Jump to content

Wikiask/Discussion

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Direct ist sicher passent (bin aber noch neu bei wiki) Gibt es diese Seite auch auf deutsch? --Georgfotoart (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgfotoart: noch nicht Arep Ticous 08:36, 12 September 2019(UTC)
  • This sounds like a Q&A. There are plenty of Q&A's on the internet, and I don't understand how this one would be different or better. Additionally, what is the connection between a "guide" and a Q&A? Or is this more of a "how-to"? If you're thinking of creating a tutorial website, check out Wikihow, a non-Wikimedia website that serves that function. SelfieCity (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SelfieCity: It is a Q&A Wiki, and i agree with you, there are many, but many do not provide definitive answers. They are open for vandalism and do not run by a proper protocol. Only one site that lies prominent is [www.quora.com], even in that website, an answer would be provided only if someone is willing to give you one, It is not a Wikihow based website... it is explained here. If you have any more questions... feel free to ask. Arep Ticous 14:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Arepticous: Yes you can ask questions like Who invented the light bulb on existing sites, for example https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-bulb-Edison-or-Tesla Plus the example "What medicine to take if you have fever." above has no definite answer. (Please don't use blockquote when you reply and don't quote someone.) --Malyacko (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Malyacko: WikiDirect is something that plans to be entirely different. Its answers would already be supplied in a formal way along with tips and etc... See- WikiDirect/ Example Article. Not to forget that WikiDirect would also be a free guidebook, while all the other Q/As are infested with advertisements that bother their readers. Arep Ticous 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment @Arepticous: (1) you have made a false claim in your example:

    Advertisements can disrupt websites at a rapid rate. A live example for such a quick disruption can be put forward as the former Wikimedia project-Wikitravel[1]. We can easily see how it used to be an how it is now by comparing it with Wikivoyage[2]. In 2013 after WikiTravel was bought by Internet brands many of the users turned against the fact that it was turned into a non-free wiki with constant advertising... this made them to propose Wikivoyage- a new free travel guide which was exactly the same as WikiTravel. Building up a new website was hard enough, and at the moment Wikitravel is practically abandoned.

Wikitravel is not and never was a Wikimedia sister projects neither a Wikimedia-endorsed project. Wikitravel started as a project of some individuals, that some time after was bought by Internet Brands, company that later on put lots of advertisements on the site, and that, along with the poor infrastructure issues not being addressed, part of the community decided to leave that project and to fork contents (CC-BY-SA licensed) and create their own travel guide project. Some years later that project requested to be adopted as Wikimedia project and here we are. There were a legal litigation between IB and WMF; but there was an agreement to settle the plaint. Both project exists, but not interact almost at all each other.
(2) For your information, the project overlaps partially with an existing space within English and some other language editions of Wikivoyage: Tourist Office. There, you can ask a tourism or travel related question and you will recieve an answer and maybe a link to a relevant page.
(3) Regarding your suggestions of name and branding (and its translations, that by the way I thank you that you considered the fact that the name does not have to be in English), the "direct" reference of your project may have sense in English, but it does not make sense in Spanish and may not in other languages. You could ask "direct to what?". That is how I see it. On the other hand, "guide" may not be an accurate depiction of the proposed project, because a guide implies a "step by step", "manual" or "how to". If your project intends to be a Quora/SOF-like project but free and open, then guide could not be always a Q&A. I think "ask" is more appropriate (by the way, in Spanish would not be "wikipedir", but something like "wikipregunta"). Of course, other suggestions not yet made are also welcome.
(4) What would be the content model? Plain wikitext like Wikipedia? Would it require any additional (existing or to-be-created) feature or mediawiki extension? How information/Q&A content would be organized? One page per question (plus its answers) or one page per topic (that could contain several Q&A)? Would it require additional features in order to reach Wikidata integration? Could you please make an image to depict how a page would look like?
(5) What would be the inclusion criteria? Would there be any limit of questions allowed? Do you have any plans to require proper credentials when answering complex or high-qualification questions (such as hard science topics) or everyone would be allowed to answer regardless of their education? Are you willing to write a rough draft about it? --Zerabat (discusión) 02:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zerabat:I have read your message an since it is posted apart, i will answer each separately.
(1) Word! I thought that it was a former Wikimedia website! I guess i should confirm facts before publishing it onto the project. I removed it, please, if you see any more data that proves not to be true, inform me ASAP.
(2)That space challenges only the travel field, Wikidirect would be something that would help give initial advice to a person from all possible fields. And Wikidirect plans to answer questions in article form.
(3)The idea to use a non-English name is inspirational, i wrote the translated names to inform the community that this project is widened and respective, and that the name can be of any language, whatever fits best is accepted. Pardon me for the linguistic error, i dont know many languages, so i had to pluck that off google translate which supposedly gives Weak translations. Wikiask is actually a great name for such a project, but i wish to seek more further and find something that is better.
(4) Plain wikitext is the plan for now. One page per question is what the projects basis is formed on, I'll update an image soon enough, i just have to update the PHP and grab the screenshot. Pages in WikiDirect will be written in Article format as shown in the example Article page. It would help the user identify and read the information swiftly.
(5) Non-Qualified users will not get to answer complex questions, since it could harm the person who follows article instructions. I will write a draft on it. Arep Ticous 12:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing by proposer

