Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-20644-20141110180435/@comment-24155515-20141128192517

Tupka217 wrote: The main problem with Wikipedia isn't bureaucrats, it's bureaucracy. There are three procedures to follow for just about everything once you get beyond the casual editing phase. -- Tupka 217 15:29, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say procedure is necessarily a problem (especially with the volume of use Wikipedia gets daily in both reading and editing); it's more a steep learning curve if you're interested in the "backside" of the wiki. Then again, the curve can put off people who don't understand or misunderstand it. (*recalls Steven Walling's talk on the benefits of Wikipedia where he briefly goes into the confusingness of WP:OMGWTFBBQ for laymen...*) Wikipedia's also attempted places and processes and methods to court new editors/input (like the Teahouse (which is basically "Help Desk Lite") or the defunct Article Feedback/User Feedback programs or WP:The Wikipedia Adventure (which I only link to because it actually explicitly acknowledges that the project is off-putting to most people in terms of editing)), but it seems like they all fall through or don't do as great as they could.

And on the flipside, Wikipedia's layers can actually make some Wikia wikis off-putting to experienced Wikipedians... (*recalls when I joined the wiki I admin (beforehand, I was a previously-heavy-but-now-on-wikibreak Wikipedia editor) and how the policy needed fleshing out but I needed to fight the urge to add Wikipedia levels of policy*)

In short, Wikipedia is layered out of some bit of necessity, but it could probably simplify itself or at least guide new editors better, and Wikia is less layered/more casual, but depending on the wiki, that can be a double-edged sword and/or throw off people used to editing Wikipedia. (Wow! It's like they're different projects with different aims or something!) ...This got really... weirdly attitude-y. 0_o