Difference between revisions of "Talk:Marspedia's popularity"
Jarogers2001 (talk | contribs) |
(talk) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I drop links to pertinent articles whenever the concepts come up in discussion. I recommend you guys do that as well. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | I drop links to pertinent articles whenever the concepts come up in discussion. I recommend you guys do that as well. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I am not very busy on other sites on the internet, but this is definitely true. However, it does not seem to help very much, and I do not believe this is the solution already. To attract contributers is one thing, to keep them here is another. I'm afraid, the latter is our problem. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
== The Quality of the Site == | == The Quality of the Site == | ||
:I have looked over the questions and cannot suggest a particular failing. Colonizing Mars is hard work, and so is developing good copy describing the prospects. For me the problem has been budgeting time to make good contributions.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | :I have looked over the questions and cannot suggest a particular failing. Colonizing Mars is hard work, and so is developing good copy describing the prospects. For me the problem has been budgeting time to make good contributions.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
::... which seems to fit ''" Are people too busy struggling their daily life?"'' best. Yeah, that is my problem too. And most people seem not to be interested in such a "weired" idea of colonizing Mars at all. And yet, the number of Mars Society members is constantly rising. Is it for them easy enough to pay a membership fee, but contributing is to hard? I am trying to think what keeps them away from Marspedia? And what can we do to encourage them? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | ::... which seems to fit ''" Are people too busy struggling their daily life?"'' best. Yeah, that is my problem too. And most people seem not to be interested in such a "weired" idea of colonizing Mars at all. And yet, the number of Mars Society members is constantly rising. Is it for them easy enough to pay a membership fee, but contributing is to hard? I am trying to think what keeps them away from Marspedia? And what can we do to encourage them? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Whenever I read the following on the front page, I often want to shake my head. These have crackpot written all over them: | ||
| + | :*No Need to be Notable | ||
| + | :*No Need to be Neutral | ||
| + | :*Commercial Links are OK - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | Okay, I have added an appropriate question to the list. But what is so wrong about that? I think we can not be better than Wikipedia if we have exactly the same policies. There are quite a few people contributing to the Mars pages on Wikipedia, which is fine, of course. How should we attract those contributors away from Wikipedia? From my own experience I know there are another few people in conflict with Wikipedia's policies, mostly regarding the ''Notability'' thing. A whole lot of discouraged writers, whose contributions have been removed from Wikipedia's prim pages, commented with "not notable" or "original research". I wonder why we can not attract them to Marspedia. Do you really think the Marspedia policies keep potential contributors away? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Error creating thumbnail == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Example: [[Charcoal]]. This occurs with every new image inserted. So, the pages look terrible. Does this influence Marspedia's popularity? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 12:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | :You have put some good graphic additions into articles. The lack of graphics because of a software defect should have an effect on popularity. How much of an negative effect occurs and how much of a positive effect is needed for the Mars Society's purpose I do not know. - [[User:Farred|Farred]] 21:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:43, 30 November 2013
Hi!
I drop links to pertinent articles whenever the concepts come up in discussion. I recommend you guys do that as well. - Jarogers2001 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not very busy on other sites on the internet, but this is definitely true. However, it does not seem to help very much, and I do not believe this is the solution already. To attract contributers is one thing, to keep them here is another. I'm afraid, the latter is our problem. -- Rfc 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The Quality of the Site
- I have looked over the questions and cannot suggest a particular failing. Colonizing Mars is hard work, and so is developing good copy describing the prospects. For me the problem has been budgeting time to make good contributions.--Farred 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- ... which seems to fit " Are people too busy struggling their daily life?" best. Yeah, that is my problem too. And most people seem not to be interested in such a "weired" idea of colonizing Mars at all. And yet, the number of Mars Society members is constantly rising. Is it for them easy enough to pay a membership fee, but contributing is to hard? I am trying to think what keeps them away from Marspedia? And what can we do to encourage them? -- Rfc 18:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever I read the following on the front page, I often want to shake my head. These have crackpot written all over them:
- No Need to be Notable
- No Need to be Neutral
- Commercial Links are OK - Jarogers2001 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have added an appropriate question to the list. But what is so wrong about that? I think we can not be better than Wikipedia if we have exactly the same policies. There are quite a few people contributing to the Mars pages on Wikipedia, which is fine, of course. How should we attract those contributors away from Wikipedia? From my own experience I know there are another few people in conflict with Wikipedia's policies, mostly regarding the Notability thing. A whole lot of discouraged writers, whose contributions have been removed from Wikipedia's prim pages, commented with "not notable" or "original research". I wonder why we can not attract them to Marspedia. Do you really think the Marspedia policies keep potential contributors away? -- Rfc 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Error creating thumbnail
Example: Charcoal. This occurs with every new image inserted. So, the pages look terrible. Does this influence Marspedia's popularity? -- Rfc 12:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have put some good graphic additions into articles. The lack of graphics because of a software defect should have an effect on popularity. How much of an negative effect occurs and how much of a positive effect is needed for the Mars Society's purpose I do not know. - Farred 21:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
