Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Contact us

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jredmond (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 22 October 2012 (→‎edit break: not a big source of messages, actually.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWikipedia Help Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template:Active editnotice

See list of subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us/...".

Bug 31591

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T33591

We have 2 html div's on this page with the following style definitions which are causing issues on the mobile site (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31591): 1) float: left; width: 49%; margin-right: 1%; 2) float: right; width: 49%; margin-left: 1%;

We actually have css classes which do this and are more mobile resilient: 

.portal-column-left
.portal-column-right

Could someone with permission to edit this page replace the style attributes on these div with 

class="portal-column-left"

and 

class="portal-column-right"

respectively?

Also after the last div to clear the floating is probably necessary

"Main contact address"

I've reverted an edit proudly displaying a "main" contact address. I don't think this is a good idea. While it might seem like a maze trying to get to an address on these pages (and believe me, I'm the first one to say that all of these contact us pages need work) but this actually helps us. First, it puts their messages in the correct queue. Second, a lot of times I would imagine people find answers to their questions on the way to email us, so they end up not needing to send us a note. I'm open to discussion on this, of course. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think our current system is pretty terrible. My primary concern is I'd rather have the next Roth-type incident actually hit OTRS than hit a byzantine system of navigational links that no sane person would ever plough through. I've used it to try and retrieve an address and failed. I am not a big fan of customer service systems that actively discourage people from contacting customer service people.
Have you ever called a customer service phone system and gone through seven different options with three subtrees of options trying to work out which one is most likely to get you through to a human. That's what we're currently doing in text form. And it really sucks. While Roth isn't blameless in the whole affair, we should make it as easy as possible for someone to actually contact us without them having to go through bureaucratic gymnastics trying to figure out which of a bunch of options they need to click.
If we get queries to OTRS that are easily answered, they are easy to answer. We have template messages just for that purpose. I'd rather spend 20 seconds sending a template email back to someone and actually answer their question than have them get lost in bureaucracy. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tom. JN466 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Tom. I see no reason not to have the main contact address noted front and center. Furthermore, we should really get to work on reorganizing the rest of this page and all those it links to, so it's easier for readers, subjects, and editors to navigate it. SilverserenC 01:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no hand in OTRS but I would love to see a cleaned up contact page, too. heather walls (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I've tweaked the talkpage headers, to make accessing the info (for us) a little easier.]

  • There are 23 subpages currently. 10 of them contain email addresses (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). None of them mention the address that was added in the OP's diff.
  • As Wikipedia:Contact us/other says: "We get over 10,000 emails per day. If your question is already explained on this page or Wikipedia:Contact us, or if you don't have a good summary as the email topic and first sentence, your email may be deleted without response." -- that's a LOT! (and, {{citation needed}}! ;)
  • Burnout is one of Wikipedia's most complicated problems. So is getting newcomers to become regulars. Both are tangentially related to this discussion. -- Some people like to teach themselves how to fish. Some people prefer to be shown how to fish. And some people just want to be handed pre-caught/pre-cleaned/pre-cooked fish! Catering to all demographics is inherently messy.

That's some of the background. Now what are the options?

  1. We could do some A/B testing, to see how adding that base email address, to this root page, changes the quantity and quality of OTRS messages. (That would require technical effort and time to set up, from WMF employees. Plus additional effort from the OTRS volunteers to give feedback on what qualitative changes were observed, during the testing period.)
  2. We could try to reduce the number of subpages. (I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I don't have nearly enough context to know where we'd be best to start trimming - which are the most used addresses? etc.)
  3. We could try to improve this root page, so that the help-requestees are more effortlessly channeled to the correct subpage. (Again, this needs some people with rock-solid-background to give input, and some serious research to get it beyond a "best guess" level. I'm just a very interested bystander). Anything from wording tweaks, to layout changes. (Some people like multi-step wizards; Some like structured list/flowcharts that are all on one page)
  4. Something else?

—Quiddity (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One complaint I hear all the time (in emails to OTRS from people who spent forever trying to find the address, emails to me personally from people who gave up and found contact info for a random admin, in #wikipedia-en-help, etc.) is that our contact info is near impossible to find. Although I recognize the advantages this has in reducing the load on OTRS, I think it's a net negative. I for one would be totally willing to chip in on trying to redesign the Contact us page (and subpages) to reduce the number of subpages and resulting inconsistencies. A clear set of email addresses (e.g., for x, email address A; for y, email address B and so on) would be a much-needed improvement. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't hurt to try! I'd suggest WP:Contact us/Sandbox as a place to experiment collaboratively. (It might help to make a napkindiagram of the current 23 subpages, and how they interrelate/flow) —Quiddity (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as preventing the next Phillip Roth bit, I noticed there are contact categories for Readers, Website Admins, Press and Editors, but nothing for article-subjects. Companies and BLPs probably won't naturally identify themselves as a Reader or Editor.
I could imagine a wizard here. For example, if you click Contact Us as an article subject, it may first ask if your issue needs to be handled privately and - if not - it could ask you to use COIN first. Corporate 14:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacement

So, I spent a chunk of my volunteer time today redrafting the "contact us" page. The draft can be found here. Driving aims:

  1. Minimise wikilinks. The current page has impressive degrees of overlinking. This virtually ensures that readers are sent down a rabbit-hole of link after link after link, leading to a game of 6 degrees of Wikipedia that doesn't necessarily even end them up with the info they wanted...assuming it was even there. We minimise links and keep them for the really important stuff, so that if we're driving someone down there it's worth it.
  2. Increased prominence for email addresses. The existing page assumes that wikimarkup is not evil. And sure, it wasn't...in 2001, when the only people who used the internet were used to kludge. But the internet has moved on, and we've become a wee bit pedantic about how people use it. We should be clearly and easily directing people to "human-useable" contact methods.
  3. Minimalist design. The existing design...oy. As well as fragmenting the data over a thousand different pages, it displayed it in two or three or four different boxes at a time. This makes it hard to read and easily identify what does what. The new layout contains one thing to read at a time, in one set of paragraphs.

