CZ Talk:Group Editing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Tom Kelly mNo edit summary |
imported>Daniel Mietchen (→Good examples? Bad examples?: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:copied from link above | :copied from link above | ||
::"I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)" | ::"I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)" | ||
== Good examples? Bad examples? == | |||
Do we have articles that are the result of concerted group editing (as opposed to the usual model where very few people edit before the approval process is initiated)? Did it bring significant improvements, or did it cause friction due to increased talk? I am looking for cases that could suitably be mentioned in the PLoS article as examples for pros and cons of collaborative wiki writing. Thanks! -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 06:51, 26 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 05:51, 26 June 2008
This article is an effort to help allievate the frustration many editors and authors have when "other people start editing "their" article."
- copied from link above
- "I know that many CZ help pages must already contain information like this in it. Let's plan to link to these pages. However, I think a short page could be made that addresses this one concept directly. Many people don't read beyond the first couple paragraphs, and long help pages are lucky to even be glanced over. Tailoring help pages directed at specific problems and then linking to more verbose help pages might be beneficial. Looking for feedback. Tom Kelly 14:55, 4 June 2008 (CDT)"
Good examples? Bad examples?
Do we have articles that are the result of concerted group editing (as opposed to the usual model where very few people edit before the approval process is initiated)? Did it bring significant improvements, or did it cause friction due to increased talk? I am looking for cases that could suitably be mentioned in the PLoS article as examples for pros and cons of collaborative wiki writing. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen 06:51, 26 June 2008 (CDT)