Recent "turmoil" has erupted over at wikipedia concerning secret email lists and crazy blocks and the like. I won't go into details, and I won't comment much on them either. Here are some things about wikiHow that will make it different...hopefully:
1) Sight of goals - One of the problems at WP is that it is so large that it has lost sight of its goals. wikiHow's mission is rather simple: build the world's largest how-to manual that anyone can edit. By keeping this in mind, Jack and wikiHow's leadership has helped steer potentially hazardous situations away from influencing the community. This will help it stay strong and not become overstressed from paranoia and divisive issues.
2) Leadership - wikiHow has been reluctant to set up arbitration committees and such that create an us vs. them complex. By keeping decisions within the community, everyone feels as if their voice is just as equal as someone else's. What some don't realize is how important that is to the current group of admins. Popular perception is that wikiHow admins reign on high. What is more realistic, however, is that many admins go about their normal business, and do weild crazy powers. The ultimate goal from someone shouldn't be their adminship.
3) Jack - He won't admit it, but the principle reason wikiHow is the way it is can be atributed to how Jack set up wikiHow in the first place. A lot has changed since then, and a there are many different policies now. But he has always been a steward of wikiHow and has not let "fame" and "fortune" cloud his judgement. Furthermore, by allowing wikiHow users the right to fork and his constant goal of maintaining transparency, wikiHow continues to move upward without compromising (too many) principles.
Showing posts with label activities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activities. Show all posts
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Assumption of Good Faith
It is difficult not to make broad generalizations. Indeed, American society seems to thrive on placing everyone and everything into a category and assigning them a formula of actions and abilities.
So that is my "disclaimer" of sorts as I dive into a world that might be just a tad too broad and my generalizations a tad too open-ended.
wikiHow has a wonderful community spirit, one that isn't found on many collaborative sites or other wikis. This spirit has been the driving force behind the site for a very long time, making it a truly grass roots effort. As with any good web community, the content must stand on its own two feet. wikiHow's only advertising has been through word of mouth. In fact, a recent effort to publish advertising on a blog about open-source nose dived when community members felt it wasn't worth the expense.
All that to say that, without a doubt, the community at wikiHow is unparalleled. Beyond the sense of collaborative effort, the community has a remarkable ability to forgive. Mistakes are generally viewed in terms of good faith and any situation is easily fixed, if not by one person, than by a few friendly souls.
However, any good-faith balance appears to be tipping in the other direction lately, as assumptions of good faith are not always the first thoughts in editors' minds. This has a tornado affect on the entire community, causing bitter conversations and cynical, snide remarks that drip with sarcasm and even incivility.
Where did the happiness and jolly times go? It's difficult to pinpoint an exact time or event that caused this upbringing of sour emotions. Perhaps it is best defined as some point in the last 6-8 months where the workloads increased, the pressure to perform outpaced the abilities of the editors, and the need to be recognized for any achievement, great or small, outweighed any sense of volunteerism or need to help.
This is in stark contrast to the community spirit I felt only a year or so ago when I joined wikiHow. The site wasn't too technical, it was easy to contribute, and the people were happy to help out at any time. Sure the pages looked like they were from the 90s, but nobody really seemed to care. Project were few, but most issues were being resolved.
Growth pains seemed to stretch the community a little bit, as more admins were brought in, more contributors worked on articles in areas we had never seen. The sheer volume of articles, requests, and edits made the workload increase many times over. Vandalism increased as more pages were out in the "open", and editors were pulled in every direction. The number of projects increased as weak areas were found, identified, and brought before the community. But long-time editors were quick to brush off these projects as unnecessary or, at best, not in their field of effectiveness.
There is no one idea, no one person, no one event, no one activity that contributed to the misuse of good faith. It's sad to think that wikiHow will be just as impersonal and sterile as other wikis, like wikipedia.
