The videos and the interactive training are great teaching tools.
I feel like there could be more activities for the training rather than a quick run through.
Explanation of the signature, I didn't think it just to be the tildes, I thought I had to write my name in.
Nothing really, it all seemed appropriate.
It was great, Wish there was more.
--Ansel.borhauer (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great videos explaining details, if you have basic HTML knowledge it ends up being managable
I wish there were more sections where you could test out how to use the information give
What i stated above for uploading photos
What makes a good article
It was good, took some getting used to but overall it was very helpful.
--Jamesjohnson3 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... the interactive part
...
...
...
...
--Lozmeister (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helped me get a better understanding of how wikipedia works behind the scenes
... Some common knowledge presented that was unnecessary
... nothing
... simple common things anyone with knowledge of wikipedia and writing skills should know
... I did not try it
--Scienceguy21 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... the videos explaining and showing content.
... a lot of reading
...
...
...
--Psych2015 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... the interactive part
...
... more activities where we try each thing ourselves rather than just watch an informational video
...
... it was very useful
--Jjp73 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The incorporation of videos throughout the tutorials.
I thought the interactive editing tutorial could be improved.
I thought the tutorial was short but to the point. It had some issues/bugs but it was still effective.
--Kkg123 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The broad overview.
Maybe it could have been a little more specific.
More real examples of how to do things.
The lecture on who other people on Wikipedia are.
Neat.
--Vrastall (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I loved the interactive editing tutorials; they were very helpful. I liked the overall tutorial
--COV Western (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos were very helpful and not too long
... Very wordy and sometimes hard to follow.
... Everything seemed to be covered.
... All the words, visuals would be better, like pictures as well as the videos.
...It was hard to follow because sometimes they way you clicked the order of the buttons in the tutorial, it would take you out of the tutorial and then you couldn't get back into the tutorial unless you started over from the beginning.
--Katelynn.cox (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Tgoodkey (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information and videos were quite thoroughly beneficial. ...
... Nothing.
... Nothing.
...Nothing
... I think it was very educational. Gave me a new view of Wikipedia.
--StanLeehen (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos were very helpful!
...The text, videos, and tutorials seemed a bit redundant... Maybe get rid of one of them.
... Nothing
... As I said earlier, the three forms of portraying the same information was a bit redundant.
... I found it very helpful.
--Semaj311 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Very helpful and straightforward. I liked that it gave links to find other resources without including an excessive amount of information in the training.
...
...
...
...
--Deitkm (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The interactive editing tutorial and how straightforward the training was.
... Pressing X on the interactive sandbox tutorials caused the helpful hints to stop. popping up
... Nothing; all of the main components seemed to be there. The information presented seemed to be adequate enough for a beginner to understand the basics.
... Nothing; the tutorial was to the point.
... I like it, but my concern was with exiting the hints. When pressing the arrow, the tutorial continues but when you click X it stops. It was hard to find my place in the tutorial afterwards and I felt a bit lost until I gave up and restarted it, realizing that I shouldn't press X. Besides that, I think the tutorial was helpful with my first user experience with Wikipedia.
--ChipsAndChopsticks (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...How comprehensive the training was!
...It was kind of difficult to navigate when the pages took me out of the training modules.
...nothing!
...nothing!
...best part!
--Chandlerbuchanan (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Buchaly15 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Luisq15 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive tutorials
The text instructions will probably be forgotten soon. I learned much more when having to edit using the tutorial than reading about editing.
More interactive tutorials would be great!
-
It was great. More of this would, rather than videos/text instruction would help.
--Btw777 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
live interactive typing examples of editing, such as the user being able to type along with the tutorial to try some things
...
...
--Altb478 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…easy to navigate
…when you clicked the links you couldn't get back to where you left off
…N/A
…N/A
…I didn't know how to get back to page I was on without starting over
--Spidey1994 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Veterinarydreams (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Jukaredaa (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Othrowt (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Clear and Concise tutorial about how to Edit Wikipedia Articles, Also liked the interactive tutorials along the way giving a chance to practice making edits.
... Loved it all
...
...
... Really helpful feature, favorite part of the entire process.
--VarunS93 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tutorial was very simple and it really helped me see what goes into making articles and edits. ...
Sometimes the box that shows the progress was in the way of what I did so I could not see if it was correct. ...
I cannot think of anything ...
Nothing ...
It was awesome ...
--Rgirar1 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked the step-by-step tutorials in module 3
...
...
...
...
--Caitlinmcgrath (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I like because is very fun new things
...i really like all
...nothing
...nothing
...
--Jangola27 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…I like that each part of the training was well organized and concise. I thought the train gin was extremely in depth and well though out. Each step of editing was addressed.
…I did not like how long the train took. It took me about 2.5 hours to finish this and I don't remember a lot of what I learned because the process was so lengthy.
…I know it was training, but it was extremely morning and it took all my brain power to focus for only a few minutes.
…The readings were uneasy when a video was posted that explained the exact same thing. i though the videos were the most helpful part of the process.
…The interactive tutorial was ok, I did not try it for very long but I though it was helpful in understanding the editing process.
--LLP210 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The training was engaging and I did not get bored.
It was hard to find the training.
well thought out and good
--Tmartin3576 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The videos helped give a visual example to the process of code.
Nothing
Maybe more examples of how to use the code
Nothing
It was good for practicing how to do everything.
--MeganMcIlvenna (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--LiRuiQing (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Xiaoxuxu0313 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--ArjunChawla175 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This training was very informative and helped lay out the specifics in creating your on wiki page.
Some things were still a little difficult to understand, such as citations and how to include pictures with the correct format, however, I know we will be discussing more and more of these topics in class and with a librarian so I feel as though I will understand more of what is expected after doing so.
