User:Enterprisey/Rambling (2021)

This is a draft for the Signpost. I wrote this on a sheet of paper when I couldn't go to bed a few nights ago.

Here are some issues I think Wikipedia faces.

Readers think there's only one way to contribute to an article. Editing is a monumental obstacle, doubly-so for pages that look "finished". If you have a brick in your hand and you see an unfinished brick house, that works, but for lots of popular topics it's more like you have a brick in your hand and you see a glass skyscraper. Readers should be able to say things like:


 * I found this source and it might be helpful
 * This (highlighting a sentence, or a few words, or a section) doesn't seem right
 * The article should say more about this topic
 * This article is confusing, or too technical
 * I wrote this sentence. Maybe it could go here?

Yes, that's what talk pages are for, but they're really hard to find and it's not obvious that you can write the things I listed there. If we solve this by giving readers a nice interface to say the things I listed, we could make them start new talk page sections.

Yes, AFT flopped. It had a different focus, though. I think requiring structured input is the way out. If you give the Internet a free-form text area, you get what you deserve. I mean, even if all we give is a interface just like the Visual Editor "cite" tool (restrict it to RSP sources, if you want), that would be an improvement.

The Internet hates us. You mention Wikipedia anywhere – real life, Reddit, chatrooms, other social media – and you're guaranteed to hear "oh, I tried adding a fact or fixing something and it got deleted". Guaranteed. It's all I hear. This is actually several problems:


 * Oversight of RCP (and rollback, etc) is minimal and ad-hoc, if it even exists.
 * Oversight of the design of tools for RCP (and rollback, etc) is minimal, even though that's one of the strongest mechanisms we have for influencing how RCP happens.
 * WP:PRESERVE is de facto on life support. (Just my perception.)
 * WP:PERM/R has uneven standards. (Just my perception, and on this one I could be way off.)
 * The standard "reader makes edit, gets reverted" workflow does not, by default, include any customized feedback for the reader.
 * And more.

We hate the Internet. TikTok raids, Reddit raids, raids from who knows where, people plugging their Instagram accounts, people blaming things on the "Wikipedia interns"... there's a bit of a public awareness thing. Also, occasionally AbuseFilter feels like trying to do bonsai with a chainsaw.

Our structured data system is sorta weird. Every page should have an associated key–value database, with:


 * The stuff currently in infoboxes
 * Metadata about the article – Use MDY dates in wikitext is preposterous
 * A lot of the stuff at the top of talk pages

Generally, "metadata" templates are a ridiculous concept and have minimal computer readability. The existing display shouldn't change, of course – we'll render the "data" into new boxes that look like the existing ones.

Low community focus on sustainability. See the Rust language community. Community recognition of burnout is lower than it should be, especially since we're doing hard stuff that naturally causes people to burn out.

Low community focus on productive communication. See Nonviolent Communication and the Rust language community and the moderation of any small community with decent mods. I'd link an example, but no others (besides Rust) come to mind.

This thread. Go read the mentioned code of conduct, too. They're both well worth it. I can't say anything that would do them justice.

(I went to sleep at this point.)