The only recourse is to slap the community in the face to wake it from its drunken stupor. To fail in our mission is not an option. Indeed, the only way to move forward is to remember the mission -- to create the world's largest how-to manual that anyone can edit -- and to do so with the same civility and assumption of good faith as ever.
So that is my "disclaimer" of sorts as I dive into a world that might be just a tad too broad and my generalizations a tad too open-ended.
wikiHow has a wonderful community spirit, one that isn't found on many collaborative sites or other wikis. This spirit has been the driving force behind the site for a very long time, making it a truly grass roots effort. As with any good web community, the content must stand on its own two feet. wikiHow's only advertising has been through word of mouth. In fact, a recent effort to publish advertising on a blog about open-source nose dived when community members felt it wasn't worth the expense.
All that to say that, without a doubt, the community at wikiHow is unparalleled. Beyond the sense of collaborative effort, the community has a remarkable ability to forgive. Mistakes are generally viewed in terms of good faith and any situation is easily fixed, if not by one person, than by a few friendly souls.
However, any good-faith balance appears to be tipping in the other direction lately, as assumptions of good faith are not always the first thoughts in editors' minds. This has a tornado affect on the entire community, causing bitter conversations and cynical, snide remarks that drip with sarcasm and even incivility.
Where did the happiness and jolly times go? It's difficult to pinpoint an exact time or event that caused this upbringing of sour emotions. Perhaps it is best defined as some point in the last 6-8 months where the workloads increased, the pressure to perform outpaced the abilities of the editors, and the need to be recognized for any achievement, great or small, outweighed any sense of volunteerism or need to help.
This is in stark contrast to the community spirit I felt only a year or so ago when I joined wikiHow. The site wasn't too technical, it was easy to contribute, and the people were happy to help out at any time. Sure the pages looked like they were from the 90s, but nobody really seemed to care. Project were few, but most issues were being resolved.
Growth pains seemed to stretch the community a little bit, as more admins were brought in, more contributors worked on articles in areas we had never seen. The sheer volume of articles, requests, and edits made the workload increase many times over. Vandalism increased as more pages were out in the "open", and editors were pulled in every direction. The number of projects increased as weak areas were found, identified, and brought before the community. But long-time editors were quick to brush off these projects as unnecessary or, at best, not in their field of effectiveness.
There is no one idea, no one person, no one event, no one activity that contributed to the misuse of good faith. It's sad to think that wikiHow will be just as impersonal and sterile as other wikis, like wikipedia.
The only recourse is to slap the community in the face to wake it from its drunken stupor. To fail in our mission is not an option. Indeed, the only way to move forward is to remember the mission -- to create the world's largest how-to manual that anyone can edit -- and to do so with the same civility and assumption of good faith as ever.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Ultimate goal
A recent forum discussion led me to contemplate about the long-term goal of wikiHow and the purpose it serves.
Jack posted a very interesting response to the question of whether we had become the world's largest how-to manual already. His essential thoughts, summarized, indicated that we had a long way to go to become the largest.
Throughout the thread, various levels of thought came through showing what editors view as the ruler in measuring size. I even posted my own thoughts that we should be seeking to amass all of the how-to information possible in the vast reaches of human knowledge. Others compared wikiHow to all of the books ever written that speak to how to do something. Still others compared wikiHow to other how-to web sites like eHow.
Jack even went ruler-by-ruler comparing wikiHow to eHow, web site popularity and the like.
But is wikiHow the largest how-to manual on the planet? I don't think so. I think the largest how-to manual is in our collective brains. That is, human knowledge is a far larger how-to manual than wikiHow could ever be. Every day we are doing tasks that others can't perform. wikiHow itself weeds out articles about how to do something that violate its policies...but are nonetheless, a how-to.
That makes me wonder if wikiHow will ever be the world's largest how-to manual. It's certainly possible many years down the road. You might be asking, If the world's largest how-to manual is human knowledge, how will wikiHow ever pass that?! What many don't realize is that human knowledge is quickly being downloaded and dispersed throughout the world. It isn't a far reaching thought that one day we might just plug ourselves into a USB port.
