This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
|
|
@ MB: I do not understand what you mean by "simpler version" here: [1]. My edit consisted purely of copyedits and the two of brief additions noted in the edit summary. What parts did you object to? – Joe ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?What page are you referring to? Part of the problems experienced at NPP are from users being accorded rights with little care. What we are attempting to here is is twofold: inform new users in a new way (for Wikipedia) without exposing them to walls of policy text, and lightening the workload at NPP. Either you are a partner in that goal or you are not; this is part of the wider scheme to improve a few things that you've chosen not to participate in - coming here and ripping everything apart without a discussion after the project is finished and published is not very friendly either. You couldn't even be bothered to sign this or follow the discussions or even participate in the video conference about it with the WMF]]. Either participate or you are on the wrong project entirely and abusing this policy - since you are so keen to evoke policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
ripping everything apartyou really do need to get a grip. – Joe ( talk) 05:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?, not Joe. What I was trying to say: looking at this talk page and the archive, I cannot see the discussion you referred to when you said
The text on the page is not some random one-draft writing. It was discussed by several users and linguists with experience in UX and writing instructions for readers including non-native English users(emphasis mine). Therefore, I concluded that the discussion occurred off-wiki—where else would it take place besides this talk page? If it was in fact on wiki, I would be grateful if you could pass along a courtesy link to the discussion.
[I]mprove the encyclopediacomes from WP:IAR: I was asking how ignoring WP:OWN would improve the encyclopedia.
However, this system is so new (only hours old) that it would be a presumption to suggest it needs changes already. I would wait until it has been in operation for a while and let the affected page creators speak for themselves. If they suggest the page has not been very helpful, then it can be improved[2]). I was trying to say gently that I believed you were exhibiting OWNership behavior, in the hopes that you would take the trout and we could all move on. Polite, constructive criticism is not a personal attack. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes on-wiki. Even those of us who have been here forever (not that I am one of them).
not an improvementa constructive rationale that anyone can work with, @ Kudpung:. I've asked you both several times what it is you object to and when you've told me I've self-reverted those changes pending discussion (so no, I am not restoring my "preferred version"). You cannot simply obstruct changes because you haven't approved them. There must be discussion for there to be consensus. So one more time, can you please tell me what it is you don't like about this edit, or do I have to take this to a noticeboard? – Joe ( talk) 05:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
simple revisions ... [not] rewrite a text line by linewhich I believe is aligned with the interpretation of copyediting held by the majority of the community. If I write "the author has written half a dozen books" and you change it to "the author has written six books", that is just a different way of saying the same thing. It is a stylistic change. Both are correct, you may think your way improves readability, but that would be just your opinion. If a such a stylistic change is disputed, the original version stands unless you can get a consensus to change it. You have provided no justification to make any changes, other than you seem to like your version better. Pppery saw one small area to improve and made a minor change. HouseBlaster has one specific concern which we are discussing, and said in general "It looks fabulous! " (that is in the archive if you don't believe me). Neither of them has called for a large rewrite. No one here agrees with you. This is really becoming WP:Disruptive. I wish you would drop this and move on. MB 19:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel like the part about public domain/compatibly-licensed text (some material may be in the public domain or compatibly licensed for reuse in Wikipedia
) should be deleted. I was going to wikilink to
Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, but this is such a niche case I am not sure it belongs in a
basic overview of the process. I am a relatively new NPR but I have yet to encounter a single new article that contained PD/licensed content. For compatibly licensed images, there definitely needs to be more explanation; it is not an intuitive concept. This might need to be the subject of another newbie guide—
the newbie image page unhelpfully says that files must be "compatibly licensed" without elaboration or links to more information. There is
File:Licensing tutorial en.svg, but I think some prose might be beneficial. For now, I think we should link to
Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status. I would rather a newbie be overwhelmed than commit a crime (namely, copyright violations). Thoughts?