I didn't feel as though anything was missing.
Everything in this training was necessary and was definitely needed in order to make a successful wiki page.
I did not try the interactive editing tutorial, but based off what it said it is going to be useful to have and getting other peoples opinions and feedback on things is what will help you become a better writer. Just remember to not take anything personally because it is all for our benefit.
--Kcabral18 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos and the helpful modules where you were actually using the programs helped a lot
... Some of the information seemed redundant or repeated
... Not Much
... Repeated information
... Friggin awesome --AGSPianoMan (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very informative, especially the editing
It doesn't say where the information can be accessed in the future.
Nothing, it was thorough
Definitely, and helpful.
Very helpful
--Enthusiast006 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--X-pert Dreamer (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--GiuliaBalsamo (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--MariaCabrera23 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Detailed explanation on every point. Well organized helpful information.
...
...
...
...
--SlavicaZ3 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the useful information
I would like the option to advance to the next page with keyboard shortcuts
Nothing!!
Nothing!!
Very Helpful! --KTB123english (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very concise and relevant. Videos were short and very helpful.
Some of the instructions had grammatical errors.
...
...
Very useful to actually do the editing rather than just read about it.
--Zchen373 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Bellre (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive portion and the videos.
I didn't like all the information that did not include interactive portions.
I can't think of anything that was missing.
Learning communication skills to use when talking with others on Wikipedia.
I think it was very helpful.
Very interactive.
Overly extensive.
no
The advanced editing section
useful
--Wiggins jake (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
Very informative, and had lots of helpful videos
...
Constant reiteration of the same things
...
...
...
--Ehylemon (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Krb45698 (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...There was detailed step by step instructions to follow which made it easier to practice. I also enjoyed actually submitting editing which will help me when I embark on the wiki page project.
... There were lots of clips through the tutorial which I was unable to listen to due to being in a classroom with other students. This could have been disruptive to others. If I had known in advance I could have brought some headphones.
...N/A
...N/A
...I have enjoyed the tutorial as it gives me the hands on experience of editing the page and attempting other tasks relevant to the use of wikipedia.
--Victoria Mealor (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I liked how thorough the training was and how helpful all the tips are.
... My videos not working.
... Maybe more pictures rather than videos.
... The confusing graphs and charts.
... I thought it was great and incredibly helpful.
--Laurendiaz (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--RERoyal (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The amount of information.
... The amount of information.
...
...
...
--Oklamert (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Informative and helpful with most sections that included a video tutorial
...The structure of bracketing, coding and reference points, but I guess that will come with time and repetition. The coding seems overwhelming at first.
...Perhaps a few more tutorial videos and some try it out and apply examples.
...All necessary
...I thought it was very helpful. I would of liked to seen more for all parts of training.
--Djac88 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tutorial is pretty thorough and answered a lot of my initial questions.
There is a lot of information, which means I will have to look up a lot of this information again in the future.
I can't think of anything that was missing.
I thought the "advanced" section was misnamed, not unnecessary. The advanced section was more along the lines of random bits of information. The only thing that felt advanced was the "Adding images and other media" slide.
I liked the interactive editing tutorial, it allowed me to test my knowledge and make sure I understood what was explained.
--Jessemcmanus (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The training was short and relatively simple.
...The videos were full of fluff
...More simple practice tutorials
...The length of some of the videos
...
--Trevorcallarman (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked the videos because they showed how to do things on the pages themselves.
...The descriptions of how to use the different codes were confusing.
...I think everything was covered or there was a link to how to learn more about whatever was missing.
...I think everything was necessary
...
--KMFischer (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked how the directions were very precise. ...
...I often thought it was complicated.
...
...
...It was pretty difficult.
--Jaimev10 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Specific information and structure.
...The video need to download (probably my own problem).
...
...
...
--Axingmayra (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...There is lot to learn
... more video and less issues streaming through my computer. I review the video on-line using you tube.
...
... there were good
--AbeBasicUnit12358 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Videos
length
a single video explaining all of it
editing
good, but needed more videos
--Yuskhawas (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked how it was set up into four modules. It made it easier to comprehend.
... It was a bit long, but I know it was necessary.
...I haven't ran across anything just yet.
...Everything seemed pretty relevant.
...It worked well and really helped me! The only issue I had with it was that if I wanted to go back and edit it I couldn't move forward through the training afterwards and it took me a while to get back to where I left off.
--Agray5 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Ryanbeddes (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
everything!
nothing!
nothing, very informative!
nothing!
I did not try it
--KTB123COD (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Very thorough and easy to understand! The interactive helped me a lot and the videos were great too.
...
...
...
...
--Rlira123 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The casual tone of the text
...Nothing!
...Maybe add some more graphics
...
...I thought it was useful, but it was tough to navigate back to the page I was originally on.
--Tartancircus (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straight forward. Easy to understand. Very thorough
Should be a timer on each page ensuring each page has been completed
a timer
...
...
--Stephalkidis (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Video tutorials
repetition
Content was sufficient.
Repetition
The tutorial helped me understand.
--Sean.Chris95 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the interactive links
...the long explanations
...
...
...worked very well and was useful
--ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)ZarathustraSay20[reply]
...The tutorial was very informative for how to edit a wikipedia article.
...The tutorial was very wordy at times and there was some irrelevant information that just made the tutorial longer.
...nothing
...some parts were boring and unnecessary
... It helped a lot with learning how to use wikipedia. --Cstauch1 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Texidor94 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the videos were convenient.
...Some of the slides were redundant.
...more help for people who don't quite understand codes for adding pictures and other media.
...I don't think any was completely unnecessary.
...I did not try it.
--AnthCulturee (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The videos were used well.
