用户:Shangkuanlc/英文维基百科好用性与使用者经验研究

可以做期末专案的方向

1. 对首页版面的好用性分析讨论Wikipedia_talk:2012年首页设计建议/执行改版

参考文献

• 2009年介绍维基百科好用性导入计划的部落格文章
• [1]

英文维基百科的好用性与使用者经验研究

维基媒体好用性导入计划团队(The Wikimedia Usability Initiative Team)与位于加州旧金山的使用者经验顾问厂商Bolt Peters合作，进行维基百科体验的实验室面对面互动以及远端视讯访谈及研究。本研究聚焦于编辑经验、流程、以及编辑的成功与失败。本研究包含15位一对一面谈，每一位皆进行45到60分钟之间。其中有10位访谈是在实验室的设施中，而剩下的5位则从维基百科好用性办公室透过远端视讯进行。访谈是于2009年在加州旧金山进行。

主要的研究目标如下：

• 找到新手使用者在编辑维基百科条目时遇到的阻碍 — 包含但不限于 — 增加个人内容（用户页）、改错字、增加参考文献、以及在讨论页上做出贡献。
• 找到创立新条目时的阻碍。
• 评估在wikipedia.org上帮助文献的自给自足(self-sufficiency)以及易读性(legibility)。
• 评估新手使用者与模版的互动状况。
• 探索使用者经验的模式以及之前没有被找出的好用性议题。

研究方法

目标对象

本好用性研究的目标对象针对维基百科的固定读者，他们表达过将自己的知识贡献给维基百科的意愿，但却在实际执行上有所保留。实验团队决定选定主要的使用者群（约占所有的八成）从未编辑过维基百科但愿意编辑，而少数的使用者（一成）从未编辑过维基百科而未来也不愿编辑，最后一成的使用者则是针对本身已有五次以下的编辑贡献但使用维基百科仍是新手的对象。我们希望潜力的用户他的“主要”不贡献的原因是MediaWiki的技术复杂性以及标记语言，然而也有其他不愿贡献维基百科的因素，像是怕被删除，不想把自己写的文章拿给其他人修改，对“自己是专家 ”缺乏信心，没有协作的经验，以及编辑哲学上的差异这类原因。

根据一项由维基媒体基金会以及UNU-Merit所作，针对维基百科读者的跨语言调查，74.6%的维基人是男性，24.7%是女性。维基人的平均年龄是25.1岁（年龄区间10 – 85岁），男性平均年龄为25.1岁，女性维基人的年龄平均则为23.7岁。既然研究团队目标是锁定在降低维基百科读者成为编辑的常见障碍，而世界上有总共有超过三亿的维基百科使用者，而在这三亿人之中，最大量的维基读者是使用英文维基百科，所以我们将我们的测试对象的性别分布转为一比一的比例，同时年龄层遍布老少（分成以下几类：18岁以下，19 – 34，35 – 44，45 – 54，55 – 64，65以上）所以我们的研究，应可以让我们对潜在新编辑者，找到更深层的洞见。

以下是我们觉得适合的受试者侧写。

受试者编号	没编辑，但有意愿	没编辑，也觉得没必要编	已编过且小于25次编辑数	男性	女性	18岁以下	19 – 34	35 – 54	55+	每天使用维基百科	维基百科使用的程度为一周超过一次	每隔几个礼拜使用一次维基百科
01	X				X	X				X
02	X			X			X				X
03	X				X		X			X
04	X			X			X				X
05	X				X			X		X
06	X			X				X			X
07	X				X				X	X
08		X		X					X		X
09			X		X		X	X			X	X
10			X	X				X	X		X	X
11	X				X	X				X
12	X			X			X				X
13	X				X			X		X
14	X			X					X		X
15			X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X

实验室中测试

举行实验的实验室位于加州旧金山的Fleischman Field Research研究机构。受测者（都是来自开车可到的范围内），会被带入一间房间，内有本研究的采访员以及一台苹果或Windows个人电脑（端看受测者前测时所表示的使用偏好而定）。在一道双面镜后面，维基媒体的好用性研究人员可以观察采访员以及受测者之间的互动，听到访谈内容，观看受测者的电脑萤幕以及他的表情反应。这些都是在实验开始后就即时看到的。所有影片都已知识共享授权（包含电脑萤幕以及受测者表情），均可在“完整的访谈录影”段落中找到。