House
Blaster
talk 01:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
(some material may be in the public domain or compatibly licensed for reuse in Wikipedia)is just to note that there are some exceptions, but this is not the right help page to explain that in more detail. MB 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again! New thing to complain about: MOS:BLANKALT. For licensing reasons, we cannot have a non-clickable image unless it is in the public domain or under {{ CC0}}. Two of the images ( File:Questionmark copyright.svg and File:Notability pyramid.svg) are not under such a license, so I have made them into clickable images for the time being. I agree that non-clickable images would be better, which means that we need to find PD images. I also added a blank alt parameter, which just makes things better for screen readers. House Blaster talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
|
|
@ MB: I do not understand what you mean by "simpler version" here: [1]. My edit consisted purely of copyedits and the two of brief additions noted in the edit summary. What parts did you object to? – Joe ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?What page are you referring to? Part of the problems experienced at NPP are from users being accorded rights with little care. What we are attempting to here is is twofold: inform new users in a new way (for Wikipedia) without exposing them to walls of policy text, and lightening the workload at NPP. Either you are a partner in that goal or you are not; this is part of the wider scheme to improve a few things that you've chosen not to participate in - coming here and ripping everything apart without a discussion after the project is finished and published is not very friendly either. You couldn't even be bothered to sign this or follow the discussions or even participate in the video conference about it with the WMF]]. Either participate or you are on the wrong project entirely and abusing this policy - since you are so keen to evoke policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
ripping everything apartyou really do need to get a grip. – Joe ( talk) 05:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?, not Joe. What I was trying to say: looking at this talk page and the archive, I cannot see the discussion you referred to when you said
The text on the page is not some random one-draft writing. It was discussed by several users and linguists with experience in UX and writing instructions for readers including non-native English users(emphasis mine). Therefore, I concluded that the discussion occurred off-wiki—where else would it take place besides this talk page? If it was in fact on wiki, I would be grateful if you could pass along a courtesy link to the discussion.
[I]mprove the encyclopediacomes from WP:IAR: I was asking how ignoring WP:OWN would improve the encyclopedia.
However, this system is so new (only hours old) that it would be a presumption to suggest it needs changes already. I would wait until it has been in operation for a while and let the affected page creators speak for themselves. If they suggest the page has not been very helpful, then it can be improved[2]). I was trying to say gently that I believed you were exhibiting OWNership behavior, in the hopes that you would take the trout and we could all move on. Polite, constructive criticism is not a personal attack. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes on-wiki. Even those of us who have been here forever (not that I am one of them).
not an improvementa constructive rationale that anyone can work with, @ Kudpung:. I've asked you both several times what it is you object to and when you've told me I've self-reverted those changes pending discussion (so no, I am not restoring my "preferred version"). You cannot simply obstruct changes because you haven't approved them. There must be discussion for there to be consensus. So one more time, can you please tell me what it is you don't like about this edit, or do I have to take this to a noticeboard? – Joe ( talk) 05:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
simple revisions ... [not] rewrite a text line by linewhich I believe is aligned with the interpretation of copyediting held by the majority of the community. If I write "the author has written half a dozen books" and you change it to "the author has written six books", that is just a different way of saying the same thing. It is a stylistic change. Both are correct, you may think your way improves readability, but that would be just your opinion. If a such a stylistic change is disputed, the original version stands unless you can get a consensus to change it. You have provided no justification to make any changes, other than you seem to like your version better. Pppery saw one small area to improve and made a minor change. HouseBlaster has one specific concern which we are discussing, and said in general "It looks fabulous! " (that is in the archive if you don't believe me). Neither of them has called for a large rewrite. No one here agrees with you. This is really becoming WP:Disruptive. I wish you would drop this and move on. MB 19:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel like the part about public domain/compatibly-licensed text (some material may be in the public domain or compatibly licensed for reuse in Wikipedia
) should be deleted. I was going to wikilink to
Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, but this is such a niche case I am not sure it belongs in a
basic overview of the process. I am a relatively new NPR but I have yet to encounter a single new article that contained PD/licensed content. For compatibly licensed images, there definitely needs to be more explanation; it is not an intuitive concept. This might need to be the subject of another newbie guide—
the newbie image page unhelpfully says that files must be "compatibly licensed" without elaboration or links to more information. There is
File:Licensing tutorial en.svg, but I think some prose might be beneficial. For now, I think we should link to
Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status. I would rather a newbie be overwhelmed than commit a crime (namely, copyright violations). Thoughts?
House
Blaster
talk 01:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
(some material may be in the public domain or compatibly licensed for reuse in Wikipedia)is just to note that there are some exceptions, but this is not the right help page to explain that in more detail. MB 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again! New thing to complain about: MOS:BLANKALT. For licensing reasons, we cannot have a non-clickable image unless it is in the public domain or under {{ CC0}}. Two of the images ( File:Questionmark copyright.svg and File:Notability pyramid.svg) are not under such a license, so I have made them into clickable images for the time being. I agree that non-clickable images would be better, which means that we need to find PD images. I also added a blank alt parameter, which just makes things better for screen readers. House Blaster talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)