...
...
...
...
--EncycloMan2 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox section was new to me. Also, the information about VisualEditor was great. (Loving VisualEditor very much.) Nice videos made by users!
The tutorial assumed I was a beginner. It would have been nice if some script at the beginning parsed my username to "intelligently" provide me a tutorial tailored to my likely ignorance based on my contributions.
An example of an editorial disagreement that was amicably resolved using Talk among users.
I only needed a small fraction of the tutorial.
It was great except that I kept getting interrupted by the message that I am not a recognized, verified contributor to Wikipedia. Then, when I pursued this latter message, the editing tutorial messages followed onto the pages for getting recognized.
--Mavaddat (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was concise and efficient. The interactive tutorials had no bugs and were quite helpful and informative. The specialized section at the end for editing medical articles was especially helpful.
Nothing.
See above.
Nothing.
Very helpful and complete.
...Is how detailed the Training was.
...Is that I had some computer issues with some of the videos and so I had to skip some of them.
...
...
...
--KJames94 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos and descriptions were easy to follow and very informative.
...The training was rather long and somewhat repetitive.
...Nothing, I found it very comprehensive (perhaps a bit TOO much...).
...I feel like the plagiarism details were self-explanatory.
...
--ExpressElevatortoHell (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I liked the fact that the tutorial was done with in a timely matter.
... I felt like I could've used a little more information on the articles that I'd be editing.
... A little more information about the content that I'm to edit.
... No Comment.
... I found the tutorial extremely helpful, and useful. I now know how some of the tools work. --Cassidypj (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
Nothing was missing, everything was great. ...
In my opinion, everything was perfectly explained. Everything was necessary. ...
...
--Shirley Jusino (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Bauyrzhanabuov (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC) The process of getting the certificate is quite complicated.Bauyrzhanabuov (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tutorials and the videos really showed how to do everything and the explanations explained why.
The videos were slow.
...
There was a lot of common sense about how to interact with other people on the site.
It's very helpful
--Christinabillias (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...It is an in-depth and informative training.
...It could have been simplified a little and took a long time to complete.
...I don't think it was missing anything.
...The length of the modules may have been to long.
...The interactive editing tutorial was very helpful in explaining how to use the editing tools.
--Rkuklok (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)rkuklok[reply]
... I enjoyed the thoroughness of the training and the information that it gave me.
... There wasn't anything I didn't enjoy.
... I think I got all the basics form the training.
... Nothing, it is all important for using wikipedia.
... I did not try. --Rmosiervt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Most of it
...
...A description of how to set up different sandboxes, and links to them, right after first introducing sandboxes. As a new user, I appreciate the more_markup sandbox as a training and reference, and wanted to be able to set up a link to it right away. I figured out how to do that, but not through the tutorial.
...
...Good, except it didn't allow you to go return to a step if you accidentally skipped it. Had to finish then start over and click thru to the step I missed.
--Radeachar (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...simple, clean, informative: written words accompanying spoken video
...
...
...
... helpful
--Hotgardener (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Mmcluckie (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Sspen138 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... clear, simple
...boring, especially the videos which are dull and painfully slow-paced
...nothing
...how to give wikilove. general slow pace
...n/a
--Mcelroys (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Hay weyer (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Good videos
...Bad interactive aspect
...Easier interactive process
...Nothing
...It was confusing and hard to do because the tutorial didnt show how to do the requested actions very well.
--Amohamed2526 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...videos inserted broke up tedium
...
...
...
...I got stuck a couple of times for various reasons. Clicking the X at the top of the dialog box seemed to stop the interactive tutorial rather than just close the box.
--MsTCason (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...It would nice to have more information in rules for copyright.
... The information was to basic in the orientation.
... It was a good source to obtain information.
--EDgan7 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I appreciated the relative brevity of the training.
... I do not think most people will be able to absorb that amount of basic coding in one training session, that may require additional training or editing controls.
... Possibly a downloadable formatting/coding reference.
... N/A
... I enjoyed the fact that the program follows your progress and gives you the ability to make mistakes and try again.
--Anationmaritime (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked everything. Especially the videos that were included.
...
...
...
...
--Kimfrancissalles (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything was straight forward and helpful.
It took a long time.
...
...
It was very helpful to fully understand how to do things.
--Carolynnt (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I thought everything was explained very well.
...The website is very confusing with a lot of "ins and outs".
...I thought there should have been more tutorial videos. Those helped me out the most.
...Some of the "slides" were a little too wordy and hard to follow
...I loved it! It helped me tremendouslyMet2812 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Met2812 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--CMATSGB (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Theresa L Gregory (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The training was descriptive and helpful. I really enjoyed the tutorials in the editing section
Sometimes the descriptions were a little wordy
Certain criteria that get an article deleted
I found everything necessary
Again, I found it very helpful but could use some more direction
--Elly7677 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tutorial covered a range of topics and videos helped make explanations clearer
...
Was pretty comprehensive, and can't think of anything in particular that I disliked or still need to know
...
Editing tutorial was probably the most helpful part. It gave me a chance to practice useful wikicode and actively learn the ropes.
--Meganhumburg (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was straight and to the point
There was a lot of technical things that were hard to grasp
Maybe a tad more pictures and diagrams
The videos that didn't work
n/a
--Indyaudri (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated how academic the introduction was. Frankly, it was a bit surprising to see such a collegiate course-type module on the site. It reminded me of some of the less-than-thrilling alcohol education modules we have to take, but instead of being a bore, it was kind of fun to receive one from Wikipedia.
...
...
...
...
--[communist party van] (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...All of the steps were clearly described, to the point, and were separated into easily digestible portions.
...The audio on some of the videos was of poor quality.
