Issuepedia:Page Structure

From Issuepedia
Revision as of 19:00, 11 June 2013 by Aster (talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Introduction== Issuepedia is a great idea (with an excellent domain name), and there is a lot of potential here. One of the chief difficulties in starting any contributor-ba...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction

Issuepedia is a great idea (with an excellent domain name), and there is a lot of potential here. One of the chief difficulties in starting any contributor-based project is the need for a basic structure; without this structure, it is difficult to attract contributors, as most people find it difficult to begin when faced with a blank slate.

In order to draw in more contributors -- and to provide a useful and consistent set of navigation links, reference points, and metadata regarding pages -- a strong set of community standards, embodied in templates and categories, is necessary.

Templates

Templates provide page structure and help organize standard information and notices. See Wikipedia:Help:Template and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Templates for more information on template usage at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an excellent set of templates that Issuepedia could use as a base set.

Suggested templates

Standard sidebar for individual issues

Each issue page should have a descriptive sidebar that helps categorize the issue (using one or more categories), provides a map of where the issue fits within its category, and provides a short description of how well-developed the issue page is.

"Well-developed" will require some definition and consensus. Some suggested axes:

  • Number of sources cited
  • Quality of sources cited (difficult to measure!)
  • Quality of analysis (also difficult to measure)
  • Stylistic quality (writing, links to other pages, images, etc)

It would also be beneficial to create a template for the citations themselves, again with some kind of "quality" rating, as well as a category (opinion/primary source/secondary/etc) and links to pages about the authors and publications involved. These pages could be used to discuss any perceived bias in the source authors or publications.

This text is just a placeholder, and discussions on this topic should probably take place on the discussion page. Eventually this should be replaced once there is a strong initial approach.

Categories

Categories group related items and assist with navigation between pages.