Wikipedia talk:Video and Interactive Tutorials

Phase II: RfC on Subjects

On April 22, 2013, a request was submitted to request comment via the Wikimedia-l mailing list. Please propose subjects for tutorials and a brief justification for why you feel that subject should be eligible for a video and/or interactive tutorial, below.

Proposed subjects for tutorials

•  DoneSTiki is important because it provides a valuable, efficient GUI for counter-vandalism efforts. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• AutoWikiBrowser is important because it provides a valuable, efficient GUI for many grammatical and counter-vandalism efforts. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• English Wikipedia is important because it is the largest Wikipedia in the Wikimedia Foundation and is used as a resource for information around the world. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Simple referencing tutorial I'd like to see a tutorial on basic referencing. Like adding a {{findnotice}} to an article's talk page to aid in searching newspapers, books an other reliable sources. Perhaps also using a {{cite web}} template to format a reference. Justification: References are probably the most important part of building a reliable encyclopedia. 64.40.54.168 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Advanced referencing tutorial It would be great if we could get an advanced referencing tutorial also. One that shows how to use both WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 citation sytles. It could also include a section on using list-defined references and using the References segregator tool. Justification: Same as above. 64.40.54.168 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Manual of style tutorial Another suggestion is a tutorial on our style guidelines starting with WP:MOS. It could also include MOS:BIO, MOS:FILM, MOS:LIST, blah, blah, blah. Justification: because I want it, no, strike that. It would be nice if we could get more people working on improving the quality of the encyclopedia since we currently have 2,300,000 stubs which desperately need improving. Thanks. 64.40.54.168 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment These tutorials are important, so I've waited for others to list their suggestions. Since nobody else has listed anything, I'm going to list the ones I think are important. Everybody is free to remove them if they think I'm taking up too many suggestions. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Image placement tutorial A simplified, trimmed down version of WP:PIC that shows just the basics. Justification: This was a very common question asked by new users at Special:FeedbackDashboard (see WP:NEF for reference) when that special: page was active. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ' Doing...'Image upload tutorial A tutorial showing how to upload an image to Commons. It should probably include something about free images only and perhaps a short note about copyright, something like Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide#Copyright. Justification: This was another very common question asked by new users at Special:FeedbackDashboard. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • How to create an article tutorial A tutorial on how a new user can create an article at WP:AfC going through each step at WP:WIZ. Justification: This was another common question that new users ask. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Table tutorial a tutorial for tables similar to Help:Table/Introduction to tables that shows the basics of creating a table. Justification: This is not a commonly asked question, but editors often get confused by tables and do it wrong. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Infobox tutorial a tutorial on how to add an infobox to an article. Something similar to Help:Infobox#Adding an infobox to an article that shows where to find the proper infobox and how to add it. Justification: So we can reduce the backlog at Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request to something manageable. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Checking for copyright violations A tutorial that shows how to use tools:~earwig/copyvios to easily check an article for copyright violations. It should also show how to use {{copyvio}} to blank the offending text. Justification: Because copyright violations get us in trouble and need to be taken care of ASAP. And especially because there's always a massive backlog at WP:CP and nobody helps... Ever... A sad situation. 64.40.54.78 (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Talk page tutorial Use of the user's talk page and an article's talk page. An example of the orange bar, how to sign a message, and how/why to indent a reply. Justification: A sub-segment of new users seem to be confused by talk pages so a short video tutorial would seem to be justified. 64.40.54.180 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Cheatsheet tutorial I'd like to see several very short videos showing the various items on Help:Cheatsheet. Justification: We have a cheatsheet, so it must be used by somebody. 64.40.54.180 (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Getting help tutorial A video showing how to use the WP:HELPDESK and the Reference Desk and the differnce between the two. How to place a {{helpme}} note on a talk page and where the WP:TEAHOUSE is and how to use it. Justification: since the videos are for helping, we may as well show how to get help in other ways. 64.40.54.180 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Some topics... - This seems like a project with a lot of potential. Here are a few ideas:

1.  Doing...Wikimarkup - Bold, italics, pictures, comments, etc - basically Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing
2. Etiquette within Wikipedia - Civility, Talk page conventions, etc
3. Good article criteria - Explain best practices for a good'(or even featured) articles
4. Dispute resolution - Explain the processes within WP:Dispute resolution (WP:RFC, WP:DRN, etc).
5. Citations and footnotes - WP:Citing sources and Help:footnotes
6. Anything with a WP "Help" page - see Help:Contents/Browse