Jack posted a very interesting response to the question of whether we had become the world's largest how-to manual already. His essential thoughts, summarized, indicated that we had a long way to go to become the largest.
Throughout the thread, various levels of thought came through showing what editors view as the ruler in measuring size. I even posted my own thoughts that we should be seeking to amass all of the how-to information possible in the vast reaches of human knowledge. Others compared wikiHow to all of the books ever written that speak to how to do something. Still others compared wikiHow to other how-to web sites like eHow.
Jack even went ruler-by-ruler comparing wikiHow to eHow, web site popularity and the like.
But is wikiHow the largest how-to manual on the planet? I don't think so. I think the largest how-to manual is in our collective brains. That is, human knowledge is a far larger how-to manual than wikiHow could ever be. Every day we are doing tasks that others can't perform. wikiHow itself weeds out articles about how to do something that violate its policies...but are nonetheless, a how-to.
That makes me wonder if wikiHow will ever be the world's largest how-to manual. It's certainly possible many years down the road. You might be asking, If the world's largest how-to manual is human knowledge, how will wikiHow ever pass that?! What many don't realize is that human knowledge is quickly being downloaded and dispersed throughout the world. It isn't a far reaching thought that one day we might just plug ourselves into a USB port.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Life of a wikiHow Project
Throughout my tenure at wikiHow (which now spans about a year and a half), I have seen projects come and go. I've seen them start out like a mad dash, and then fizzle out. But I've also seen project start up and keep going and we still have them today.
The lifespan of a typical wikiHow project is interesting to consider because it speaks to the community environment (a thermometer of sorts). Here's what I see:
First stage: Excited wikiHow editor finds an area of wikiHow that needs improving. They recommend that something be done on the Village Pump, a forum for all things wikiHow. One or two (or maybe more) people think it's a good idea and commit to helping out.
Second stage: A project page is developed. It might be fancy, it might not. There's usually a template of some kind created that also categorizes articles that hold that template.
Third stage: a.k.a. "Sprint Stage" where those involved spend a lot of their time doing this fun new task. It might be administrative gritty work, or easy click-and-save work.
Fourth stage: The lifeblood of the project ebbs away as people go back to doing more routine tasks. They might even abandon the project altogether. Life events will also get in the way such as illness or vacations.
Fifth stage: The project wanes and some people might even think its defunct. The project leader (the person who initiated it) loses heart as those who committed eventually leave the project. They might try to revisit the purpose of the project.
What I have witnessed in the past week or so is a new sixth stage that I've never seen before.
Sixth stage: a.k.a. "Rebirth" of the project as others brainstorm ways to change the scope of the project and make it easier to coordinate. New tools introduced to the community might also make aspects of the original project no longer necessary or easier to perform.
Belonging to a project can really make working more enjoyable. First, you're in a group of other like-minded folks. Second, you are doing something you chose to do. And third, the whole wikiHow universe gets a lot smaller when there's fewer people with a clear objective.
The lifespan of a typical wikiHow project is interesting to consider because it speaks to the community environment (a thermometer of sorts). Here's what I see:
First stage: Excited wikiHow editor finds an area of wikiHow that needs improving. They recommend that something be done on the Village Pump, a forum for all things wikiHow. One or two (or maybe more) people think it's a good idea and commit to helping out.
Second stage: A project page is developed. It might be fancy, it might not. There's usually a template of some kind created that also categorizes articles that hold that template.
Third stage: a.k.a. "Sprint Stage" where those involved spend a lot of their time doing this fun new task. It might be administrative gritty work, or easy click-and-save work.
Fourth stage: The lifeblood of the project ebbs away as people go back to doing more routine tasks. They might even abandon the project altogether. Life events will also get in the way such as illness or vacations.