@Arepticous: this, this, this, and many more talk page messages are not appropriate. It is called "canvassing". If someone is interested in your proposal, they will make comments, there is no need for you to direct them to it. Please stop right now. Masum Reza☎ 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding oppositions

[edit]
  • @Koavf: I believe that maybe you have jumped straight into conclusion. Wikibooks contains recipes for cakes and other sorts of guidance articles, while WikiDirect would be something that would come to use in situations. Hence, making it resourceful. A given instance would be- What to do when someone is choking- Wikidirect would have a format that would cooperate in such situations and help out the person cope with it successfully. Not to forget that it is an Q&A. My view of this project is not understandable for many, i am developing an example image and a draft as User:Zerabat suggested to help viewers understand better. Arep Ticous 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how it isn't learning material but Wikiversity includes thinks like v:en:WikiDebate which allow for a live conversation about a topic. In this case, it is structured like a debate but it is still perfectly appropriate to have pages that are like conversations about best practices or figuring out a process and sharing the results with others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikiversity is for collaborative learning modules, broadly construed. Basic first aid would actually be a very good set of instructions to have there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: WikiDirect is not just first aid. see- WikiDirect/ Introduction Arep Ticous 08:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that it is only first aid but the example you give above—what to do if someone is choking—is perfect material for a first aid handbook (Wikibooks) or a course module in first aid (Wikiversity). This actually seems like a bad thing to have open for discussion because medical best practices aren't really open for a free-for-all debate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: dear user:Rubbish computer... I understand that Wikibooks is a compatible enviornment for this proposal, but however, i dont think that it would be a practical idea. Wikibooks already has a different purpose. Wikibooks doesn't fulfill the definition of a Q&A or a guidebook. And even if this project was to be taken into wikibooks, it would be of great inconvenience. Plus, multitasking of a wiki website is not approved by the public per-se... WikiDirect would have thousands of articles if you think about it and Wikibooks currently has alot. Arep Ticous 13:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

[edit]
  1. @Arepticous: You asked me on my talk to elaborate. If the goal is to make a guidebook for a particular task or activity, that fits within the mandate of Wikibooks: it includes textbooks, manuals, a cookbook, etc. If the goal is to have a kind of live q-and-a answer desk (a la Quora or Stack Exchange or Yahoo! Answers), I think that fits within Wikiversity, especially if the goal is some kind of dialectic to debate best practices, etc: see v:en:WikiDebate. Can you tell me more about how you think that what you want to accomplish can't in principle be done at either of those existing sister projects? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koavf: I understand your point, however, I can give a few reasons why Wikibooks and Wikiversity are not unerringly parallel with Wikiask. First off, I have based the idea as a blend of a modern Q&A and a guidebook. It would have both a user-to-user interaction division and a formal article-like representation, similar to that of Wikihow. It would be assembled in a formal layout, making it efficient, quick and reliable. Unlike Wikibooks, this would not mainly cornerstone on recipe’s, manuals related to computer software, installation guides or filmography. Its a suggestion for space where users can interact with each other and follow instructions at the same time. WIkibooks do not include necessary information. It is not a Q&A. Wikiask would be a 'step by step instruction' manual with a wide range of topics. Wikiversity is a home for learning resources and communities. It is not a Q&A, it is partially a guide book which discusses complicated matters based on the relevant topic. While Wikiask would present information in a nutshell. Arep Ticous 10:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion #2