（图片连结）在Flieschman研究机构的场地设置

远端视讯测试

远端视讯测试是在Wikimedia Usability ＋ Wikia办公室。参与者现场征求，并要求他们进行一小时内会结束的访谈。参与者会在他们平常使用维基百科的环境下受测。透过远端分享营目的应用程序UserVue，B|P实验室的访谈员，维基百科好用性工作团队，以及其他的观察者能够即时观看受测者的萤幕，同时透过电话或扩音器听到完整的现场收音。电话访谈以及萤幕的截取录影都在知识共享的版权宣告下公开。（见“完整的访谈录影”段落）。

在Wikimedia Annex的场地布置

实验室与远端视讯的交叉测试

我们决定结合以下两种测试方式：

• 在旧金山市区外的使用者；
• 面对面受测。

—详见B|P关于实验室与远端视讯的比较报告

招募受试者

我们在实体见面的测试共招募了超过2500位旧金山居民。在8小时内，每100页维基百科页面会播出1页的公告看板/提醒视窗。当使用者点击进入，看到我们调查的消息后，他们会被转连到B|P ethnio招募系统中，我们会在此问他一连串的问题。这些问题包括使用者是在维基百科上做什么、他们使用维基百科的时间多频繁、他们是否曾经编辑过维基百科（以及用什么方式编辑）、他们的年龄、性别、所在位置、以及有空的时间。

根据这些标准，2500位使用者回应了我们的调查，且根据他们的填答筛选后剩下500位可以实际受测的对象。研究团队与B|P跟Davis Recruiting合作根据他们的编辑历史、维基百科使用习惯、他们宣称不编辑的原因、他们健谈的程度、以及他们愿意讨论自己想法与行动的公开程度做基准，开始联络、筛选以及审查这500位参与者。2500位使用者中，我们最后找出了10位研究参与者以及3到5位的候补人选。

• Ethnio 招募调查的萤幕截图
• Ethnio 审查邀请的萤幕截图
• 感谢参与调查的萤幕截图

本研究的受试者

实验室中测试

受测者编号	年龄	性别	编辑维基百科经验	浏览维基百科频率	职业	其他资讯	地点
01 "Suzanne"	50 (45–54)	女	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑，有账号	每天	律师助手	当时正在查参考资料	加州旧金山
02 "Grace"	24 (18–34)	女	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每天	医学院学生	当时正在查某疾病	加州旧金山
03 "Tito"	21 (18–34)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每天	大学生暨影片制作人	当时正在研究企业影片	加州旧金山
04 "Dan"	41 (35–44)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑，有账号	每天	程序员	当时正在阅读DVI与HDMI界面资讯	加州旧金山
05 "Seamus"	43 (35–44)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每周两次以上	某非营利组织的记账士	当时正在研究某简报	加州旧金山
06 "Saurab"	28 (18–34)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑，有账号	一周两次以上	零售软件开发人员	当时正在阅读供应链流程	加州旧金山
07 "Gene"	64 (55–64)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每天	退休的公共运输业职员	当时正在查询资料。	加州旧金山
08 "Claudia"	64 (55–64)	女	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑，有账号	每天	数据库管理人员	当时正在查“Frank Loesser”	加州旧金山
09 "Galen"	24 (18–34)	女	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	一周两次以上	服饰业者	当时正在寻找美国的德国后裔子孙	加州旧金山
10 "Nikki"	16 (Under 18)	女	没有编辑经验，但有编辑其他编辑计划的经验	每天	高中生	当时正在查某电视系列剧	加州旧金山

远端遥控测试

受测者编号	年龄	性别	编辑维基百科经验	浏览维基百科频率	资讯程度	其他资讯	地点
01 "Lisa"	(55–64)	女	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	一周超过一次	2: 使用电脑上网、打开收信软件	研究	加州的Eureka
02 "Shaun"	(18–24)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每天	3: 从网络与各种储存设备中，上传与下载档案	研究	爱达荷州的Rexburg
03 "Jerry"	(25–34)	Male	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	每天	2: 使用电脑上网、打开收信软件	阅读纽约市的相关历史	纽约市
04 "Bryan"	(25–34)	男	没有编辑经验，但有意愿编辑	一周超过一次	3: 从网络与各种储存设备中，上传与下载档案	研究心理学相关概念	北卡罗莱纳州的Apex
05 "Carrie"	(18–24)	女	有编辑经验（小于25次的编辑记录）	每天	3: 从网络与各种储存设备中，上传与下载档案	寻找资讯	纽约州的Bayside

