Talk:Wikimedia urban postering campaign

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Foreign languages[edit]

Actually, using Islandic posters in the USA, with the general address added, would be quite effective; using posters in several foreign languages in the same area, especially if some spell Wikipedia differently, or even use a different script, would not only stress the multiple languages, but would be effective teasers. Aliter 19:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lonely posters[edit]

Where the content of the posters is concerned: Remember there's no-one there when the poster is being read. That means anything you'd do when selling an idea in person won't work, as they can't be used together to build your case until the contact is convinced:

  • Don't defend your case, as this suggests you must be weak.
  • Don't compare with others, as that brings you down to just above their level.
  • Don't mention associates, as they take part of the name you try to build.
  • Don't use "We", as "we" is not present.

Remember: If we are indeed useable, then people will find out anyway, once they take a look. The posters only need a hook that'll have people look up Wikipedia to begin with.

I 100% agree with this. Most of the stuff I read on the content page wouldn't make me very eager to check out this Wikipedia... Guaka 11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recruitment for balance[edit]

There are several ways in which Wikipedia could benefit from targeted recruitment of people with certain types of knowledge, and targeted posters (by location and by theme) could be one way to do that.

There is some concern about Wikipedia's ability to attract women and people from religious and ethnic minorities. (See e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Project details.) Certainly Wikipedia's coverage of certain minority topics could use a boost, and people actually in those minorities are much more likely to have knowledge and interest in them.

Wikipedia could also benefit from getting more people with very advanced or very specialized types of knowledge. For example, we have very few editors, if any, who are well-versed in advanced quantum mechnanics. A lot of articles on that topic could use fact-checking, expansion, and also context for non-expert readers. We have a lot of law articles that could benefit from attention from law students. And so on.

Our coverage of foreign countries, especially non-English-speaking ones, is somewhat poor. We need people from those countries to add information on them, or people who speak foreign languages to translate articles from other-language Wikipedias.

One very specific idea might be to take the top five most important articles in a field that we're having problems with, and put those on a poster. (Maybe on a milk-carton background, with the header, "Can you fix these articles?", or something.) We could also come up with posters targeting specific countries and ethnic groups, and then try to poster in areas where interested people would likely see them. -- Beland 21:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! It could also attract people who can add to smaller (or non-existing) Wikipedias! Guaka 11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Negative campaigning[edit]

I don't think we should campaign negatively, that is "we are better than britannica and encarta", while I think wikipedia is, and Im sure there are loads of people who agree with this, it goes straight against NPOV and also makes this sound like a political campaign when its not really.

As well, Im not so sure if its as safe as suggested to use wikipedia as a refernce in an academic sense, sure when fact verification isnt that neccessary it doesnt present a problem, but as wikipedia isnt really referenced and the information often comes from an unknown source this could be considered unwise.

Any comments on this? --212.159.98.17 11:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cybercafes and such[edit]

If you know of any Cybercafes or similar facilities, please enter them on this list! Thanks! Quinobi 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]