Last modified on 8 March 2014, at 21:25

Talk:Bookshelf Project

Return to "Bookshelf Project" page.

Comments, ideas, suggestionsEdit

Please use this space to suggest ideas of improvement. Thank you! -Aradhanar 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...

Weekly team meetingsEdit

ScriptingEdit

August 26, 2010Edit

  • Status updates:
  1. Welcome to Wikipedia (adr)
  2. Media literacy: Ready for first copyedit on August 30 (ls)
  3. Update on Wikipedia for teachers and Free licenses leaflet (adr)
  4. Update on change in scope for Wikipedia for marketing communications and Wikipedia for journalists (ls and adr)
  • Copyediting (cv)
  • Updated schedule available by August 27.
  • Other?

August 19, 2010Edit

  • Status updates:
  1. Welcome to Wikipedia (adr)
  2. Media literacy (ls)
  3. Wikipedia for teachers (ls)
  4. Free licenses leaflet (adr)
  5. Wikipedia for marketing communications (adr)
  6. Wikipedia for journalists (adr)
  7. 10 reasons to edit Wikipedia (adr)
  • Copyediting (cv)
  • Other?

August 12, 2010Edit

  • Status updates:
  1. Welcome to Wikipedia (adr)
    1. Review comments
    2. Next steps
    3. Questions?
  2. Media literacy (ls)
  3. Wikipedia for marketing communications (adr)
  4. Wikipedia for journalists (adr)
  • Copyediting (cv)
  • Other

Visual designEdit

August 24, 2010Edit

  • Welcome to Wikipedia
  • Localization guidelines
  • Updates on leaflets for journalists and marketing communications
  • Updates on Wikipedia for teachers and Free licenses
  • Review Media literacy
  • Update on the schedule


August 17, 2010Edit

  • Welcome to Wikipedia is with printers
  • Localization guidelines
  • Updates on other deliverables

August 10, 2010Edit

  • Welcome to Wikipedia
  1. Font: Helvetica used, Aradhana to follow up internally if any change needs to be made at all.
  2. Deliverable in a virtual copy format: Dale to put together a copy that can be used to get stakeholder approval
  3. Review comments: Aradhana to collate and send them by midday tomorrow (8/10) or sooner
  4. Localization guidelines: Dale has already started fleshing out the structure. Dale to update the wiki page sometime next week.
  • Other deliverables
  1. Schedule review: Dale to let Aradhana know if he has any concerns

ArchivedEdit

Feedback on the design documents
Good choice; I would like to see also a brochue "Wikipedia in numbers" where I have a comprehensive overview on how many people edit, how many articles, page view, something a newbie or journalist can relate and refer to more easily than the specialist statistic pages. --Ziko 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I'll add it to the content ideas; I agree this idea is powerful.
--Marlita 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Target audience feedback

Re target audience: Wikipedians interested in the upcoming WikiProject Screencast

As a Wikipedian who is interested in supporting this project (and somewhat outside the stereotypical norm because I am older and female), I found it surprising that you would include gender and age characteristics (i.e., "young" and "male") in the target audience description here. If an experienced Wikipedian is tech-savvy, educated, online, and possessing of subject-matter expertise, isn't that sufficient? In fact, wouldn't it be preferable to try to attract some of us outliers, so that outreach is being done by people who look like your outreach targets? "If I can do it, you can too." I'm just sayin'... --Sfmammamia 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sfmammamia, thanks a lot for your feedback. Our target audience description was based on what we know about the existing community. But you are perfectly right -- everybody outside that stereotypical norm is very much welcome as well. I've updated the target audience document based on your feedback. Do you have experiences with screencasts? We're still looking for a good open source solution, see Open Questions (Bookshelf) --Frank Schulenburg 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Experience with screencasts, yes (Camtasia Studio). Open-source, no, unfortunately. Thanks for taking my comment! --Sfmammamia 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've made some suggestions for software. I'm quite interested in this aspect of the project. Mike.lifeguard 07:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Mike: thank you for the software suggestions and offer to help do the work! Excellent.--Marlita 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

'Target audience: missing Librarians?

Why are librarians missing in the target audience for the materials being produced? They distribute information to all academics on which sources they should use. Why not help them understand Wikipedia, so that their customers know how to use it. User:Sadads (I am having trouble with my unified login.)