...I think everything was covered pretty well.
...It was short enough, no need to cut stuff out.
...As expected, not bad, not great.
--DWBCoding (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--AlphaMaleMcBrowski (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interactive editing tutorial, Videos.
Module 3 is slightly long.
Better links within the interactive editing tutorial, as it is still rather glitchy.
...
Useful as it allows us to practise what we have just learnt.
--ABonheur (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Pskellerstudent (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*The interactive editing tutorial, the simplicity of the way it was written.
*N/A
*There should be more interactive editing tutorials.An easier to read and understand list of wikicodes would be helpful.
*N/A
*IT WAS GREAT!
--ZulaikhaN (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough and user friendly experience.
Navigation back to training page is hard.
Maybe a final 'project' at the end requiring the user to edit an article with requirements would be good.
The step by step approach was useful and easy to understand.
--Kua Wei Qi Wendy (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Hai jatai (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The training was straightforward, and I really liked the guided practice for editing.
A lot of it felt redundant, because it felt like common sense when it was said the first time, and then you had me watch a video about it, and I started to feel like it was wasting my time.
I can't think of anything that was missing, but I think it would be nice if you could have a guided editing practice that you could go back to even after the training was finished and that you could keep going back to if you want to practice certain things, just so you can practice and check your work.
The "edit" video that was about the edit button seemed a little pointless. If I'm taking this training, I'm probably already interested in editing a page, so adding a little promo for editing seemed excessive.
This was the best part of the module, in my opinion. Because I am already familiar with academic writing, plagiarism, and common courtesy, a lot of this training seemed like common sense, to me, but the editing tutorial was really helpful and gave me a lot of confidence that I could figure out how to edit an article, if I want to.
--SKPsych237 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Interactive tutorials and short videos
...Not enough hands on
...Pictures
...
...It provides a first hand guided assistance. Allowing us to be familiarised with the steps to editing
--StevenZHMH (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the videos, they were short but very informative.
very easy to use and very helpful
--Matthews8978 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked how there were videos to give better explanations of how to do something on Wikipedia.
What I didn't like is that some of the information seemed repetitive at times.
There was nothing missing from this training module.
There was nothing unnecessary about this training module.
The interactive editing tutorial allowed me to understand how to edit and format articles better.
--Gwill6955 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked how there were videos to give better explanations of how to do something on Wikipedia.
I did not the length of this training module. I feel like I will not remember a lot of what was being taught.
There was nothing missing from this training module.
There was nothing unnecessary about this training module.
The interactive editing tutorial allowed me to understand how to edit and format articles better.
--Gwill6955 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Owenspg (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Archie0401 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Chrislid49 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked the sandbox tutorials
...
...
some of the short videos
super helpful, wish there were more even
--RoseKorn (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the interactive editing sessions.
There was a lot to learn, still is, but there is no way to work around it.
More interactive tutorials would be nice.
It was all good information.
The interactive editing tutorials were the most helpful part of this orientation. I was very pleased to get the guidance of the tutorial.
--TheRondanimal (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to follow, and super informative.
A lot of information at once. Afraid I'll forget it all.
More practice.
N/A
N/A
--TexanBackpacker (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Celena21 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Videos
... Length
...Pictures/graphics
...making a profile
...Loved it, wish it could all be like that
--Breezyshore (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything - training really helpfully acquainted me w/ the basics, and gave me enough links to seek out more advanced info. I wish I had this when I started wanting to edit in the past!
n/a
I don't know yet! Maybe there's some weird wiki magic I am unaware of? I know most of what to do that I think I need to do.
I'm still a bit confused about how to select specific pictures from wiki commons when adding them to an article (where to get the filename for the first section of the template).
n/a
It was super helpful! I feel a lot more confident about my knowledge now, and have a bunch of sandbox pages to look at if I forget anything.
--LookOnMyEditsYeMighty (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was very positive and thorough
... The images to help check if we had formatted our page right were misaligned
... nothing
... nothing
... Loved it! --Emmaeadwyer (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked that it offered video help in case that was something you're interested in
...Nothing
...N/A
...N/A
...N/A
--Clpgator (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The videos were short but covered all of the necessary material.
The codes seem as though they will be somewhat difficult for those without coding knowledge to learn.
Nothing comes to mind.
Explaining how to make words bold seems rather self-explanatory when there's a button on the edit page for it.
It was fairly helpful, though it disappeared at one point and I couldn't find it again.
--Mattwithoutabat (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked how it went into great detail about everything, and that it was easy to follow and understand.
... It was way too long in my opinion
... I didn't think anything was really missing
... the beginning of every section.
... I didn't do it
--KENNYTHEMANAGER (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was missing
... How do I use the Talk page on my user toolbar? The tutorial explains talk pages in articles, but it looks like I have my own. Is this just a log of my activity? or is it a comment section?
--RocketSams (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it was presented. ...
...
...
...
The tutorial was an etremely useful tool.Matthisvalerie (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Matthisvalerie (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Loved the interactive tutorials!
...I noticed that for some codes it would help to write to remember putting a space between # and item 1 for example
...I would have liked an example of what an edit summary should include
...N/A
...I loved it. Made things easy and learning fun!
--Linjess (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I found the fact that we could make edits to practice very useful.
...
...
...
... It was really helpful with the right alerts and prompts to guide a first time user. --Sm1986 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Shangguthrie (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...It was easy!
...The interactive training made it less daunting.
...Nothing.
...Nothing.
...It worked and it was very helpful!
--Oshinrai19 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The whole thing was very easy to follow along with, and presented just enough information to the point where I didn't feel overwhelmed.
... I had no issues with this training module. There was a nice balance between information presented in both text and video form.
