Wikipedia talk:Academy/NIH 2009/Welcome/Archive 01

Comments from Jennifer
Hi. Per your request, here are some of my thoughts on the page.
 * I think this draft welcome can really serve as a model for welcoming new topic-focused contributors. I think that all the work you put into this will really have impact on quality and participation not limited to science and medicine. Thank you!


 * I like that the introduction is only two lines. I think the more we can make help and welcome pages look like (and be) easy to read/scan in just a few minutes, the more successful they will be. Wikipedia has a lot of Help resources, but they can seem like a big investment of time to newcomers.


 * To me the tone reads serious but completely understandable to someone new to wiki and WP culture. I think this is the ideal tone for the target audience.


 * "If you want to ask a question or get other assistance, a team of collegial, experienced Wikipedians — all of them working physicians or scientists — has volunteered to assist you. Please feel free to contact any of the following ...
 * Will we only be able to offer working physicians or scientists? Some interested in improving content and quality might be interested in other perspectives (like educators and lay people).
 * Yes, I've been wrestling with this myself, per my letter today to the mailing list. Awadewit is clearly the best person for these issues, though, and for knowing some of the best-suited editors.  Proteins (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Riggs (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the "show" option for the different headlines has been debated. I'm pro. It keeps the page looking simple to get around and easy to digest the specific information the user is after.


 * Thanks for your kind comments, Jennifer! It would be great to hear from other people re: the "show" option and the layout more generally.  Proteins (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

 * I have removed the phrase "all of them working physicians or scientists". First off, I do not think it is a good idea to connect NIH scientists only with other scientists. We need to integrate them into the community, not create a little group of intellectuals. There is already a strong anti-academic bias on Wikipedia, which will only be increased if we academics stick together like this. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a professional working environment - the scientists should be exposed to Wikipedians who are not scientists from the outset. They should not necessarily be exposed to trolls, but they should understand that they are not going to be working with their peers on a daily basis. Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The draft is probably improved by removing that sentence, which I had added reluctantly. But I do believe that having a community of scientists with similar backgrounds who help one another will advance the mission of producing good scientific articles on Wikipedia.  That seems de facto consistent with WikiProjects.  I also outlined my reasoning on the mailing list.


 * I don't mean that academics should expect an ivory tower, or try to create one. I do intend to address the gritty as well as the nitty in my talk, and you and I have discussed already some things they should expect going in.  But can you see how having people you trust to turn to, especially in the early days of editing while you're still getting your bearings and confidence, would make the scientists feel more comfortable taking the plunge?  Proteins (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProjects are not really the heart of Wikipedia, though, and many of the people who contribute to them are not experts (start surveying some of the 1,000 WikiProjects out there and you'll see what I mean). Also, for example, look at the talk page for MCB and their article collaboration for the month - there is just not much activity there. There is a general feeling amongst Wikipedians that WikiProjects are useless, except for MilitaryHistory - it is one of the few projects that is really organized. Whether this feeling is justified or not, it is hard to tell, but in my brief survey of 20 or so projects last summer (which is not enough of a sample, I know), I can tell you that it was justified. This suggests that Wikipedians are not organized by discipline, but rather by what they do: content writing, reviewing, vandal-fighting, articles-for-deletion, admin actions, etc. I volunteered for a study about Wikipedia around a year ago and they asked me all of these questions based around the idea that I was a "literature" editor and that there were "chemistry", "history", etc. editors. Finally, I had to explain to them that their entire survey was designed poorly because they were missing all of these categories of editors. Because editors do not really group themselves into disciplines on Wikipedia, I do not think we should encourage the NIH people to do so. Moreover, I don't want these editors to have any illusions from the beginning that Wikipedia is professional or populated by their peers. Ensconcing them in that security blanket, if you will, is not, in my opinion, a good idea. The rude awakening that would come later will be too rude. One has to learn, from the beginning, to work with the Wikipedia community as it is. We are going to have lists of mentors that they can turn to, but these should be, in my opinion, Wikipedians from across the project, not just scientists. I'm not a scientist, after all, and, yet I have an excellent grasp on what makes a good encyclopedia article, what the community is like, and can help introduce someone to Wikipedia. What we want are people who are going to be able to do that, whether they know what a protein is or not. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should treat all the online volunteers as one group, for just the reasons you mention. I designed the switchboard script along those lines, so that it doesn't distinguish between, say, scientists, physicians, and gifted writers.  I'm sure you know many friendly, experienced Wikipedians who would be happy to help the participants, and I for one believe you should go ahead and ask them.  I'll be glad to add them to the switchboard and to the hardcopy list.