Sadads: Thank you for this suggestion. You are right and librarians are on our communications and rollout plan (still in infancy) for exactly the reasons you mention. As a target audience for the Bookshelf materials per se, we'll consider how the materials can be adapted to directly address them as potential editors. --Marlita 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dec16 conference call

My notes from the conference call. Please edit, fix names, and add links to your username.

Callers:

Wikimedia side:

Conversation:

  • Overview
  • Content outline
    • Welcome pack
  • Talked about screencasts, vandalism, maybe use "how to revert vandalism" or "how to correct errors" as a hook to new users? See Additional Ideas for more details
  • How to make editing more inviting? Edits may AGF but not be correct (notability, NEWT project, etc).
    • Marlita: (Frank Schulenburg WMF Head of Public Outreach) is working on this on Strategy Wiki (on Strategy Wiki. Important to encourage first edit AND to keep them involved.
    • Jerry: Adopt-a-user program.
    • Deror: a 4000-person survey asking "did you know you can edit?" showed that 30% did not know that.
    • Ted: Newbie treatment at en.wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion
  • Agnieszka: localization? Coverage to other projects, like pl.wiktionary?
    • Marlita: "expansion ideas" section.
  • Marlita: project completion date: September 2010, materials will be released as they are ready.
    • Marlita: Anticipated outline date: Jan 22 2010, feedback by Jan 27 2010.
    • Marlita: First draft of first half of welcome packet Feb 19 2010, feedback by Feb 25 2010.
  • Goals: EN draft ready by chapters meeting (link?) in April
    • Education piece ready then, hopefully a video
    • Wikimania: all pieces ready by then, though streaming as ready
    • Communications/rollout plan in February (banners, blogs, signpost, Jay Walsh, WMF Head of Communications will contribute to this)
  • Who? unify introductory/welcome pages between locales?
  • Jerry: localization - how much will be done? Chinese?
    • Marlita: simple English (no humor, colloquialisms) will be produced, let local groups do the translations.

Contributors can sign here. Tedder 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Marlita 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

It seems to me that some groups to target with the brochures / materials produced might be local historical societies and outdoor groups. When I look at most articles on cities / towns, they have little on the local history and it seems to me that the local historical societies would be good potential sources for people who would have the interest and references to improve local articles. This would also apply to things like National Register of Historic Places properties in the US or historically protected places around the world.

Similarly, I think watershed organizations or angler clubs would be good for articles on streams and lakes, hiking associations for trails and the places they go through, Audubon society chapters for parks / forests / protected areas. I realize these are the kinds of articles I tend to work on, so there are probably other groups that would apply (i.e. stamp and coin clubs for philately and numismatic articles). Ruhrfisch 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, this is an excellent point. I am a big proponent of this sort of outreach. I would suggest we work toward documenting past instances of this sort of thing at Success stories (though in some cases, telling the story of what didn't work may be useful as well).
In Oregon, we had very limited success in reaching out to the Oregon Historical Society; however, the relationship we built has proven beneficial in unexpected ways, and it may be that simply adjusting expectations is the important lesson.
I have found that historical societies and advocacy groups (e.g., the Oregon Center for Public Policy, the Columbia River Gorge Commission, the Bus Project, etc.) are generally used to working in ways that promote their group's name more than work on Wikipedia typically does. However, they are generally mission-based; persuading them to consider other options is possible, but time-consuming.
I'd be very happy to brainstorm around this issue. -Pete F 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
My experience with state level agencies is that they are willing to help provide resources - both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks have released photos for use on Commons, for example. They have not generally been interested in writing articles.
What I was thinking of was more the county or city level groups - not generally government agencies, but composed of people who are volunteers. In my research for Wikipedia articles in Pennsylvania, I have found that local historical societies often have publications that are useful sources (and perhaps some of the people who write articles for these journals might also want to write for Wikipedia). Similarly the local Audubon Society chapters have published resources that I have found are useful for articles on state parks. So a county or city historical society might have people who could become interested in contributing to articles on the city or county or local historic sites... Ruhrfisch 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions and commentsEdit

Hi, I just surfed a little bit through this wiki, looked at the produced documents and downloaded and installed scribus. Instead of commenting on lots of single pages, here a bit of review (feel free to move the comments around if you know a better place for them):