测试脚本

测试脚本是由维基百科好用性团队、B|P、以及维基媒体基金会共同起草，而实验室与远端视讯的受试对象使用几乎一模一样的脚本，差异之处仅在于环境设定的不同所更改的描述。测试脚本聚焦于了解使用者对于一系列初次使用维基百科的新手会遇到的编辑程序的任务或目标，如何的尝试、感受又是什么。这些任务或目标包含而不限于以下几点：

• 在网页上找到各种不同的编辑模式(“编辑本页”与各段的编辑)，并使用这些方式编辑。
• 对既存文章增加个人的内容或资讯。
• 查看讨论页。
• 再讨论页中新增讨论串。
• 新增或使用来自外部来源(网站、论文等等)的内容。
• 为内容新增一条参考来源。
• 为连结的段落或清单新增一条外部链接或。
• 使用模板来编辑文章。
• 浏览模板语法页面来编辑信息框(infobox)。
• 编排内容(标题、粗体、协体、超链接、表格)。
• 创立新条目。
• 修正笔误。
• 寻找和使用编辑帮助。

尽管脚本一般来说是任务导向，问题则是开放且留下诠释空间的，鼓励受试对象不要去使用任何“正确”的方式来完成任务。开放式提问的访谈问题则固定放在每件任务之后，包含“你怎么找到这个方法的？你喜欢这方法的什么地方？不喜欢什么地方？”。脚本由两位危机媒体基金会的内部成员在实验室与远端视讯测试进行之前，进行前测—一位是编辑老手，以及一位新首编辑—

• 在此浏览完整的测试脚本
• 在此阅读B|P对于访谈技巧的解释

结论

The primary goals of our study were to examine the ease of use of the Wikipedia editing interface, focusing on both cognitive and UI obstacles to editing and factors that could potentially increase users' editing of articles. We focused on editing tasks, but along the way learned about much more than the specific tasks and the editing experience.

While the team observed no patterns or distinctions based on gender alone seen during the study, we observed patterns amongst the different age groups. Younger users (Under 18–34) tended to have less inhibition to make smaller changes to Wikipedia than older users (45+), and in doing so also tended to learn more by example and employ a trial and error method to making changes. When the trials of these younger users did not reach success, they were also more resilient in recovering from those errors. Older users tended to give up more readily, feared they might "break" things, and often sought instructions from the "they" behind Wikipedia.

人们喜欢维基百科（也因为登入维基百科很容易）

"I use Wikipedia all the time. Usually it’s the most information in the easiest spot to access. It always looks very well put together it boggles my mind how many people can contribute and it (still) looks like an encyclopedia." -- Galen, 24, Costume Designer

"I like Wikipedia because it's plain text and nothing flashes" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

If there was one thing that was consistent and unanimous across our study participants, it was the assessment that Wikipedia is an incredibly valuable information resource whose accessibility is unparalleled. Aside from its value as a reference, a time and lifesaver, and an up to the minute news resource, participants also praised its simplicity, coherence, and breadth. They find that the quality and quantity of information they find there is outstanding, trustworthy, and their go-to reference when they have a question or need more information about a topic, even one that they themselves might have quite a bit of expertise on. Users also tend to click on Wikipedia articles if they see them as part of the results list when they search for a topic/subject, because they trust the content and are familiar with Wikipedia. An extra thanks to Google, for showcasing just how referenced Wikipedia articles are—consistently making their links one of the top hits—our users count on that!

"I usually use a Wikipedia shortcut on my computer" -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"It's usually [one of] the first hit[s] on Google" -- Grace, 24, Medical Student

"I don't usually go to the Wikipedia front page." -- Dan, 41, Programmer

By and large, participants explained that they accessed Wikipedia articles through a top search hit from Google. Other methods of entry were through browser search plugins, shortcuts, and referring articles. When asked to head to Wikipedia, many participants stated or explained that they had never been to the front page before.

忽略（少量的）维基语法并不难

"So now I learned how to edit. It was okay, just like editing, I do it every day…. Things like my personal profile on an internet dating site." -- Gene, 64, Retired Public Transit Worker

"Pretty cool, easier than I thought, I just have to get used to it." -- Lisa

Users' word processing skills translated to the task of editing text in Wikipedia so that all the users we spoke to, including the technically uninitiated, were able to identify and make changes to the content text (as opposed to the wiki markup syntax) on Wikipedia. The changes users were able to make included correcting typos and grammar, adding words and sentences, copying and pasting, and formatting text (with bold and italics). The ease of editing around wiki markup drastically decreased as the complexity of the article increased—most notably when articles started with large infoboxes, templates, and other syntax-heavy elements.

