Are we taking part in Wiki Loves Monuments this year?
No mention of the UK here:
best wsihes
Edward
On 10 August 2015 at 16:43, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I have now used the visual editor for more than a
hundred edits since the
speed up. I agree that the classic editor is generally faster and I suspect
that will be especially true for anyone editing large articles as V/E's
still lacks section editing.
I like the way V/E supports infobox editing, one of the things I sometimes
do is add images to articles and with the classic editor you usually have
the pain of having to check the template documentation to find out what the
parameters are for image and caption (sadly and for no obvious reason these
parameters are unlikely to be "image" and "caption"). V/E is actually
quite
intuitive here in allowing you to run through the unused parameters of the
infobox.
Table editing is more nuanced, on the one hand there are handy looking
options that come up inviting you to delete or add columns or rows and I'm
sure at some point I will find an opportunity to use them. But editing the
contents of a cell in a table is challenging, not a task I would suggest to
a newbie and far less intuitive than using the classic editor.
Adding images from commons is really quite impressive in V/E, I haven't
yet been in the situation of having to work out which Newcastle V/E is
prompting me with and it would be good to know whether V/E is using wiki
data links, keywords, geocodes or some combination. But however it does it
the images it has prompted me with so far have been pretty good.
Not sure between Joe and Andy's positions re showing diffs. I have had
very little to do with the education program, but I appreciate for
educators knowing how to look at the contributions of a student is
important. I think that V/E would be a better entry point for technophobes
whilst clearly the classic editor is better for the technoscenti. How you
recruit one or other group for an editathon without stereotyping is an
interesting conundrum. If you have access to a large mailing list of people
who might be interested then you could do two sorts of sessions, one
emphasising that this was Wikipedia editing for anyone, especially people
who tried it in the past and found it technically arcane. Another promising
a session led by a "power user" showing how to be an effective editor on
Wikipedia perhaps billed as "this session is suitable for anyone with any
programming experience, however rusty or archaic".
Alternatively if you have a good ratio of experienced editors to newbies
you can guard people and show them the editor most suitable for them.
Regards
Jonathan
On 9 Aug 2015, at 01:03, Richard Farmbrough
<richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk>
wrote:
I guess when it is sufficiently fast that I don't have time to hit "edit
source" instead before it loads, I will start using it on other projects.
Until then, a good character editor beats a good WIMPS editor - pity it's
not a good character editor.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk