of that page. It's probably easier to request someone make the edit for you than it is for a new user to go through the unprotection request process. 3) You can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create an account, but you'll need to wait 5 days in order to edit semi-protected pages.

(these are the types of things I am complaining about - see below) No one should have to explain something to a newcomer or inexperienced person, just put a link or something. If the link is to the explanation, then put some kind of link at the explanation that someone can use to ask for a change, or complain about the problem or put a dissenting view. I think much could be improved if you had spots where dissenting views could be appended, for example)

Ok, so what is a template. Wikipedia have a number of different "spaces" that serve different purposes. "Namespaces" are usually identified with a prefix before a colon to explain what the space is for. If a page name doesn't have a prefix, such as Water, it is in the main namespace, and it's purpose is to be an encyclopedia article. We then have the talk space, which is intended to discuss article content, such as Talk:Water. We also have the image namespace which is where all the images are held, such as Image:Water.jpg. Then we have the "template" namespace. Templates are for content that is usually intended for more than one article. It could be something like a navigation box, such as Template:Earth science, which is placed at the bottom of a number of articles to group them and link them all together. Templates can also contain more complex code, but I won't get into that. We have the "user" name space which are pages for editors (see my user page, User:Andrew c. I have used the page to briefly introduce myself, list my notably contributions. I've included some "templates" which describe some of my user abilities. It's like a wikipedia resume). Then we have the category namespace, which is used to create quasi-hierarchical trees. see Category:Water. While you are there, note that at the very bottom of the page it lists the "Categories" that the "Water" category belongs to. Under "Subcategories" back at the top are all the categories that belong to "water". And "Pages in category "Water"" are just that, all the encyclopedia articles that have been categorized as belonging in "water". Feel free to click through the subcategories and the parent "Categories" to see how the categories relate to each other. There is also the "Wikipedia" namespace which is where all the procedural stuff goes, guidelines, policies, manual of style, deletion discussions, etc. Keep in mind that there are also talk name spaces for all the other namespaces, so you can discuss categories at Category talk:Water, discuss images in the image talk namespace, users in the user talk name space, templates in the template talk namespace, etc)

(Again, this paragraph should be unnecessary; the system needs to be transparent enough that no explanation would be required for someone to understand what to do. -- see below)

(while I realize the word "template" is a familiar one to computer types and such, the general public does not really understand that word, a different word should be used, something more generally familiar.)

The number one thing for new users to do when they need help is to click the "help" link in the left hand column. While there is a lot of information there, you can find every answer you are looking for (or if not, instructions on how to ask for more information).

(no one should have to go through multiple levels of help trying to find the right answer -- you are just going to drive people away batty if you put them through that, especially with the complex jargon)

I'd be happy to explain anything else to you that you may need to know. If you have specific questions, please ask them. Feel free to reply right here, I will be "watching" this page.-Andrew c [talk] 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(this is another example -- why can't there just be something that has a link that says "reply"? Why should I have to try to figure out where to put something so you will see it. I'm still not even sure that I have entered this in a way that means you will ever see these words I'm writing now.)

My other concerns and further expostulation are written below.


Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your reply. While I appreciate your concerns, it is quite clear to me thanks to my brief experience with Wikipedia that this site is too complex and no average person can be expected to figure out the arcane language, jargon, complex methods of using the system, etc. at Wikipedia. There are many ways to design such a system, but this has got to be close to the worst. The number of problems that potentially can be created by the very existence of Wikipedia may actually obviate its usefulness, and the very fact that it is difficult to use make it impossible for the average user to correct problems they may encounter.

Just as with many places where there is an "in crowd", the "in-crowd" people think it is perfectly fine, when to the average outsider the problems are enormous. It seems like there is a great deal of denial among the insiders about the implications of what they are doing. If the system were more transparent, some of these problems could be lessened.

Perhaps the concept in itself is unworkable, I don't know. But you can not hope to have long-term success in these efforts if the general public (and most of them probably have less experience than myself in dealing with such things) can't figure out how things work.

It probably is a "noble effort", but at this point I don't think it has come close to accomplishing its goals, and its primary goal in my opinion should be to be easily useable by the average person.

Like many systems, it most likely started out simple, but the effort to deal with each new problem has left it in a jury-rigged state. Whoever administers this needs to take a frank look at it, and overhaul it from beginning to end.

The most important thing is to have a link at each place a user might need to do something (e.g. there is nothing at pages that aren't modifiable that leads someone to the place where they can either offer input or ask for a change in that status). Looking at the information, it's clear that such things exist but hell if I could find them.

Further, to be open to the public, no one should need to do a lot of studying up to figure out how to do things on the site.

I realize, as an insider, you naturally must defend, or want to defend, the way things are done here, but I am speaking for those of us who see things as they are as an outsider, and it's clear the whole philosophy has gotten away from creating "the people's encyclopedia" if that is the proper way to think about it. Plus, I thought Wikipedia didn't want such distinctions in the first place.