... Nothing that I can think of.
... Nothing
... Works just as they showed in the tutorial videos. --Blue.goggles (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Jonathan isengingo (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Thoroughness with instructions, guidelines and sources
...Complicated process ie. sandbox, Did You Know, grading, citing, editing, watch list, types of articles, etc. Too many different pages and areas that can be overlooked.
...Nothing that I can think of.
...I'm not sure yet. Just beginning.
...It was informative and helpful.
--Guilfordpsych (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Yoonsz25 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The videos made it easy to understand because it showed what was being talked about.
...
...
...
I liked it
--JjoeE360 (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The videos that went along with the sections were helpful. It was also nice to learn about the different aspects of community that I never knew went behind the pages.
...
...
...
...
--Lcgpbdp (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... useful info for beginners
Too wordy... ...
Not really. ...
some advice on how to find articles are not useful for beginner ...
...
--Jchow601dvc (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The intro is really clear
... It's a little bit too long, and lots of redirections- sending me to another page and then go back, etc.
... More specific about about different areas and topics. Also a chance to really practice whether we really learnt or not. I feel like I've seen and practiced a lot, but remembered only a few.
... Not that I can think of. Everything is really instrumental
... It is really helpful!!!! But I wish it could be harder, like really asking us to do some editing instead of just copying and pasting. --Gabriella Ji (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Very easy to use. The popups were intelligent and helpful.
...
...
...
...
--Nick4nike23 (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Objectives listed at beginning of each module helped me focus my attention.
Videos were buggy and caused problems. Dialogue boxes kept popping up, even when I moused-back to a previous page.
Nothing I know of.
NA
See above --Flinnre (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The organization, the videos
There was nothing I did not like
Nothing
Everything was necessary
It was easy to follow
--Melissa Edwards (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked that the tutorial gave thorough instructions and made it user friendly. It also came with videos to watch in case I was still confused.
...I think the coding instructions were a little overwhelming if youve never done anything with coding before.
...More tutorials on how to do coding and what it means.
...
...
--Lexidg (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos
... The wording of the HTML is confusing
... What pictures are appropriate to upload.
...
... It was useful --Willowjohnson23 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... it's very simplified
... nothing
... nothing
... the training
... i think it's very useful --Chrissiejr (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Suman6395 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was comprehensive, easy to follow, and encouraging.
I would have preferred more hands-on work.
Maybe a pro/con list of editing with code v. without.
It all seemed relevant.
I tried one of them and it was very useful to have different parts of the page pointed out so clearly.
--Aandrewwangg (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Short and concise descriptions on each page. Hit the main points without being too overwhelming.
...Videos seemed repetitive of what was written in text.
...
...
...
--Samantha.myhre (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... easy to understand
...
...
...
...
--Rupal Dugar (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The training was very comprehensive, and I liked how it was broken up into logical, "manageable" modules or subsections -- made it an enjoyable learning experience, and ideal for self-paced learning. Also, the alternate links out to YouTube were helpful.
...Really don't have feedback for aspects I didn't like. Again, very well done, well designed, user-friendly.
...I suppose the more experienced that I become editing Wikipedia articles may suggest something, but nothing at this time.
...All was good. As much information as a person could want, and the extra embedded links make additional content available for those who wish to click to explore further.
...Have not tried it yet, but I plan to go back and do so.
--Hijodecarl (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The interactive bits in the Sandbox
...The videos
...More interaction
...
...Very useful
--SingingInSpring (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Kmay1208 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the quality of the explanations and how it engaged the person to continue
I would like to learn more about advanced editing and markup in the Advanced Editing section
As explained above
Nothing; everything was well-explained and crucial in scope
Wonderful. I loved them, thank you.
--Coderenius (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--ObscuraScientia (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked everything.
...
...
...
...
--Rong Lee (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was very easy to navigate through and was clear and concise
...
...
...
...
--Staceyjanke (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Djrlandry (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Overall comprehensiveness and simplicity
... the videos played all choppy-like but that could have been my internet connection
... more guided and expanded tutorials
...
... It was good but could be expanded upon to really hone skills --Djrlandry (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Am.alau.1118 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Hyemmm (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
Instructions were easy to navigate
--Froglady1969 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
... I noticed one problem with the tutorial. Every time it said to click the Edit tab, what it actually wanted you to click was the Edit Source tab. There is an Edit tab right beside that, so it was confusing at first because selecting the actual Edit tab did not work. If it helps - I am a chrome user, Version 43.0.2357.132 m --AnneMcCoy (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Easy to follow. Videos are helpful because it's more visual and makes more sense.
...
...
...
... I liked it. I had a little bit of a problem when I was trying to advance at one point and it kept telling me to save even after I had saved it and was trying to see the preview.
--Ferryrac (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the plagiarism and copyright video - excellent resource ...the overall design. This was direct and specific
...
...
...
...not yet...
--Marentette (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... There was a lot of detail and useful cheat sheets for easy reference. Thank you for that!Dragonfly5660 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... Nothing really.
...
...
... Great learning tool. I'll be able to remember the information and techniques better. Dragonfly5660 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Dragonfly5660 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interactive tutorials
...
...
...
I found it useful. For me, just reading material isn't enough to remember how to do it so having the opportunity to read and then try it out was very helpful.
--Ziggy2012 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... This training is amazing! For the first time to use it, I got lots of information of Wikipedia.
...Some explanation aren't easy to understand.
...Nothing, I think.
...
...I think the tutorial is wonderful! I will definitely suggest my friend the tutorial if they want to use Wiki. --Masked Shaco (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
videos & pace
going back and forth between tutorial and my sandbox, tricky
liked it, but hard to get back to main program sometimes
--InstructorUCD (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The explanation of the importance of the five pillars
...The YouTube videos
... Nothing, that I can think of.
