User talk:Conrad Devonshire~enwiki/Wikipedia entrance exam

"Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me, and I may not remember. Involve me, and I'll understand." -- Native American proverb, ~MDD 46 96 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that such an idea is unnecessary. If someone is interested in learning on how to format articles, they will seek out the instructions. If they are not, they'd just ignore something like this anyways. ~MDD 46 96 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users may have a hard time finding where to look for all of the instructions, though. The exam will give users a run-down on the basics of editing without them having to do a great deal of searching, and could also contain links to relevant articles on editing so that they would know where to look for information in the future. If nothing else, it will at least play a role in discouraging vandalism.--Conrad Devonshire 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a help link on the navigation panel, and on the front page. Maybe there could be a prominent link to Help:Contents/Getting started presented to new users? I just think forcing new accounts to go through some extra process will be a hinderance. What about editors who are familiar with Wikipedia but just haven't created an account? Also, there's no way this would decrease vandalism. The only things registered accounts can do that anons can't are upload images, create new articles, and edit semi-protected pages. ~MDD 46 96 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the link on the main page's tagline is for: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." -Quiddity 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I referred to "new users", I was talking about both registered accounts and anonymous IPs that have not yet edited. If this is implemented, it will make it more difficult for vandals to cause trouble with Wikipedia, especially those who engage in sockpuppetry, as they would have to complete the test for each new identity that they edit under as before making edits with it.--Conrad Devonshire 15:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the suggestion that their editing not be enabled until they "pass" the "exam", thus making it difficult to ignore? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could only be implemented by requiring all editors to login (think of all those shared ip addresses from schools and ISPs). Therefor this idea is completely unworkable. Sorry. See #3 at User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. --Quiddity 04:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides practical considerations (i.e. how to implement it), I see no reason why it should be implemented. It would just discourage people. WP is already overcrowded with policies. I remember when I was a noob, I felt completely lost and that WP is way tooo huge to comprehend. Don't add any more of this confusion. Renata 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good idea. Even ignoring the issue of anons, many people will not be interested in editing if they have to go through that much effort to even do there first edits. The precise alure of Wikipedia is that it is so easy to edit, thats how we get people hooked. It seems to minor at first, and then they do more and more...JoshuaZ 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This exam seems like it would be more of a hassle than necessary to newbies whose first edit is minor. They don't all start with new articles (thank goodness), so they don't immediately need to understand categories, and italics and bold aren't that important. Some newbies do seem to have trouble with double-bracket internal links, but again, that's usually only if they're starting an article from scratch. Otherwise, they seem to do fine imitating existing markup on a page. Melchoir 04:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were going to design such an exam, it would be about policy, not mechanics. we don't need vandals that understand wiki markup better, we need people that understand why vandalism isn't the way to go. But I am not sure this is a workable idea, whatever the topic of the test. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy, mechanics... I'd be pretty happy if every user knew about the "Preview" button. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's overkill! Only the users that ever make any sort of mistakes need to know about it. :) ++Lar: t/c 05:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a total non-starter. Wikipedia desparately needs editors and the existing hurdles, though the may seem low, are high enough to put off >99% of the tens of millions of people who visit the site ech month. CalJW 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Well I'd suggest to get the {{Humornotaccepted}} up on this page ASAP, per m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (which is a very old humor page that kind of explains the situation, see for example the mockup "declaration" to be signed by new users, this "exam" now proposed would only add a new dimension to the same joke) --Francis Schonken 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... are you sure it's humor? It's so hard to tell on the internets... Melchoir 09:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, size *is* important, and should not be laughed with. I'd definitely include a question about that in the exam, following the third point of Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles --Francis Schonken 11:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if we srap this entire thing and keep the core idea: have a link to Wikipedia:Introduction added to the editing page? Or, have something like "This is one of your first edits; we suggest you read our introduction to editing before you begin." displayed to new users and anons.--Here T oHelp 12:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Francis Schonken, this policy was not intended as a joke, and why you have compared it to m:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles I have no idea, as this proposal is very practical. It will see that people new to Wikipedia have a few basic editing skills before they start editing, and will also discourage vandals from causing trouble with Wikipedia. Yes, I know that vandals will still be able to gain access to Wikipedia, but whether or not they will be willing to knowing that they will have to first go through the trouble of completing an entrance exam is an entirely different story. Sockpuppeters in particular will be discouraged, as they will have to complete the exam for each account/IP that they wish to edit under.--Conrad Devonshire 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is completely impractical, as stated in the point form list from various users above. Specifically, please read meta:Foundation issues, and points 1, 2, and 3 from User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. See also, a large amount of prior discussion of similar suggestions under Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users. Finally, remember that thousands of users often share a single IP address.

It's a nice idea, and a good effort, but will never be practically adaptable. I humbley suggest you withdraw the proposal immediately.

As for the humour comparison/statement above, that is (imho) akin to the gentle mocking recieved by a person who submitted to slashdot his own solution for eliminating spam worldwide.

(We could really use one of those multiplechoice templates here at wikipedia, for clarifying to submitters why their vandal-stopping proposals wont work, and similar perennials...)--Quiddity 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Conrad:

Lighten up! I know it wasn't intended as a joke. I just was trying to give a hint. Being too serious about this might lead to tears in the end. I'm no fortune teller, but this has a high chance of being archived before it will ever become guideline. In that case "Archived" could be {{rejected}} or {{historical}}; or, alternatively {{Humornotaccepted}}. All in all, the first of these three the most likely. I tried to give it a more positive twist.
Re. "Sockpuppeters in particular will be discouraged": the current guideline on sock puppets, WP:SOCK, holds no specific discouragement for creating sockpuppet accounts. If I understand you, the implementation of your exam proposal would imply that that existing guideline needs to be changed on that point. Is not going to happen, as far as I can assess average wikipedian feelings. Creating a situation where this "exam" system would become active, crippling the WP:SOCK guideline without changing its wording, would even create a worse situation.
Somebody else above already provided a link to Jimbo's principles. Well that's still (quoting from the intro of that page:) "...at some ultimate, fundamental level, [...] how Wikipedia will be run, period." Jimbo is a reasonable man, and he has no a-priorisms against people who try to convince him of important stuff. But I'm estimating that the chances you're going to make him change his mind on this point very low. It has been tried before. In that case: good luck! --Francis Schonken 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of principles

I have looked at Jimbo Wales' statement of principles, and it does seem to indicate that people who log on to Wikipedia should be able to start editing right away without any restrictions. I personally disagree with this, and believe that Wikipedia would have more potential as an encyclopedia if at least some minor restrictions were made on editing, but as I am not in charge here, I regretfully have to acknowledge it nevertheless. If Mr. Wales ever sees it fit to reform his stance on that issue, though, then my proposal may be more appropriate.--Conrad Devonshire 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Three Some points

To edit the text of an article (e.g. to correct spelling mistakes or factual errors or add the odd sentence) does not require formatting experience. Formatting mistakes will be fixed by someone else.
When edit an article there is an "Editing Help" link at the bottom of the edit window.
If it's hard to find advice on editing, then the help pages/MoS pages need changing.
Because the software, MoS, community consense, tmeplate list, projects etc. are constantly changing, we all need to re-learn our editing skills as we go.

Rich Farmbrough 19:07 6 May 2006 (UTC).