There needs to be less concern about defending the status quo, then people might see what I'm talking about and join me in asking your fellows to stop using jargon on this site and start using English, and creating transparent and easy to use systems.

It reminds me of the early internet, which, as you may know is not the way we use it now. The internet only became popular AFTER someone created an easy to use interface. But I felt the same way then as I do now at Wikipedia - it was all Unix and such and incomprehensible with a lot of insiders trying to help people but it was the new software that solved the problem , not the people teaching people to use it.

I don't think it can be successful if it's just aficionados and not the public, just as the internet was never that successful in the old days with their "inside baseball" people. Please note that I am not necessarily objecting to any specific rule or policy -- my point is that when you have restrictions, the alternative methods of making changes should be clear and easily accessible right from the page that someone wants to comment on or change.

I don't expect to be able to change attitudes, but perhaps I can persuade you that some of what I say is valid.

PS I might add that you can surely see that your having to even write all this stuff -- assuming your words are not some computer-generated langage -- is a big waste of time that could be better spent on something else, if the system didn't require such close attention to explaining to people how it works!

69.181.188.254 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


69.181.188.254 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 69.181.188.254 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't like the m:MediaWiki software that we are running here. That is basically out of our immediate control, though you are welcome to leave feedback with the software developers. The software runs all the wikimedia.org sites, and because it is distributed under the GPL, it runs thousands of other internet sites as well. Anyway, here is a little scope. Today, so far we have had over 4,000 users register accounts, and the day isn't even over. Sure, maybe not all of them will edit daily or become wikipedia regulars, but still with that number of users, if the software running wikipedia and interface were so bad, we'd be flooded with complaints. In all honesty, you are the only person I have encountered who thinks wikipedia's software is as broken as you claim. I'm not saying this as a wikipedia apologist, I'm not being defensive, I'm just trying to perhaps convince you a little bit that hundred of thousands of internet users have found wikipedia accessible (at least accessible enough for them to figure out how to vandalize articles, but that is just my cynicism). So since I cannot change the software itself, I can only try to help you understand wikipedia. And unfortunately, I have a tendancy to be way too verbose. But like I said above, if you had specific issues (like not knowing what a template is, or how to use talk pages), I can do my best to help you. Vague complaints may be helpful for the software developers, but I cannot personally do much about changing the entire interface.-Andrew c [talk] 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But my point is that most of problems I encounter and probably others too , are caused by that software. By the inability to actually either change or comment on something I might disagree with or feel needs augmenting or deleting.

Case in point: I went to the "contact us" page, and not only is there no way to change it, but, they don't even allow discussion about the page!

How am I going to register my concerns if they allow no editing, no discussion, no contacting, no alternative? And my understanding is that this has NOTHING to do with the software. These restrictions (in that section) were set up by some high-and-mighty person who decided they would not allow any changes or discussion. AT ALL! How can that be about the software? There is no way to protest such a decision. And you talk about vandalism, one reason that occurs is people feel they are not being heard. Because people are cutting off discussion. That's why I suggest for such pages as "Christianity" you could have a dissenting views page with a link on the main page. Why not? What is the harm? (also on any other page that doesn't allow changes).

There seems to be a degree of inflexibility which I would guess is caused by (again) all the insiders who think they know best.

You may also want to look at my comments on that discussion page where I talk about sources and evidence. I think Wikipedia actually is a good thing because it opens the doors to the questions: what is truth? What are facts? What is evidence? How do we reach a consensus? Who decides? How do we decide? All valid questions, I believe. And perhaps this will cause people to question everything they read or hear, and boy would that change the way the world works!

69.181.188.254 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

69.181.188.254 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PS BTW, my comments on jargon I don't think involve the software. Generally, software should allow the various categories and naming to be set independently. Whoever handles that need not use jargon. There is no reason to make up a word if a real word will be clearer, which, in most cases, I believe it would.

69.181.188.254 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint about there not being a "reply" functions is a software complaint. Wikipedia isn't that complex. Instead of setting up some sort of bulletin board system for the talk pages, we simply have one page than everyone edits. This is a simply solution to the software problem "How do we code for a discussion page?" I agree it isn't perfect, because only one person can edit a page at a time (if you edit while someone else is editing, you will get an edit conflict message). However, you are correct that your complaint about the contact page isn't a software issue. The contact page is protected from editing for the same reason the main page is protected from editing, it is a high visibility page. Users can suggest changes on the talk page (I disagree that they don't allow discussion there). Your comments to Talk:Contact us were removed because Rm general criticism of Wikipedia. This page is for discussion of the "contact us" page. As you can see from the top of Talk:Contact us "This is not the page to ask questions or to contact Wikipedia. This page is for discussion of the Contact us page itself. * Please go back to the Contact Us page to read how to contact Wikipedia. * To ask questions about Wikipedia, see the Questions page. * To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk" I'm not sure exactly why you are frustrated with the contact us page.
I think you wanted a place where you could voice your complaint regarding the entire site. Unfortunately, wikipedia is a community of over 5 million individual users, and there is no way for one person to get all of them to listen to you. It's much easier if you have a question about research to contact the reference desk, a question about wikipedia use, to contact the help desk, a concern with an article's content, to voice that concern on the article's talk page. But to complain about the entire site is more of an issue. Anyway, I came across Wikipedia:Replies to common objections 3 clicks from the "Contact Wikipedia" page. Note the "Page protection", "Markup and display", and "Excessive use of jargon" sections. Next, I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and perhaps explaining your concerns there, or if you feel up to it, starting a new discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump, which is the closest you will get to a place where all of wikipedia will listen to you. All I can say from here is since wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute, the best thing for you to do is to learn how to contribute and then start working towards the changes you envision. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


I think that the problem on the contact us page is due to the way discussion is not shown there the way it is on other pages. After I read your reply, I went back to it. What I found was that there is no discussion on that page. There is a link to a separate page, and that was confusing to me (and probably others). But there is no discussion shown on the original discussion page, you have to hit another link. This is not consistent with the way other discussion pages are done. I want to emphasize that consistency is paramount in these types of things, that is why users get confused. They expect to see something the same way it is done on other pages, when it's not done the same way, it's confusing.

I don't want a way to voice a complaint, I just want it clear on every page, as follows(e.g):

If you want to edit this page, go here___ If you want to ask the moderator something go here___ If you want to ask this page be unprotected go here___ If you want to ask for a status change go here___ If you want to discuss this page go here___ ETC.

Also, you would only have to hit that one link and you would be there.

This doesn't require much to set up, especially if such a thing is done for all pages in the same way. What is so complicated about that? Why shouldn't that be done? It needs to be consistent, but as I note, that is not the case with the "contact us" page.

Also on that page in the same place should be a link to some kind of ombudsman, who would handle replies that no one else could address.

I am just asking there be a consistent format with all the things anyone would conceivably want to do all in one place on every page. Wikipedia has some of that, but mostly not. That's what is so confusing.

69.181.188.254 21:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see part of your confusion with Talk:Contact us. Click on the "History" tab there to look at the recent changes. You can see that a "bot" has archived the page since you have last been there. You can see from other talk pages that archiving is common. We archive pages so a) old discussions aren't s imply erased b) to clear up space so the page doesn't become too long and take forever to load and c) to move inactive topics off of the main discussion page/clear clutter. The bot saw that the last post come from May 31st, and it probably has parameters set to archive all content that is older than a month, and thus archived the whole talk page. Note that there is a link to "some kind of ombudsman" on Wikipedia:Contact us/other.
As to your suggestions about better navigations. The site in essence is an encyclopedia. We have to deal with issues of actual encyclopedic content vs. content intended for editors or newcomers. Would inclusion a big box at the top of every page that says "if you are new and you want to do X, go to Y, if you want to do A go to B, etc" be obtrusive from an encyclopedic perspective? I believe that just about all of those issues you raised are within 1 or 2 clicks away from any page. I believe that established users know where to find the info, and readers who are only here for the content don't care. So that just leaves a small group, such as yourself: new users interested in editing. Like I said, while it may require a little bit of reading and research, a new user has the info they need right in front of them (and our interface is simple enough to figure out that thousands and thousands of new users find ways to edit every single day). There is probably room for improvement, so like I said, perhaps you could start a more centralized discussion at the WP:village pump concerning accessibility and navigation.-Andrew c [talk] 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is constant emphasis that Wikipedia is always editable, I don't think it's bad idea to put a navigation box in there to direct people to the right page. Obviously it wasn't easy to find out what to do, or I would have seen it. I never found it an "easy one or two clicks away", it was often very difficult to find in several separate cases, and I don't think such a box has to be that intrusive such that it interferes with the reading public. It would be fine if everything was consistent, but when it's not, finding the right place to discuss, request, or comment is not a trivial problem. I still haven't figured out what to do when the page isn't editable, other than to go to discussion, and I still can't figure out who has the authority and how I ask them what to do. I still can't figure out who has the authority to remove the word "most" from "most Christians" and how I appeal any decision on such wording. That's because it's not obvious, not because I'm stupid or not looking.

69.181.188.254 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Talk page etiquette

Just thought I should point out that there is no need to correct other's spelling or grammar on talk pages. In fact, it is usually offensive to the original posters, and in the guidelines ([[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]: It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.]), it is generally forbidden to alter someone else's comment on a talk page, even if it is just correcting spelling. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 13:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)