... The YouTube videos
...Very helpful to get interactive experience
--BVenzke1 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--PaulaY (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The videos were helpful
... It would have been better if links automatically opened in a new window
...nothing
...It was all appropriate and necessary.
...
--Trachelleleach (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Supporting documents, converstational tone, sense of being on same team
...some techy jargon. Maybe a better to put in an easy to find reference area
...na
...na
...
--Christianmay0101010 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to follow. Lots of good do's and don'ts. I tried a wiki assignment a couple of years ago and clearly did not understand the background and ground rules.
All good.
I won't really know that until I get started.
Maybe Barnstars. I'm just getting started and probably a long way from worrying about others work. But it is an interesting first intro to the community.
It worked well and was especially helpful.
--Jennifer.Queen (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the step by step instructions on how to edit, the videos and the interactive editing tutorial were extremely helpful. Everything was very clear in regards to both culture and expectations within the Wikipedia community.
I really thought everything was great.
I really couldn't say at this point what was missing, I felt satisfied and informed.
I appreciate all the input I can get, I cannot recall thinking something I encountered was unnecessary.
I found this aspect the most helpful.
--Danewelle (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a very helpful introduction for me: it was at an appropriate level, summarized the most important information, and provided links for more detailed information. I'd be much more interested, however, in what my students might think about it.
Nothing comes to mind right now. Again, I'd be interested in knowing whether or not my students would agree with my comments above.
There was nothing missing because you provided links to videos and (especially) articles that provided additional information.
I don't remember thinking that something was unnecessary as I went through the training modules.
I did not try it. --JRicker,PhD (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Agelaia (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the sense of community provided was very welcoming and calmed many inhibitions about this being over my head. ...
...
...
...
I found it helpful. Reading about how to work with technology is far different than trying it out. It provided clarity on what i was reading. ...
--Madysonegan (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy and included everything which I need or I don't
too lengthy
...
...
...
--Guddan08 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...very easy to follow. It explained everything well/
...Not a hundred percent sure how to add photos but that is okay.
...Clear instructions on where to save photos.
...The videos promoting wikipedia.
...It was handy and helped a lot.
--Alexisolson (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the training
...that it says i did not complete the training
...me completing the training
...me doing this page for the second time
...i did it was handy
--Alexisolson (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)alexisolson[reply]
.The videos were very helpful
...Liked the whole thing Could be a little more comprehensive
...Didn't love the explanation of how to decide what article to work on. As someone who needs to write a wikipedia article from scratch, Im still not reall sure where to start
Thought it was all necesary
Pretty helpful
--Jbaron96 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Bjhayden (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each page provided concise, straightforward instructions while communicating welcoming and encouraging messages along the way.
...
...
...
The tutorials were excellent! They covered basic skills in detail without being overwhelming. Coming in, I was not familiar with code, so this was very helpful.
--Senicely (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was extremely informative. I have a much better understanding about how to edit and write Wikipedia articles.
... It was long and the tutorials were a bit confusing.
... A comprehensive examination at the end to ensure each trainee had the right understanding of the information.
... The videos at the end. They basically reiterated everything that had already been said in the paragraphs.
... It was confusing in some areas. It should have been in a pop-up window so that I wouldn't have to press the back button to get back to the training. --Orobins66 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was helpful to actually make the edits discussed within the tutorial rather than just reading about them.
The interactive editing tool was the most helpful part of the tutorial.
--Kgocinsk (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Adowney31 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The youtube videos.
...Some links did not work in Module 4.
...An advancing arrow on Module 4, page 1.
...
...
--LesBrooks (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I liked learning about the wikipedian community
...
...
...
...Did not try the tutorial.
--AnonARK25 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The videos showing how things like editing and citations could be done.
The sandbox tool freezing up and taking me back to the instructions on how to bold face a word every time I entered it.
Nothing, I thought it covered a lot.
N/A
It was a bit clunky at times when it would keep asking me to edit the summary even though I had but, I found much of it helpful!
--Cbiology (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Lopezospina (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) MarzitaMermaid (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
figuring out what the good article is
...
...
...
...
--Jihyek13 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...There was a lot of information on a lot of different important topics and there was a sense of community portrayed.
...Some of the tutorials were a little bit extensive and slightly confusing, but overall helpful. It is just a matter of applying them myself.
...I am not really sure, being new to this and all.
...The training was a little bit lengthy, but all of the concepts that were covered are important.
...I found that they were helpful for most things, but for some of them they were a little bit confusing with all of the new symbols.
--MarzitaMermaid (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) MarzitaMermaid (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Mdanzo0807 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Wikinils24 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...All of it. It was very informative.
...Can't think of anything.
...I'm not sure. I'm very new to this.
...I felt it was all neccessary.
...I thought it worked out well. It showed me exactly how to do things.
--Pubh101 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Learning new things that I had no idea Wikipedia was able to do.
...It's a little confusing, but I'll have a better understanding the more I use sandbox and Wikipedia overall.
...Not sure, the presentation was on point.
...Overall great presentation, a lot of good information.
...
--Esco12 (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The tutorials
... Wish there were different tutorials
... More interaction
... N/A
... It was good. Wish there was more to it
--Taylorkwest (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
I liked using the interactive editing tutorial because it allowed me to visualize the descriptions of techniques from each module. These tutorial videos should be kept!
--Cmbakwe (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Videos inserted at strategic points
Article was too long
... An intro that how we can complete the training in parts
... N/A
... Great tool --Abhina (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a refreshing view into the modern wikipedia.
I didn't like the videos, the text and tutorial was much more worthy of my time.
