Ziko van Dijk wrote: > About usability: I believe that one significant barrier for new Wikimedians > is the jargon in the Wikimedia projects, mostly in discussions, but also in > help pages: > * Expressions from computer science: IP, bug, URL > * Expressions from the Open Source movement: fork, stable version > * Expressions from the net culture: imho, :D, lol, @ (directed to a person > in a discussion) > * For non native speakers of English: SNAFU, dude > > Jargon (sometimes specialist's language) cannot be totally avoided, and it > is good for community cohesion. But it would be a good step towards > usability thinking before using jargon: is it really necessary here, is it > comprehensive to everybody, even if "help:glossary" mentions it? > > Ziko
It surprised me that the jargon didn't mention the really wikimedian terms: AGF, RFA, NPV, NOR, NLT, BLP, NPA, AFD, db... After IAR and BOLD, you're blocked for NPA and NLT on a BLP article where you didn't follow NPV, although the other part didn't AGF. OTOH, the article could have been deleted per G4 or G10. Maybe you should complain to ARBCOM, but wait, I better shut up per BEANS, DNFTT. I don't consider myself an outsider, still -as a contributor to different wikis- I don't know by heart what's an 'A3.1416 deletion' or the proper templates and pages to start a deletion procedure for an image with a disputable source. Acronyms may still be worked out, others are unrelated, unless you already know it. Worse, each wiki has its own [[WP:WP]] creating their dialect. Is it good, is it bad? Probably neither, but something to have really into account for usability. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
