A New ‘Pedia: planning for the future of Wikipedia
Élan Vital 2013-08-10
Wikipedia has gotten more elaborate and complex to use. Adding a reference, marking something for review, uploading a file or creating a new article now take many steps — and failing to follow them can lead to starting all over. The curators of the core projects are concerned with uniformly high quality, and impatient with contributors who don’t have the expertise and wiki-experience to create something according to policy. Good stubs or photos are deleted for failing to comply with one of a dozen policies, or for inadequate cites or license templates; even when they are in fact derived from reliable sources and freely licensed.
The Article Creation Wizard has a 5-step process for drafting an article, after which it is submitted for review by a team of experienced editors, and finally moved to the article namespace. This is too much overhead for many.
We need a simpler scratch-space to develop new material:
- A place not designed to be high quality, where everything can be in flux, possibly wrong, in need of clarification and polishing and correction.
- A place that can be used to build draft articles, images, and other media before posting them to Wikipedia
- A place where everyone is welcome to start a new topic, and share what they know: relying on verifiability over time (but not requiring it immediately), and without any further standard for notability
- A place with no requirements to edit: possibly style guidelines to aspire to, but where newbies who don’t know how the tools or system works are welcomed and encouraged to contribute more, and not chastised for getting things wrong.
Since this will be a new sort of compendium or comprehensive cyclopedia, covering all topics, it should have a new name. Something simple, say Newpedia. Scripts can be written to help editors work through the most polished Newpedia items and push them to Wikipedia and Wikisource and Commons. We could invite editors to start doing their rough work on Newpedia, to avoid the conflict and fast reversion on the larger wiki references that make it hard to use for quick new work.
What do you think? I plan to start a mailing list of thoughtful people who are interested in developing such a knowledge-project. I look forward to your thoughts