“对”的方法 与 “错”的方法

"What I did was a hack, I'm not actually using the site" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"Rather than making a mess, I'd rather take some time to figure out how to do it right" -- Dan, 41, Programmer

All of our participants are Wikipedia readers, but had little or no experience with editing. Generally the editing process was not a warm and welcoming one. Before subjects even hit the ‘edit’ or ‘edit this page’ buttons, they voiced concerns about the rules, proper etiquette, formatting, and were naturally conscientious of and inhibited by maintaining the community expectations. When a few of them attempted to find answers to their questions about rules and etiquette, they were overwhelmed with the amount of information and documentation they encountered.

The most commonly expressed concerns were around who was allowed to edit what, who reviewed the edits, and what level of privileges were given to which users. Users also expressed concern and hesitation about editing without doing extensive research and feeling confident in their ability (put somewhat on the spot) to add relevant and accurate information. Not knowing what they could or should add/edit is a large barrier to at least some users' willingness to edit.

Another major concern that participants expressed was the need to cite and validate their information. More often than not, our subjects did not know when they were expected to add a reference, felt an impulse to add a reference anyway, and faltered on the right way to do that, which included determining where in the article (or which section) was appropriate, the correct formatting, and the appropriate syntax when the references were autogenerated.

In cases such as these references (as well as html links, internal links, and lists) many users copied and pasted text from examples from within the same article in order to make their edits appear the way they wanted them to—namely to appear like others on the page. While this worked fine for most simple, basic edits, users felt that this was a ‘hack’ and they weren’t doing it in the ‘right way’.

The final observed example where participants struggled with the right and wrong way to do things was when they received conflicting messages. One user whose edits were immediately reverted after they saved was flustered and concluded that edits must go through a review process and assumed they'd 'show up in a few days.' Additionally, when viewing discussion pages participants felt quite confident about what type of content and discussion was appropriate, until they encountered the most noticeable text on the page stating "this is not a forum," after which the doubts started to roll in.

觉得好蠢

"[I felt] kind of stupid." -- 24, Galen, Costumer

Every user in this study struggled to get a basic grasp of the editing interface. Despite users’ overall excitement about Wikipedia, their willingness to spend up to an hour on the site, and varying levels of computer expertise, they largely failed to make edits correctly without repeated attempts and efforts. Users regularly commented that they had ‘no idea’ or ‘no clue’ what they were looking at, or what they were doing. While they actually were able to edit simple text, users were not at all confident that they were succeeding during the process.

As users edited, they mentioned that they thought they were looking at html or some variation of html, and they all admitted that they weren’t familiar with it, or knew very little. They commonly used descriptors such as ‘computer stuff’, ‘technical stuff’, ‘programming language’, ‘syntax’, etc.; in other words, something that is ‘not for me’, but for someone who has been trained in this professionally. Many users described their ideal or expected interface as something more like facebook.com, myspace.com, or a blog- an intuitive GUI that hides the code.

This led to intimidation in editing anything, ‘in case I mess it up’. Users were not confident that they were doing the right thing until they had previewed the page and seen that their changes were displayed in the way they expected. Users also did not find the toolbars too helpful- though nearly all of them hovered over the toolbar icons to read the pop-ups, the only icon they recognized and used consistently was Bold.

• Expertise
• Level of comfort
• Lack of consistency
• Conflicting messages
• 10 ways to do 1 thing

感到不知所措

"There sure is a lot of stuff to read" -- Dan, 41, Programmer

"This is where I'd give up" -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"I'm sure there is help out there, but I am too lazy to read that." -- Tito, 21, Student and Video Producer

"What's to stop you from just putting in anything?" -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"But it's on the internet and people will read it and believe it's true." -- Grace, 24, Medical Student

There were a variety of things that left our participants feeling overwhelmed, but articles that started with infoboxes, thick wiki syntax, help docs, and any attempts to find concise answers on rules or guidelines left participants feeling lost. Some explained "If [I] can't read it in five seconds, you've lost me," while others exclaimed "It may take a whole night to do this", and another spent the majority of their time with us searching and digging, explaining "If I really wanted to put it on there, I'd find a way to do it." While their thresholds varied, the results were strikingly similar—lots of information, not a lot of guidance; more questions, fewer answers.