Fifth stage: The project wanes and some people might even think its defunct. The project leader (the person who initiated it) loses heart as those who committed eventually leave the project. They might try to revisit the purpose of the project.
What I have witnessed in the past week or so is a new sixth stage that I've never seen before.
Sixth stage: a.k.a. "Rebirth" of the project as others brainstorm ways to change the scope of the project and make it easier to coordinate. New tools introduced to the community might also make aspects of the original project no longer necessary or easier to perform.
Belonging to a project can really make working more enjoyable. First, you're in a group of other like-minded folks. Second, you are doing something you chose to do. And third, the whole wikiHow universe gets a lot smaller when there's fewer people with a clear objective.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Optimism Revisited
I recently had the pleasure of talking with Jack about his optimism and what makes him tick. First, here are some quotes:
Jack goes on to say that he is refreshed every morning by wikiHow's "long term goal" and not by the daily grind. I think that's what separates visionaries from laborers. Not to say that any other editors lack vision, but I can understand how Jack truly believes that wikiHow's long term goal is the ultimate goal. And as an editor at wikiHow, I have to help get wikiHow to that goal.
We're doing more than just editing pages and getting in the occasional debate about new policies...we are changing the world. I really believe that. And as wikiHow grows, it will become more apparent how we are making the world a better place and influencing others. We are still several years from that...but it is happening.I think this is rather startling! I mean, he really believes we're changing the world. But in retrospect, I can see that. I think inside all of us, we believe we're making some kind of impact on the world. And what better way to do that, than to be a part of some international wiki site that challenges all of us to do something better.
Jack goes on to say that he is refreshed every morning by wikiHow's "long term goal" and not by the daily grind. I think that's what separates visionaries from laborers. Not to say that any other editors lack vision, but I can understand how Jack truly believes that wikiHow's long term goal is the ultimate goal. And as an editor at wikiHow, I have to help get wikiHow to that goal.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
On wikimania 2007
Just to get this out of the way, I didn't actually go to wikimania (in Taipei). It would have been great, and I've even been there before, but I could not fit it into my schedule.
In any case, Jack gave us a great report about the conference (http://www.wikihow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5581) and many of his insights.
I'd like to pull some of them apart and talk about them.
1) Administrator selection - For any long-time wiki contributor (whether it's WP or wikiHow), you know that admin selection is a harrowing and crazy experience. Those who are selected think it's the greatest thing since toasted bread, but those who have had to vote and discuss and vote and discuss find the entire ordeal frustrating and dirty. I often feel the need to shower after a long talk.
I like Jack's presentation of the idea that we should look at the personal aspects of an individual. In admin selection, without giving too much away, we often look at the objective, calculable items. This can be the quality of edits, the quantity of edits, the way they act in forums, etc. But we never delve into the personality of the individual and inquire about their ability to mesh with the admin group and assist other users.
2) Accuracy - OMG, if you even thought about how accuracy keeps some of wikiHow's users awake at night, you would go crazy too. There have been countless discussions about how accurate an article is or isn't. It's important to consider since wikis are editable by anyone, especially on wikiHow where a non-registered user can make the same edits as a registered one. wikiHow does have a one-up on WP though. We aren't always dealing with factual data. We are dealing with real-life how-to situations. It's fairly easy to tell if a task is impossible to perform or not, whereas a fact may or may not be true depending on the source.
3) In Person - This would be so cool! I'd love to meet fellow wikiHowians out there. The consistent problem is that we all have lives outside of wikiHow that force us to choose between that which we love to do (wikiHow) and that which we have to do (school/work/studies/etc.).
I can tell that wikimania made a significant impact on Jack (and Nicole who also attended). I think that it's great that wikiHow's name is easily more recognized in the wiki-community as being a good example.
In any case, Jack gave us a great report about the conference (http://www.wikihow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5581) and many of his insights.
I'd like to pull some of them apart and talk about them.
