Recently, several article discussion (featured articles, actually) have revolved around the issue of safety and whether the article should even be on wikiHow, much less featured.
First, to be clear, a featured article is quite prominent. A link is on the main page, it is posted on the RSS feed, it is listed on the top of the list for the iGoogle gadget (which is default on the iGoogle page before a user modifies it), and it is on practically everyone's watchlist.
Second, the article itself is coddled once it nears its feature date. It is poured over by many editors looking for accuracy issues, spelling mistakes, grammar miscues...everything!
Finally, the article is featured and everyone sees it. Except a lot of people have an issue with the safety of it. Or even just the practicality. What amazes me is that, given the many editors who have looked over the article, people don't seem to realize that safety concerns have already been considered. It takes A LOT for an article to make through initiation, editing, tagging, more editing, discussion, more editing, and nomination. FAs are scrutinized top-to-bottom by so many individuals from different backgrounds, that it seems unlikely that an unsafe articles makes it through.
And yet...http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Paper-Shredder-as-a-Pasta-Machine and http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Caffeine-Jello-Shots are hot-button topics that make many people question whether wikiHow really has the readers' best interests at heart.
But no safety issues are raised with http://www.wikihow.com/Jab-in-Boxing. I think boxers have been killed by just the right jab in just the right place...
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Memory
I am often surprised by the memory of some of wikiHow's contributors. There are so many different policies and discussions that happen (often repetitive in nature), and yet someone remembers them months, even years, down the road.
Where is this memory? How is it accessed? wikis in general have an incredible set up for maintaining history. One page for example, even when it has been moved to a new title and altered thousands of times, has a unique page history that can call up old versions with the click of a button. I wish my email did that! (wikiMail anyone?) In addition, an old version can be restored faster than you can say "wiki" and the new one wiped away -- although even THAT new-now-old version is stored in history. The archival capabilities are infinite.
Page history is just a tool, though. The actual memory recall abilities of some of these editors is astounding and speaks to the fact that online projects really do connect different people from different walks of life. It truly is a global connective device.
Where is this memory? How is it accessed? wikis in general have an incredible set up for maintaining history. One page for example, even when it has been moved to a new title and altered thousands of times, has a unique page history that can call up old versions with the click of a button. I wish my email did that! (wikiMail anyone?) In addition, an old version can be restored faster than you can say "wiki" and the new one wiped away -- although even THAT new-now-old version is stored in history. The archival capabilities are infinite.
Page history is just a tool, though. The actual memory recall abilities of some of these editors is astounding and speaks to the fact that online projects really do connect different people from different walks of life. It truly is a global connective device.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Cynical Nature
A quick review of forum posts and lively discussions throughout wikiHow shows some of us long-term folks have a certain cynical attitude to the daily goings-on. I recently came across this when I posted something rather cynical myself, on the sarcastic side.
Where does the wide-eyed optimism go? Well, to be honest, it takes a certain (rare) personality to keep that optimism going. After staying on with any project for a long duration, a normal human being eventually learns all the faults and the "dark side" of many issues. They learn to take many things comically and others too seriously. They feel that their opinion is much more valid than those wide-eyed optimists (of which they were one in the past).
What is particularly humorous about the entire situation is the fact that wikiHow's founder, Jack, is a wide-eyed optimist -- and he's proud of it. Or at least those around him are proud of it. I think it's the optimism that prevents long-term projects from failing completely. I often wonder how Jack gets out of bed in the morning. Does he think, another day another wikiHow issue, or does he come at it refreshed anew? To my amazement, I think he comes at it refreshed. His demeanor has always been positive, even when he has been weighed down with demands. It's not easy being Jack...
For that matter, it's not easy being human either...
Where does the wide-eyed optimism go? Well, to be honest, it takes a certain (rare) personality to keep that optimism going. After staying on with any project for a long duration, a normal human being eventually learns all the faults and the "dark side" of many issues. They learn to take many things comically and others too seriously. They feel that their opinion is much more valid than those wide-eyed optimists (of which they were one in the past).
What is particularly humorous about the entire situation is the fact that wikiHow's founder, Jack, is a wide-eyed optimist -- and he's proud of it. Or at least those around him are proud of it. I think it's the optimism that prevents long-term projects from failing completely. I often wonder how Jack gets out of bed in the morning. Does he think, another day another wikiHow issue, or does he come at it refreshed anew? To my amazement, I think he comes at it refreshed. His demeanor has always been positive, even when he has been weighed down with demands. It's not easy being Jack...
For that matter, it's not easy being human either...
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Deletionism vs. Inclusionism
As if this world didn't need enough -isms...
A recent forum topic prompted me to contemplate the ideas behind those who prefer deletion (deletionists) and those who prefer to keep and modify (inclusionists). Personally, I do not know where to classify myself, since I seem to find equal opportunities to remove content as I do to modify existing content.
