Wikipedia has a pleasing layout. It is well-structured and easy to read. It is also suprisingly easy to edit in most areas, especially the fundamentals.
[expand: massive data base, many users, Impressive/fast/reliable change control/record/processing. Often used as a civvy, easy and informative. Crusaders (bots & co) kill van. Many talented and helpfull contributors]
This page lists areas of Wikipedia that I think could be improved. They arose while using Wikipedia as both a civilian and an editor. The suggested changes may be impractical, they may cut across accepted standards, and there may already be a way of doing what is suggested.
Wikipedia manual of style (suggested revision) edit
Original: [1]
In section on smart quotes suggest add the following or similar:
To turn off "smart quotes" in Microsoft 2002:
- Go to: Tools > AutoCorrect Options... > AutoFormat (ensure box "Straight quotes" with "smart quotes" is clear. If not left click box)
- (Left click box OK)
- Go to: Tools > AutoCorrect Options... > AutoFormat As You Type (ensure box "Straight quotes" with "smart quotes" is clear. If not left click box)
- (Left click box OK)
Reporting Wikipedia problems/suggestions to difficult edit
[explain]
Who is allowed to edit edit
It would be a great shame if only those approved, acording to some kind of assessment, were allowed edit Wikipedia but there is a lot of vandalism. But then the Bots and Co are so efficient at removing vandalism that it's not really a problem. [very poor standard of vandalism these days- very little skill or humour] The writing is not a big issue either because it's fairly straight forward to fix the English and the structure of a page; it's the basic information that's important. [non English users charming style especiall when writing about their countries explain]
Limiting editing to registered users would achieve nothing anyway? because anybody could open a user account- it only takes a couple of minutes and it's free. [check this because the vandals URL could be blocked- but then it can anyway] [what is Wiki policy does one vandalisation result in URL being blocked?]
So, conclusion is: leave as is.
[expand]
'discussion'/'talk' tab name edit
The tab at the top of Wiki pages is labelled 'discussion' but it leads to a 'talk' page. This is inconsistent. Suggest tab be changed to 'talk' and the term 'discussion' should be dropped throughout Wiki; 'talk is shorter too.
Cancel edit edit
Suggest that the 'cancel' text at the bottom of an edit page should be a box just like 'Save page', 'Show preview', and 'Show changes'; it is the same level as these three commands.
Citations edit
The citation system works surprisingly well at the code level when you consider the number of variables it has to handle. But, at the moment, citations are more difficult than necessary to learn, understand, and implement by editors (November 2009).
Suggest that the whole process be rationalised and that only one citation/reference/source system be allowed rather than the current four?. [think about best standard] The 'casual' citation system, using brackets, should remain though so that 'casual' editors do not need to learn the formal system and are not discouraged from entering citation data. (the best situation would be if the formal citation system were so simple that even the uninitiated would be happy to use it [consider expand])
The citation markup also clutters the source making editing difficult. Coloured characters [say green?] for source markup would be a big help (like various C# editors etc). To cater for colour-blind editors the colour markup function should be enableable/disableable.
On the rendered page, the citation sections ('Notes' and 'References') are intrusive, especially when there are many references. They are of no interest to general readers; a hide function (like for 'Contents'- default set to 'hide'- would fix the situation with the current citation system.[expand, explain]
Also the various terms used in relation to citations i.e. 'sources', 'references', 'citations', 'referencing', 'citing', 'sourcing' etc need to be reduced, defined and rationalised. The section on Wiki article pages is titled 'Reference'- that is the starting point. [expand] [may be the 'References' title could be changed to 'Sources' but probably not [consider, expand]
[expand situation on Wiki 'help']
Citation needed suffix intrusive edit
The template 'citation needed' produces a suffix that is far to long and intrusive. It breaks up the articles badly. (citation, source, reference ambiguity- see remarks under Citations')
Hide edit
Suggest a 'hide' command-like in 'contents'-be added to certain pages, especially citation notes/footnotes. (see Citations)
Book references edit
Suggest ref template be in same order as resulting text. [expand] and should be the same for all books whether 'references', further reading' etc. Suggest better order with location (New York, London etc) at end. [expand]
Templates objects intrusive edit
Generally, the template displayed objects are intrusive: too heavy, loud, and colourful. [add examples]
Help rationalisation edit
Although Held does the job well- you can always find what you need, somewhere - it could be improved by radical shortening, restructuring, and rationalisation.
'edit' function for first part of article edit
[expand]
Image upload difficulty edit
needs rationalisation [expand]
also see: User:CPES/Images
Media (including image) license edit
The whole area of licensing is much too complicated and difficult (perhaps necessarily so). You would need to be a copyright lawyer to understand all the intricacies. Guess that many editors just submit their own media and allocate a license without really understanding the implications.
Also suggest that Wiki and Commons should allow a restricted license. So that, for example, the owner of the media only could use it and no one else and it would not be downloadable over the internet by civilians. [rough idea expand and refine give specific example]
edit
[expand]
Picture placement edit
More control of picture required [expand]
Picture naming edit
(Also see: User:CPES/Images)
Better-advised standard needed; this would be a help to both uploaders and users. A picture name template would be useful. [expand]
High-level description first, followed by lower level descriptions in order from left to right. Final field: a number, say 3 digits, to uniquely identify a particular picture in a group of similar pictures [give example]
'N' dash & 'M' dash edit
M dash ugly [expand]
Level 3 heading too strong edit
[expand]
'Save page' only from 'Save page' button edit
To prevent unintended 'Page save' [expand]
Single and double quotes edit
Use double quote only for direct speech; use single quotes otherwise. [expand]
The use of single quotes in markup leads to errors when two single quotes are used (double quote used in error). [expand]
Edit Summary too short edit
[expand]
Coloured markup edit
[expand- also covered in 'Citations']
Spelling edit
Which to use, UK or US? US spelling generally better- shorter and more logical but a problem for uk editors but less so if a spell checker were available while editing. [expand]
Spell check while editing source edit
Would be useful [is this available- investigate expand]
Length of titles, sections, paragraphs, and sentences edit
Wiki is a source of 'established' 'facts' rather than a novel.
Modern approach is for short titles, pick salient point and make section text match title as far as possible. Don't kill the story by giving the puch line away in the title [explain expand]
Sugest that, in general, short sections, sentence and paragraphs are much easier to read and assimulate. (news papers, magazines for example). Wiki is not a book and is vewed on a monitor where shorter chunks are easier and clearer . Also many computer users tend to be impatient. Yes, it can be choppy but writing style can help.
[sort, expand, explain]