 * However, I'm still nagged by the thought that the participants may wish to choose a helper based on their specific expertise. For example, a scientist may wish to discuss with another scientist how to finesse the writing of a tricky point; or to talk over the writing with someone who knows writing really well.  Perhaps we can just assume that experience will teach them whom they can turn to for such questions.  Proteins (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles also allow scientists to integrate disparate resources on a topic into a single coherent presentation with a consistent nomenclature. - How realistic is this? Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also wrestled with this sentence, and I won't be sorry to see it go. I have seen such standardization happen on Wikipedia, but relatively rarely; for example, you see it in gene and enzyme names, and in physics and engineering variables.  Usually, it's unnecessary because scientists have agreed on the "coherent presentation with consistent nomenclature" before they come to Wikipedia.


 * I like this sentence because it highlights Wikipedia's potential for standardization, which might not be obvious to the scientists but which will speak powerfully to them. However, I almost didn't include it for two reasons:


 * Standardization of nomenclature can provoke fierce disputes, esp. if it impinges on who discovered what first. Reading this sentence, every working scientist will dread having to fight over nomenclature and priority on Wikipedia.  So, potentially, this sentence could be a real de-motivation for contributing.  On the other hand, some scientists will be eager to define the issue before anyone else does.
 * TMI. The point isn't important enough and cuts into the flow of the paragraph.  It seems like a detail in a paragraph of larger issues.  However, that detail may wake scientists up more than all the others, although maybe not in a good way.


 * Thanks as always for your insightful comments; you have a gift for distilling the key points. Proteins (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from SvHannibal (Lennart)
This is very impressive, with everything from why they should contribute, to how to create an account, to well, everything they need. Everything I write after this should be regarded as adjustments:
 * I added a small comment about the page in the intro, to let them know what to expect. We wouldn't want them to think that it's hard to edit Wikipedia.
 * I removed the part about some of the material not being free - why complicate things?
 * Thank you, Lennart, those changes reads well! Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We may want to think about dividing the page into three different coloured sections to further make it easier to read it:
 * getting help
 * why and various other meta-questions
 * how to edit
 * I colored the getting help section a faint lavender, which seems to break up the page neatly, although rounded corners and bigger margins would give it a more professional look. I'd like the "Reasons to Contribute" section be on a white background, so that it stands out from the other sections, and seems more prominent.  Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On my browser the "how to find help" part looks absolutely pink. This may vary with the colour adjustments on our screens, though.//SvHannibal (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We may also want to move the "other ways to contribute" part to another "hidden" box
 * OK, can do. Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be to "dumb down" the text to number the reasons to contribute - and maybe link to the usual page about reasons to contribute?
 * I don't like the numbering myself, although others may disagree. It seems too — inelegant.  But where's the usual page about reasons to contribute?  Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki and Why Wikipedia is so great are mentioned at FAQ/Contributing//SvHannibal (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we add some links for the people who are not scientists - the web writers, etc? They are also a target group for us?
 * Yes, I've been brooding over that since we got the survey results back. The non-scientists are in the majority. Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A link to the general Help page may also be a good thing.
 * Yes, we should start a "See also" section at the bottom. Would you populate that?  Thanks! Proteins (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to, but I have guests...//SvHannibal (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your reactions on this.//SvHannibal (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on help scripts
Jennifer Riggs (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It took a couple of random pages before I found an acronym and when I did the expander couldn't interpret them (they were WP links - which always looked very cryptic to me as a new comer.
 * 2) I am not a know user on the help tab
 * 3) I love love love the edit tips and that they open in a new window so you don't loose your edits while trying to figure out how to do them.
 * 4) At a quick glance I couldn't find the sandbox
 * 5) Assess links looked like it was doing something, but I'm not sure what=-)