What constitutes a good Wikipedian in reference to his/her work.
I didn't think the videos were helpful, the text was sufficient.
It was informative.
--Yihengsong (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
… It was fairly thorough.
… There is no way I'll be able to remember everything, but that's what the help page is for.
...
...
… I thought the interactive editing tutorial was very helpful. --Jmarrs94 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... detailed and helped me truly understand Wikipedia.
... It was difficult to practice in the sandbox. A little confused.
... more practice.
...
... confusing
--Ericito1995 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
simple details for beginners
seems too long
more interaction
some of the videos
helpe to get familiar
--Sluology (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
worked ok but not being able to go right back to where I was in the tutorial was a bit annoying. ...
As the instructor I thought it was important to go through the student training myself. Great job all around. Barn-stars for everyone involved. --KatieBU (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a like user's manual on the basic knowledge on editing.
Few video tutorials
...
...
--Xhy279 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was very informative about the basic details of training on wikipedia. It gives people a good head start to editing articles on wikipedia.
... There was nothing that I didn't like.
... There was nothing missing.
... There was nothing unneccesary
... It did a great job of actually showing how to do things. It is easier to learn when you have a real life example of something.
--Abigailgreen (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Abigail Green[reply]
... It was very informative about the basic details of training on wikipedia. It gives people a good head start to editing articles on wikipedia.
... There was nothing that I didn't like.
... There was nothing missing.
... There was nothing unneccesary
... It did a great job of actually showing how to do things. It is easier to learn when you have a real life example of something.
--Abigailgreen (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Abigail Green[reply]
Plenty of information
A lot of reading and videos
How to create a user page?
Nothing really
It was actually kind of hard and difficult to remember what to do next --Kikischiciano (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was informative and concise
NA
NA
NA
NA
PratikPratik5791 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--S.Steinbrueck (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was easy to go through and navigate.
... Slides filled with too much information.
...
... The videos that didn't show a demonstration but instead just discussed what I had already read.
... I liked it due to it getting me involved and seeing the proper results. --MikeJS22 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked how accessible the tutorials were!
...I am still a little confused on some of the topics. There is a lot to learn about Wikipedia.
...
...
...I liked the editing tutorial the most. I thought it was very useful.
--Armars (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... How helpful this was
... Some slides were unnecessary
... Not sure
... Some slides repeated the same information
... Very helpful --Kjb033 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The videos were a big help.
...It was not very exciting.
...I'm not quite sure about what it would be missing yet.
...Again, I'm not quite sure what was unnecessary yet.
...It worked decently.
--ClimateCoins (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)ClimateCoins[reply]
...The fact that the content was straightforward and easy to comprehend. The articles explained the process in-depth, providing a litany of helpful content and access to elements of the expansive Wikipedia community.
...
...
... The edit warring article contained repetitive information (e.g., the description of the 3RRR policy). Some concepts were described nearly verbatim from paragraph to paragraph, with no new contributing content to justify the repetition.
...
--Musicbox107 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Thiel.logan (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed how easy it was to learn how to edit, particularly with the new beta features.
The course seemed a bit long.
I would have liked less focus on the "ethic" of editing on Wikipedia and more practice on actually editing as well as the "code" that is used to edit.
Wikipedia's training seems to focus a lot on rules for an internet community based on a lack of formal rules.
I really enjoyed the ability to actually practice the skill of editing.
--Vnguyen518 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive editing training. Very helpful. ...
Some photos were awkwardly placed in the pages without much context. ...
Slight background information about the beginning of Wikipedia could have been helpful/interesting at the start. ...
The superfluous "pep talk" text and videos. ...
I thought it was smooth and accurate. In very few cases did the directions lack clarity.
...
--DNMaurer (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)DNMaurer[reply]
... It was very in depth and explained how Wikipedia worked. The visual images and videos were very helpful for me.
... Sometime I got lost in how certain things worked. The coding in particular was difficult for me to grasp.
... I just started using Wikipedia in this sense, so I really don't know what could be added at this time.
... Nothing as far as I know.
... I was confused at times where I was supposed to make the edits. After a few try's I stopped the interactive editing tutorial and just went back to the training tutorial. --AMC-er93 (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Ashleyx95 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
very informative!
a lot of information so I could not process it all at once
...
...
...
--Annkat22 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Lnicholson14 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Iamonawave (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Rukataro (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I particularly like having links to articles associated with how to edit and other various topics such as how to perfect articles and being able to bookmark these links. Unlike a regular encyclopedia or help page the information can be updated and made easier to understand through others.
...I did not enjoy the videos because I felt as if the text was more explanatory.
...I feel that a better introduction to the sandbox would leave me feeling more confident about becoming a wikopedian.
...The videos didn't seem to offer much guidance aside from the one about picture uploads.
...I much prefer the interactive editing tool because of the simplicity it provides.
--Bhardy7 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Thorough information.
...Took forever!
...The tutorials were confusing and did not help much. Horrible instruction.
...The instruction window in front of the buttons they are telling you to press in the tutorial. The window should be somewhere else.
...Horrible:-(
--NaturalWonders208 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...very informative
...We didn't need to provide feedback to show we are understanding
... Questions for us to quiz ourself
... None
...
--Vschlum (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)vschlum (Victoria Schlumbrecht)[reply]
The orientation just didn't teach the technical details of writing a wiki but also the do's and don'ts of being an editor on Wikipedia
...
I think you can include a hands on tutorial of creating and publishing a new sample article on Wikipedia.
...
The interactive editing tutorial was very helpful and gave step-by-step guidance on editing on wikipedia.