1) Administrator selection - For any long-time wiki contributor (whether it's WP or wikiHow), you know that admin selection is a harrowing and crazy experience. Those who are selected think it's the greatest thing since toasted bread, but those who have had to vote and discuss and vote and discuss find the entire ordeal frustrating and dirty. I often feel the need to shower after a long talk.
I like Jack's presentation of the idea that we should look at the personal aspects of an individual. In admin selection, without giving too much away, we often look at the objective, calculable items. This can be the quality of edits, the quantity of edits, the way they act in forums, etc. But we never delve into the personality of the individual and inquire about their ability to mesh with the admin group and assist other users.
2) Accuracy - OMG, if you even thought about how accuracy keeps some of wikiHow's users awake at night, you would go crazy too. There have been countless discussions about how accurate an article is or isn't. It's important to consider since wikis are editable by anyone, especially on wikiHow where a non-registered user can make the same edits as a registered one. wikiHow does have a one-up on WP though. We aren't always dealing with factual data. We are dealing with real-life how-to situations. It's fairly easy to tell if a task is impossible to perform or not, whereas a fact may or may not be true depending on the source.
3) In Person - This would be so cool! I'd love to meet fellow wikiHowians out there. The consistent problem is that we all have lives outside of wikiHow that force us to choose between that which we love to do (wikiHow) and that which we have to do (school/work/studies/etc.).
I can tell that wikimania made a significant impact on Jack (and Nicole who also attended). I think that it's great that wikiHow's name is easily more recognized in the wiki-community as being a good example.
Comparison to wikipedia
Many times throughout my tenure at wikiHow, I find other users comparing wikiHow to wikipedia -- the mother of all wiki sites both in popularity (hits per day) and number of users. In fact, many often confuse wikiHow for a wikimedia project, when, in fact, wikiHow is independent of wikimedia and run by completely different people.
In the instances where wikiHow is compared to WP, the parallels are a little convoluted. Without citing specific examples -- thus citing specific users -- a broad understanding of wikiHow needs to be made by active wikiHow contributors. Specifically, users need to understand the practicality of wikiHow.
Example: John Appleseed logs on to his iGoogle page on a daily basis. One of his modules is the wikiHow module (also default on the iGoogle homepage), and he routinely clicks on the daily articles and reads through them. Through various links weavings and such, he has a pretty good understanding of the articles, and occassionally goes to wikiHow for how-to instructions he needs throughout his life. He has never signed up for wikiHow nor does he actively contribute.
wikiHow is a practical web site. It offers information that is on a need-to-know basis. WP offers information that is practical, but really only if you need to find out information. I frequently use WP to check information about a topic and get the background, but I'm a factual geek. wikiHow offers information for the non-geek.
In short, comparisons to wikipedia fall short when one considers the different audiences and uses for each site. Parallels can only be drawn in reference to their "wikiness", but stop there.
In the instances where wikiHow is compared to WP, the parallels are a little convoluted. Without citing specific examples -- thus citing specific users -- a broad understanding of wikiHow needs to be made by active wikiHow contributors. Specifically, users need to understand the practicality of wikiHow.
Example: John Appleseed logs on to his iGoogle page on a daily basis. One of his modules is the wikiHow module (also default on the iGoogle homepage), and he routinely clicks on the daily articles and reads through them. Through various links weavings and such, he has a pretty good understanding of the articles, and occassionally goes to wikiHow for how-to instructions he needs throughout his life. He has never signed up for wikiHow nor does he actively contribute.
wikiHow is a practical web site. It offers information that is on a need-to-know basis. WP offers information that is practical, but really only if you need to find out information. I frequently use WP to check information about a topic and get the background, but I'm a factual geek. wikiHow offers information for the non-geek.
In short, comparisons to wikipedia fall short when one considers the different audiences and uses for each site. Parallels can only be drawn in reference to their "wikiness", but stop there.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Is it safe?
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...
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...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)