User:Enterprisey/Signpost draft - On smaller ways to contribute

I think of a reader trying to become an editor like this: if you have a brick in your hand and you see an unfinished brick house, you know what to do. For lots of popular topics, though, it's more like you have a brick in your hand and you see a glass skyscraper. You feel like you don't really have anything to add.

Editing is a big jump up from reading. To edit is to assert that your text belongs in an article that perhaps thousands of people read every day. That's a bold statement if you're not used to it.

I wish we had smaller jumps than that. People have lots to say, but it's hard work to render it suitable for an article. Here are some things people might want to say that won't work as edits:


 * 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 a 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.

You: "If we do that, enjoy your flood of manure onto talk pages."

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.