[edit]

After Recreation @Koavf: @Rubbish computer:

  • @Koavf: I understand that, but a Q&A is a completely independent genre, and I believe that it needs a separate project to hold it up. Wikiversity is a collaborative learning platform, but its main purpose is to present articles. There are fewer Q&A's in the website if you check around it. And to launch a new project for Q&A's within Wikiversity would not gain user interest. Q&A's present a lot of work, and they are built to be utilized completely by the public, it would just be confusing for outside users to come in and separately ask questions while a load of other articles in separate form exists. Locating questions would be hard for them. Q&A websites have thousands of new users every month, and due to fewer restrictions, people can communicate about certain matters like pop-culture, problem resolution, and public opinions. I think leaving wiki-versity as it is would be better since building a more Modern- Q&A takes a separate process, and that its Independency would gain more user interest than when merged with an existing project that already has a similar, but distancing purpose. Arep Ticous 04:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo!Answers closed without archival

[edit]

The former most popular Q&A website Yahoo!Answers was shut-down without any archival. All the hardwork of millions of volunteers extinguished just like that! :( This is actually the fate of all copyrighted for-profit crowdsourced websites. They never care about the welfare of humanity. Vis M (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StackOverflow also sold

[edit]

Details

[edit]

@Arepticous: The basic idea of WikiMedia-hosted Q&A site is good, but doing the little details wrong can easily kill it. I see a number of worrying signs:

  • The proposal is written in broken English. Proposer alone wouldn't be able to create appealing initial content and there is no list of people willing to bootstrap the site.
  • The proposal has broken wikitext and formatting. It looks like the proposer is not very knowledgeable about technical aspects of wikis.
  • The proposal envisions fancy new software and features, but the project could be literally started tomorrow with standard MediaWiki installation plus some conventions and templates.
  • The proposer appears to be fearful of contributors and intends to belittle them with titles like "wikignome", grudging system of privileges, and draconian policies. Where's the assumption of good faith? What's wrong with standard anti-vandal measures employed on Wikipedia? Is the proposer aware of existing admin tools?
  • The proposal focuses on ad-free experience to the exclusion of everything else. As if the proposer is unable to imagine other improvements over existing Q&A systems that could be achieved. This is related to the next point.
  • The proposal is not very clear about how the collaboration will work. So far it looks like it would replicate answer ownership system from commercial Q&A sites, which is very unnatural for wikis. WikiAsk would inherit problems caused by answer ownership: competition instead of collaboration, outdated answers abandoned by their authors, lengthy list of "me too" answers, obvious flaws in answers not being fixed, etc.
  • Answer ownership would also result in rigid page structure that does not allow for question disambiguation pages, redirects, and other non-standard pages.
  • The proposal is not clear whether this is going to be content-focused or community-focused site. IMO, most people come to Q&A sites for the content, so community focus (discussions, collaborative learning, point/badge system etc.) is going to be confusing and off-putting.

These issues must be sorted out before the site launches. Otherwise this ends up as another wasted opportunity like WikiNews. — Robert Važan (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Važan: yeah, i've noticed all those flaws in the proposal, first of all, I am not a competent project "manager" or so to speak. I'm simply proposing the idea, and I have no intention in taking full leadership. I just thought that this was a good idea, a good concept that could help the wikimedia foundation to spread their resources. I do believe that there are more capable creators on the platform who can take full control of this project and i would really appreciate it if you would consider leading wikiask since I'm no longer interested in keeping ties with the wikimedia foundation. This project was written in broken english simply because I was learning english at that time (clearly i'm still learning it). I do believe in this idea, I do want a royalty free Q&A, i've been contributing to quora for a while and the purchasable "upgraded" version limits the amount of articles and information that a person can access, this really annoys me, and i do believe that a wikimedia funded q&a would fix most of these "for-profit' flaws. Thank you so much for your insightful comments, but here, i leave you with full authority over the proposal (i would still like to be involved with the project, hopefully help the creation and etc). You may handle it however you like. Thanks, sincerely Arep Ticous 03:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiask/Discussion&oldid=22820173"