我见(What I see) 与 我得(What I get)

"I'm more of a visual person." -- Galen, 24, Costumer

"I couldn’t really understand the format, I didn’t know what it was saying. I would just go to the stuff that’s readable. It looks kinda like a website, lingo stuff." -- Tito, 21, Student and Video Producer

"In many websites, you kind of see the screen just the way you see it in the article, Here it looks like they converted it into plain text. I think what I’ll have to do is open another Wikipedia, so I can compare the views. In blogs, it’s easier to add stuff- you don’t go into the programming mode. This html version- its much easier to edit a blog." -- Saurab, 28, Retail Software Developer

Once within the editing environment, most subjects commented on the illegibility of the hybrid Wiki syntax and article content—the more complex the article, the more exaggerated the response. When users made it past their initial reactions, navigating around the syntax to perform basic word processing tasks (correcting a typo, inserting a block of text, bold and italics formatting) proved less problematic than finding a particular section, adding references, using tables, creating and naming links. But not even our youngest and most computer savvy participants accomplished these tasks with ease.

Aside from feeling confused by the “code”, “computer lingo”, and “html”, subjects could not correlate what they were seeing within the edit box to what they saw on the article page. We saw the vast majority of participants perform the same behavior as they began to edit—most subjects opened a separate browser window to view the static article as they were making their changes and used preview and save before they had finished their work to monitor their editing progress and results.

• Expectations
• Blogs
• Word Processor
• Previewing and Saving
• Lingo/Html/Lingo

我做(What I do) 与 我得(What I get)

"They should have instructions for what you want to do, but it's really not there." -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

"Can't something auto correct my links [to internal pages]?" -- Grace, 21, Medical Student

"Let someone else do it (waves hands)" -- Claudia"

A significant number of our participants, noticeably female, tended to have expectations around actions and processes that could happen without being explicitly requested. These users expressed expectations for help of the right variety being presented to them at the right time, automated clean up and formatting of edits ('I hope that someone will come after and fix it'), and the existence of an editing or reviewing staff, mysteriously called "they" (there is no such person or persons!).

• Expectations: automation and "they"
• Instructions

自行探索（透过实际的例子来学习） 和 接受指导（透过帮助文件来学习）

"I don't know by looking at it [here], but by looking at other examples." -- Grace, 24, Costumer

"I like to learn by example because you don't have to digest a whole lot of irrelevant stuff." -- Dan, 41, Programmer

"I want to see instructions for the "edit this page." -- Suzanne, 50 Paralegal

When participants were asked to perform a task or format a particular sentence, rather than consulting help, they chose to look within that section or article for another example of a similarly formatted word or sentence. This proved to the be the most effective learning tool for uninitiated editors. Copying and pasting from another example relieved some of their concerns about the "right" or "wrong" way to do things and the illiteracy of wiki markup. It also helped in associated what they were seeing in the edit box with what they were typing (or here, copying) within the edit window—"I don't know by looking at it, but by looking at the other ones."

Aside from learning by example, most participants successfully learned by trial and error. Previewing and saving after the most minor of changes to verify the result with the expectation (i.e. correctness) was commonplace. Many participants started off with baby steps—"I'm just going to try and type sort of what I see, just as a test" on an article, and notably not in the sandbox. This method seemed to lower barriers to editing and thresholds to learning—"I can guess on how to do things based on what's already in the page."

为细节烦恼的人

"I would correct people's grammar errors, subject verb agreement" -- Gene, 64, Retired Public Transit worker

At the conclusion of our interviews, we asked all of our participants what might encourage them to contribute more to Wikipedia or in what ways they felt they would contribute. Many mentioned that fixing typos and grammatical errors would be one of the actions they'd be most likely to do. In fact without prompting, some users started to do this on their own in the course of completing other tasks. Participants of all of the age groups did this, but those that explicitly mentioned it tended to be older (44+).

参考资料

"Should[n't] I cite the text that I inserted from Creative Commons." -- Nikki, 16, High School Student

"I'm aware that copying directly from another source is discouraged and that references are needed... I don't want to put in incorrect information, that's one of the main reasons I don't go changing stuff." -- Saurab, 28, Retail Software Developer

"How will people know it's genuine information"-- Dan, 41, Programmer, who spent the majority of our session going to great lengths to verify the validity of his edit.