--Noleander (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• ' Doing...'How to edit an article. The first thing we need is a tutorial on how to actually edit the article, like clicking on the "edit this page" tab, clicking on the "edit" link on sections, and how to save your edits. This is extremely basic, but it needs to be done, so that have the confidence to actually start contributing. The other ideas here are also very good, but I think we need to start small. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• How to make a simple gadget. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• How to submit a code improvement using Git and Gerrit (see existing video -- watch as a developer fixes a bug, including investigation, git commit, getting it reviewed and merged, and closing the Bugzilla ticket). Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• How to contest a reversion - when new users are confronted with a reversion or other unexpected changes to their edits, teach them these three things: 1) How to see *who* reverted their edit in the page history and how to interpret edit summaries (making note that an edit summary will usually give a clue as to *why*), 2) How to post a question about this on the talk page of the reverter, and 3) How to post any complaint they may have to a common forum such as the Teahouse when they can't resolve this issue on their own with the "reverting party". Jane (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• In the book I wrote in 2008 about how to edit Wikipedia, there are a number of tutorials (step-by-step instructions) that - in hindsight - really should have been screencasts. In my defense, I'll say that (a) the publisher didn't propose that approach to me; (b) e-books weren't a huge market in 2008; (c) it's not clear how to embed screencasts into an e-book. More to the point: you're welcome to create screencasts covering any or all of the step-by-step tutorials in my book, and - since I based the book on the topics covered by the Editor's Index to Wikipedia - I think the book covers a very large percentage of what a beginning to intermediate editor would be expected to learn. (If you'd like me to prepare a list, from that book, of potential screencasts, just drop me a line.) (Also, the book How Wikipedia Works, also published in 2008 - and available in full, free, here - covers a lot of similar ground and thus is a good source to scan for potential tutorials.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Phase III: Create Prototype Tutorials

• It looks like the process you're planning is to "shoot" a screencast, as a draft/prototype, and then ask for comments. I think it's great that you're looking for feedback, but do wonder if there is an earlier opportunity in the process to get that. Specifically, if you plan to write out, in advance, what you plan to do in an screencast (sometimes called storyboarding), that could be a very good time to ask for feedback. You could, for example, put your draft/outline/set of notes up for a week, and use a bot to notify everyone that the draft is there; after getting feedback, you'd then do the screencast.

I suggest this because - in my limited experience with screencasts - it can be very difficult to salvage much of what you've done if you change much. If that doesn't apply to you, that's great. Also, if the draft sceencast is "rough" in the sense of lots of ums and backtracking and other distractions, it can be harder to keep editors interested in continuing to volunteer to view these; that's not the case with written notes, which are far quicker to go through. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Using Captivate, it really isn't that bad (at least in my experience). We'll see what the community has to say, and then maybe I'll bite my words. I want to reiterate how much I've appreciated all of your input into this project, though - it's fantastic!

• The first prototype is up and posted at YouTube! Comments would be much appreciated! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Joint Workshop / Hooking up to other Wikimedia video projects at Wikimania

Hi Jackson, first of all congratulations for this project. It is a great idea and well-planned. I am a german Wiki[m|p]edian and heard about it via Wikimedia-l. Currently I am also engaged in a video project with a different focus, though we have also thought about tutorials as there are plenty people interested in having them. So far we have nobody to do them. All the video activities - from documenting talks and seminars at conferences via doing interviews with contemporary witnesses via freeing video material from other sources or cooperating with public broadcasters to actually produce for TV under a free license to providing training on video editing or how to use professional video equipment - they have all been put under a common name "WikiTV".

There will be a workshop at Wikimania which is open for everyone - meaning that I am not the only presenter but invite everyone who is doing a video project to come and discuss:

• http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/WikiTV

My hope is that we can put these video projects under a common "brand", like Wiki Loves Monuments became a globally understood projects. It will be neccessary to define the different areas WikiTV (or whatever it will be called) will be active as this is a broad field. Once the project and fields have been defined it may be much easier to collaborate and maybe even start this as a new Wikimedia project, an international wiki dealing with video content.

So if you are at Wikimania I'll be happy to meet you, otherwise I hope we get another chance to further discuss. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, my application for a scholarship to attend Wikimania was rejected in the second round, but I wish you the best and would be happy to contribute to it; I should have some actual content out by the time Wikimania arrives, and I am in strong support of having a common brand. I am also open to input an greatly appreciate your support! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Interactive versus non-interactive tutorials

There is a huge difference in the effort needed to create a video tutorial (I'm assuming this is a screencast) and creating an interactive tutorial. The latter requires programming, plus a lot more planning, and it's really difficult to give feedback unless the task being evaluated is very, very specific (which may be seen by some people as simply a trivial task).

I don't think that screencasts require much community input (though some sort of polling as to importance might be useful). On the other hand, interactive software has some many options (how much to cover, for example) and has so much that can go wrong (for example, unclear instructions; unclear feedback) that asking the community of editors to help could be a really good idea.

Maintenance is also something you should really give a lot of consideration to. I speak from experience here: the book that I wrote about how to edit Wikipedia, published in early 2008, was significantly out of date within two years. So you might - for example - break screencast tutorials into as many smaller pieces as you can, with the assumption that updating (replacing) a smaller screencast would be easier than fixing/replacing a larger one.

In particular: Are you planning to show new users how to edit using the Vector skin? I ask because that's supposed to be replaced by a WYSIWYG editor in July of 2013, so any tutorial you create with the older skin might be of relatively little use. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I completely agree that there is a substantial difference. This grant is to create screencasts, and it will largely focus on other topics until the WYSIWYG editor is released (if it's ever sufficient - my tests of the beta version have been less-than-positive). However, there's still plenty that I can document until that is released, and the project can be continuous (see above post). I really appreciate your input as a seasoned editor and previous publisher of guide content; perhaps it's a good thing that these screencasts are very low-budget. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)