--Jitendra92 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked that there is a a tutorial so you can do it yourself
It was fairly long
nothing
nothing
This was my favorite part
--Amber.l.cusey (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the way entire training module is designed. At the end of this training, I have a basic idea of how wikipedia works, its rules and policies, how to edit articles, how to communicate with other editors and get help.
...
...
...
Its perfect for the beginners. They can practice all the basic features from these tutorials.
--Panktidesai (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Jai Rogers (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tutorial was very informative, clear and easy to follow. I may go through it again just to have the practice. Can't wait to become active in the Wikipedia community. Sending a big thank you to JIMBO for staying true to his entrepreneurial spirit and for not giving in to advertising banners!
... Learning how to code on Wikipedia.
... The confusing path to complete the training.
... A better flow throughout the training to limit confusion.
... The amount of clicks to get through the training.
... All in all it wasn't too bad. Very informative. --Kzwiener (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... The information on Wikipedia's core values.
... Some of the charts and graphs were confusing. Specifically, the chart depicted the science articles that were started, stubbed, etc.
... More information on the actual writing style of Wikipedia.
...
... That was one of the best parts. Very helpful.
--Thepunalsorises (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Very clear, to the point. I enjoyed the videos.
...I liked everything.
...Perhaps more assurance that if we make mistakes it can be corrected easily.
...Nothing.
...I enjoyed it, I learn very well visually so I felt the videos and the interactive editing tutorial the most helpful.
--LucyAsp (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Interactive opportunities to try editing
...Overall wordiness; could have been more concise
...how to get to my own user page
...
...
--Efoxman42 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The training was really easy to follow - pretty comprehensive
...I wish it was more interactive and showed us how the code was written by someone else.
...A through qualitative analysis of what is editable and what kinds of information you shouldn't
...pretty essential.
...I thought the interactive was much better than just the normal one.
--Romildcp (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I really enjoyed the video and words to explain it!
...I found nothing I didn't like.
...I found nothing missing as I am new to Wiki and it all looked comprehensive to me!
...I found nothing unnecessary.
...I liked it, it was helpful for those who have never used wiki before.
--Trevor1902 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked the interactive training. Reading how to do something is helpful, but being guided while performing tasks is definitely preferred.
...Some of the tutorials were mildly buggy, but were still helpful.
...More information on editing profiles and pages.
...
...I think it was the most beneficial part of the training.
--Thiel.logan (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... I liked the interactive editing tutorials.
...I did not like that the training was over an hour.
... The training needs some more interactive tutorials.
...Some of the information was the same.
... I thought the process was helpful.
--SRuss12 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... how there was a video and such detailed explanation of everything.
... everything was pretty straight forward, no complaints
... more visuals, minus the videos. Some stuff didn't have videos, it was okay but i prefer the videos.
... the explanations plus the videos, maybe just have one or the other.
... i liked it. Shows step by step
--Jessihymel (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gave a good general overview of the expectations of Wikipedia as well as how the website functions.
Had to reload the training page after one of the interactive editing tutorials.
An explicit example on how to move an article from your sandbox to a main page
Most of the information presented was relevant.
It was very useful in showing how editing an actual article or sandbox would be like.
--ADLins (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gave a good general overview of the expectations of Wikipedia as well as how the website functions.
Had to reload the training page after one of the interactive editing tutorials.
An explicit example on how to move an article from your sandbox to a main page
Most of the information presented was relevant.
It was very useful in showing how editing an actual article or sandbox would be like.
--ADLins (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the elaborate step by step details on how to edit.
...I didn't the repeated focus on wikipedia's goals, I felt it would be more important to focus on more editing procedures.
...I didn't think anything was missing from the training.
...I felt it was unnecessary that the videos almost exactly repeated word for word what was just read.
...I thought it was very helpful.
--Sarahutchinson (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very descriptive and easy to understand.
very long.
nothing.
nothing.
very helpful to be able to learn interactively!
--Mackenzi Otto 22:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
...
...
...
...
...
--Ssweene2 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I liked how the orientation included informative videos on how to do specific things that would be harder to figure out by just reading everything all at once.
...It was a lot of information all at once. I most likely will have to back and rematch the videos and read when I am editing or creating a Wikipedia page.
...It was very thorough.
...Repetitiveness on being polite to others. Keeping it professional is very important in a college setting when editing papers, etc.
...
--Duchamp123456 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... There was ample amounts of information covering many different topics.
... I think it was a little too confusing for people who are not good with technology. There was a lot of info and it is hard to pick up on everything when you don't understand technology easily.
...
...
...
--Allielael (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the training was useful and very helpful with telling me what is expected of me.
...I dislike how long the training was but I understand why it was necessary
...I felt like you had all the information needed, I feel like nothing needs to be added.
...the videos I felt were a little unnecessary but they were helpful
... it was a little confusing at first but simple after I tried it for a little bit --Demonleafninja (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It answered questions and talked me through everything that I will use on this site.
...
...
...
... I was able to follow it and it was very helpful. --Amusiclover1325 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did like how helpful and useful it was.
I didn't like how long the training was.
I thought that maybe showing how you edit a article would benefit the students as well.
Some
I thought it was very helpful. It showed me step by step on how to do the edits.
--Vlebla4 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I liked that the training was not overly complicated. The steps were very clear, and the directions were very succinct.
There were too many pages.
I would have liked more basic, interactive instructions on communicating with other users.
...
I would have liked the interactive editing tutorial to be more clear in its directions. I found myself clicking back and forth.
--MYao (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...
...
...
...
...
--Trobi33 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... It was easy and concise.
... The link that said "click on edit" didn't work correctly. You had to click on "edit source" instead.
... Nothing I noticed
... A lot of paragraphs that prefaced the lesson, that didn't actually teach you anything.
... Don't remember which part that was --GraphiteDirigible (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