Without any prompting, the majority (one less than the entirety) of our participants expressed the desire or obligation to cite their sources, provide references, or validate the information they were adding or editing on Wikipedia. That desire, however, rarely resulted in a successful citation. Subjects struggled to differentiate between a reference, an internal link, and an external link. In fact, only one subject used the "shortcut" for an internal link in lieu of using the full html address for the forwarded article.

Whether in the course of attempting to create a reference or while accomplishing another editing task, many users hovered over each of the toolbar icons in search of a solution. If/when users found the "reference" button (at the far right!), most could not digest the syntax that was placed at their cursor and questioned where the super script, footnote number, and text belonged and would end up. In the few cases in which the subject was adding a reference to an article where these references were auto generated, the users were completely dumbfounded.

创建新条目

The task that nearly every user failed at was creating a new page. Participants passed over the pointer to create a new article within search results, did not associated red links with yet-to-be-created pages, and could find no obvious button or action in the Wikipedia navigation. Several users, while scanning the pages to try to figure out how to create a new article, saw ‘create a book’ on the left, and thought maybe they should ‘add wiki page’ in order to create a new article. The wording ‘create’ likely points them towards that link, as there is no other mention of ‘create’ on the page.

The few users that managed to create a new article commented on the lack of formatting or templating guidelines and expressed surprise that the starting point was a completely blank slate.

我在那边编辑？

Users often missed the ‘edit’ buttons next to each section, clicking on ‘edit this page’ all the way at the top. This often got them lost if they were editing a particularly long article, as they weren’t easily able to find the section they wanted to edit. Several users also clicked on the wrong ‘edit’ button next to the sections, thinking that the ‘edit’ button below the section referred to the section above.

Users who got used to editing single sections (instead of the whole page) expected to be able to edit the first section, as well as the template box at the top, separately from the whole page.

资讯杂乱

Repeatedly, users missed messaging displayed on the pages. The amount of information and the number of ‘boxes’ on each page may have distracted users from the most important/relevant messages. Some users also missed the ‘save’ button because they got confused by the double scroll bars on the edit page. The message under the ‘Discussion’ section for various articles was confusing to some users, especially when they read ‘this is not a forum’, which seemed to contradict their thoughts about what a ‘discussion’ page would include.

帮助文件需要帮手

"I have no idea how to do that, maybe there is a how to?......Help should be on the top right. It's always there." -- Claudia, 64, Database Administrator

"There should be instructions here. It's not immediately clear." -- Suzanne, 50, Paralegal

While most participants said they probably wouldn’t go there on their own, once they were prompted to explore the Help section, most users did not find the section very helpful, if they even found it. The amount of information is overwhelming to users, and users sometimes got lost trying to find the one set of instructions they needed in order to complete their task. The cheat sheet was the only item in the help section that led to a subjects successful edit. Copying and pasting from other examples within the article or from another article was more often the help users sought.

Additionally, we never saw the same click path through help twice, even when participants were looking for the same information. Users looking for the same information ended up in any number of final destinations (including the "Simple English Wikipedia" when one user was particularly challenged and was looking for a 'simple' answer), the majority of the time without answers. Help proved to be neither intuitive or consistent.

编辑的约束者

Most users said they had ‘thought about’ editing Wikipedia, but never done it because of laziness or lack of time. The few who had edited had made only minor changes to sentences (fixing typos or grammar, etc.) Users mentioned as they tried to edit that they would need ‘more time’ to learn how to do what it was they were attempting, because they didn’t understand Wiki-markup, and it wasn’t immediately obvious what they needed to do. Users also expressed concern that the content they were adding was ‘correct’—in terms of content appropriateness, accuracy, and formatting.

其他

• When using Wikipedia's own search, users rarely saw the "did you mean" results that were close approximations of their search terms, thus having to search again. In two cases, users left Wikipedia's search and used Google instead.
• Some users missed the ‘spam-blocker’ code that they had to put in because it appeared above or below the fold of the page they ended up on after they tried to save.
• Most users thought the ‘history’ section of the articles would be useful, but only for articles that they had a particular interest in or were editing themselves. However, some users were confused by what ‘prev’, ‘cur’, or ‘hist’ meant.
• While most users did not actually try to upload images, the few who did were confused as to how to do it, and how exactly the process worked.

重点录影

• Explain the Editing Process to Me
• I Can’t Tell What This Really Looks Like
• Editing Wikipedia Makes Me Feel Stupid