  • The method of using only open source software which is affordable to everyone makes the task of producing high quality materials more difficult but is a reasonable strategy. However - where are the source files for download? In the Bookshelf I can only find PDFs, it seems the only brochure of which the source files are available is the welcome brochure.
  • Welcome Brochure: One of the most important principles of print design is readability. The layout (except in art works) should make something easy to read. The colorful backgrounds don't ease readability, they make it instead very difficult to read. Even more difficult for colorblind people, if one can trust scribus genial feature of how a page looks in the eyes of a colorblind reader (test red-green-blindness on some pages, the text dissappears). Last but not least these background colors don't print really well if a chapter can only afford black-and-white print. And someone printing this on his inkjet at home won't admire the beautiful design but will simply hate you.
  • File:Content page.png - Don't know if this screenshot is intended to be used in the final document. It's a good example of how a screenshot shouldn't look like. At least if you don't want to print a lot of empty space. Before you take a screenshot for a manual, think about what the screenshot should show and adjust the size of your browser window.
  • University_course_syllabus. Nice work, apart from the background color, color blindedness etc, see above. Just one remark: The page numbers look like they were added in the last minute. "Hey, we've forgotten the page numbers" "Np, just let the secretary add them in arial somewhere in the right corner. Don't bother the designer with it..."
  • Videowikipedia_v1.pdf: Beautiful and really good to read! Great work!
  • Licensing tutorial. Box madness. White boxes before a blue background. then green/yellow/blue boxes in white boxes with dark green/red/blue borders. Too many colors to still make sense.
  • Evaluating Wikipedia article quality. Page numbers. secretary (no offense to the typographic skills of _some_ secretaries meant, of course...). Colors. The arrows on page 2 would need a complete redesign. They don't match with the other graphic elements. They go from somewhere to somewhere, each a little bit in a different direction, like drunk.
  • Anatomy of an Article Poster. Great idea, nice start. Way too much text and too small text. A bit full on top and a bit empty in the lower half of the page. Choose a shorter article? Focus on the topic: It says anatomy of an article, not "explanation of the wikipedia interface". This means that I don't have to explain all the navigation links in the left sidebar. The Recentchanges explanation box doesn't belong here. Help, Search, Create account neither. And not "Wikipedia exists in 250 languages" but "this article exists in xxx languages". If you are looking to fill the void, show parts of the associated pages to the article: History and talk page.

That's it for now. --Elian

Wikipedia Video Tutorial in Odia (Oriya languageEdit

Commons/Tutorial-How To Edit Odia Wikipedia
Odia wiki projects presentation

We also have uploaded Odia wiki projects presentation for Wikipedians to start meetups and Workshops. Odia Wikipedia has recently released a Video tutorial for help in Editing Odia Wikipedia. --Subhashish Panigrahi

Thanks. I just added it to the main Bookshelf. I also added the FAQ you did. Great work. If you create more, feel free to add it to the Bookshelf directly.//Hannibal (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

GuidelinesEdit

Hi, where is the mentioned "Visual Identity Guidelines for Wikimedia Educational Materials"? There is a visual Guidelines for information materials? We've the opportunity to work with design schools producing Wikipedia spreading materials and it would we useful. --Dvdgmz (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Where should I add the newly created outreach presentations?Edit

Hi, I have created few outreach presentations including 2 recent ones (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:English_Wikipedia_Outreach_Presentation.webm and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Odia_Wikipedia_Outreach_Presentation_HD.webm) and getting confused where should I add them on outreach.wikimedia.org. Could anyone guide? --Psubhashish (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can add them to this page: Bookshelf. I have also added the videos to the Commons category for Wikimedia instructional videos. --Pine 09:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Original available?Edit

Is Commons:File:Anatomy Poster.pdf available in a format I can edit? There's one typo I noticed and I'm pretty sure I can make some adjustments so it is easier to read. If not I can start from scratch. I also am planning on doing something in a brochure format like Commons:File:Wikipedia-leaflet-en.pdf to have available in libraries. Before I dive in is anything already in the works to do something small? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be editable if you save it as a .svg image, which could then be re-converted back into a pdf. If not, you could always notify the author of the mistake. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Update neededEdit

Hi, can somebody update this project? I was searching for Wikipedia Edication Program brochures for pretty long time (The Syllabus, Case Studies, Instructor Basics, Illustrating Wikipedia). It should be here. Some links are dead. also links to somehing like this. Dominikmatus (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)