But I have wonderered if it is a particular personality type that is definable that is not quite as rigid as, say, a religious preference, but not as flexible as, say, Coke or Pepsi. I see deletion/inclusion as more of a political preference than anything. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." In this way, I feel that one can change their perspective on content deletion/inclusion based on what is necessary for survival of the content provider (in my experience, wikiHow).
However, I think that deletionism, overall, has the majority of followers. As humans, we like to cut things away/out. Think cancer. That said, there is a large and devoted following of inclusionists who are probably classified as optimists as well. They like to believe that if you leave it there, someone will come along with the knowledge to make it better.
wikiHow walks a fine line between deletionism and inclusionism. Frequently, editors interperet the deletion policy in a real-life situation. The way they do this varies from editor to editor, and even from group to group. Admins, in particular, seem to favor deletion or, at least, deletion through modification. New editors favor inclusion, but not for such lofty goals as previously mentioned, but more out of laziness.
While I don't think deletionism vs. inclusionism will ever be a dead debate, I think that wikiHow is on the road towards a more inclusionist environment, while also acquiring more and more users who find deletable content quicker.
A recent forum topic prompted me to contemplate the ideas behind those who prefer deletion (deletionists) and those who prefer to keep and modify (inclusionists). Personally, I do not know where to classify myself, since I seem to find equal opportunities to remove content as I do to modify existing content.
But I have wonderered if it is a particular personality type that is definable that is not quite as rigid as, say, a religious preference, but not as flexible as, say, Coke or Pepsi. I see deletion/inclusion as more of a political preference than anything. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." In this way, I feel that one can change their perspective on content deletion/inclusion based on what is necessary for survival of the content provider (in my experience, wikiHow).
However, I think that deletionism, overall, has the majority of followers. As humans, we like to cut things away/out. Think cancer. That said, there is a large and devoted following of inclusionists who are probably classified as optimists as well. They like to believe that if you leave it there, someone will come along with the knowledge to make it better.
wikiHow walks a fine line between deletionism and inclusionism. Frequently, editors interperet the deletion policy in a real-life situation. The way they do this varies from editor to editor, and even from group to group. Admins, in particular, seem to favor deletion or, at least, deletion through modification. New editors favor inclusion, but not for such lofty goals as previously mentioned, but more out of laziness.
While I don't think deletionism vs. inclusionism will ever be a dead debate, I think that wikiHow is on the road towards a more inclusionist environment, while also acquiring more and more users who find deletable content quicker.
Changing of Title
My latest thrill comes from changing the titles on wikiHow articles that need to be fixed. Generally, there is a spelling error, or a much better (and more concise) way to say the same thing. Why is this so much fun?
After I pondered over why I "discovered" this activity, I found that I enjoy changing readers' inital impression. The title truly says it all. When something is misspelled or the title is way too long and mucked up, the reader may not care to keep reading, even if the article is what they're looking for. In addition, a good article may be misrepresented by its title. This leads to all sorts of confusion. The most zealous editor may mark the whole thing for deletion. The more conservative might just dismiss the article entirely, without desiring to fix it up. But if the title is accurate and has potential, a good editor might come along and do some work.
As I'm sure I'll mention many times in the future, there are many activities one may do. This one just happens to catch my eye during the week, when I feel like I need to contribute in some way, although I may have lost my how-to muse.
After I pondered over why I "discovered" this activity, I found that I enjoy changing readers' inital impression. The title truly says it all. When something is misspelled or the title is way too long and mucked up, the reader may not care to keep reading, even if the article is what they're looking for. In addition, a good article may be misrepresented by its title. This leads to all sorts of confusion. The most zealous editor may mark the whole thing for deletion. The more conservative might just dismiss the article entirely, without desiring to fix it up. But if the title is accurate and has potential, a good editor might come along and do some work.
As I'm sure I'll mention many times in the future, there are many activities one may do. This one just happens to catch my eye during the week, when I feel like I need to contribute in some way, although I may have lost my how-to muse.
Impressions
By way of introduction, my name is Harold Ryan, and I am an editor at wikiHow (http://www.wikihow.com). My goal by writing is to allow my feelings concerning wikiHow to vent in a constructive atmosphere more for myself than for anyone else.
I'm a writer by nature, but I also enjoy reading immensely. For those two reasons alone, my attraction to wikiHow is quite understandable.
So, I plan to write some musings about wikiHow in a more creative fashion, simply for the purpose of going back to review my own thoughts and sort them out. If anyone happens to read and comment, I welcome them. But understand that this is for my mental unraveling, and not for entertainment.
I'm a writer by nature, but I also enjoy reading immensely. For those two reasons alone, my attraction to wikiHow is quite understandable.
So, I plan to write some musings about wikiHow in a more creative fashion, simply for the purpose of going back to review my own thoughts and sort them out. If anyone happens to read and comment, I welcome them. But understand that this is for my mental unraveling, and not for entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)