What I'd propose is twofold. First: we implement this (obviously). Second, we do whatever analytics we can on the resulting mess. Find out what pages people go to, what our users are most concerned about, and increase their prominence if we can. Maybe look into a way to implement some kind of feedback thing so that we can see what we're missing. I've got a couple of ideas on that front, but none that don't run the risk of giving people a way of just, you know, leaving complaints or issues in that box. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • support, obviously. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest support. It's desperately needed, and I think the draft is a very good start. Perhaps also add the general address for queries that don't fall under any of those categories. Goodness knows we get enough weird requests that someone will come here wanting something unusual. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea; shall tweak now :). Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should leave a catch all email on a page at the bottom. You know quite a few internet users will just go "OH EMAIL ADDRESS, SWEET!" and start composing their email without effectively filtering it through the right categories. Then we get something called wasted volunteer time. :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like it. Much less cluttered, much more straightfoward. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea of change, but it needs some more change first I agree with all three of the points listed above, and I don't want to trample on hours of work, but there is quite a lot of white space in that centre section and I forget where, but quite a few people have told me (and I agree), there has to be a balance between white space and non-white space. At least 50% of the screens are white space and not all the text fits on one screen for an average sized laptop (I might be off on the average part, but then again, assume people have GTB and a whole bunch of other bars in their web browser). Maybe instead, have links on both sides of the page like "links|blah...blah|links" to efficiently use space more. If you really don't like the idea, maybe consider the staff page design. Also commented above about use of email. I also don't see critical topics covered in the old one, in the new version like "You deleted my article" or "I'm blocked" or "I have technical issues (like maybe something WMF Tech has to deal with, not just a dilemma)". Sorry to ruin the party. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this cuts out some of the old issues, because, well...they're dumb issues. If you've been blocked, there's a notice left on your talkpage telling you what to do, and you get a bright orange bar appeared. If you have tech issues, we invite people to use bugzilla, an abhorrent, unfriendly mess, and in doing so generate more work for people who have to deal with "the site went down! zomg!" bugs if users ever actually get through. Tech issues tend to get noticed and identified by the 82k editors, and reported or resolved pretty fast - particularly anything severe enough to commonly impact on readers. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice flow and easy to follow. The current pages are horrible. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of Comments

  • How many of the existing 23 subpages are cut out of the loop, and do any/many of them need to be added to this draft before it goes live? (eg /blocked and /deleted_page and /Warning_messages and /Top_questions and etc - I don't know, but would guess, that many/most of these subpages exist because they're frequent-OTRS-requests...)
  • I strongly recommend that we replace existing pages, to increase the numbers of people watchlisting, and to decrease the number of abandoned/historic pages that someone might stumble upon via search. (Or - protect the new pages, and redirect their talkpages to here, and redirect the replaced oldpages, and widely announce the new pages somewhere with links for "add to watchlist").

HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with both of those :). So, almost all of them are cut out. To be honest, I'd avoid re-adding them: I can't find any evidence they were addressed as common concerns through OTRS rather than "well, I thought people might ask" (we had a question that dealt with PDAs, for example). I'd be pretty interested in gathering some quant and qual data from info-en after this goes live to investigate what we're missing. I agree we should wall off/delete/redirect anything that isn't being referred to any more, mostly the latter. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Over encumbered at the present moment. James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:09pm • 06:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much better. Please add an assurance that OTRS mails by article subjects will be treated as private communications. JN466 08:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I worked a bit earlier on a few of the pages. While I support the use of these, there are a few questions/issues for ironing out. :) The only address at Wikipedia:Contact us/draft2 for readers to report errors in articles is the vandalism queue. I think the majority of contacts we receive about errors are not vandalism, but BLP issues or standard errors and omission notices. Do we want to filter all corrections through the vandalism subqueue, or should we add complexity by listing the courtesy address? I also wonder if Wikipedia:Contact us/draft6 should be expanded a bit to include answers@wikimedia.org, which is for general questions for or about the WMF. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall and shall :). Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Support although tweaks are needed. On the positive side, it is much less cluttered (and I hope my proposed tweaks don't ruin that). Glad to see that the garish red has been changed. I like the concept of the left navigation box, to identify major sections. One observation, (with no obvious solution), after intro, it sounds like an attempt to identify different groups of individuals, e.g. Readers, Donors, Press, but Article Subjects and Licensing don't fit the paradigm. One thought is a Who and What distinction, but hard to do that without re-introducing clutter.(Oops, just realized that Article subjects is about a group of people, but the comment still stands)
My main concern is that the Licensing section addresses three unrelated groups of people, yet the content flow of three paragraphs suggests more of a relationship than actually exists. Some people want to re-use material. Those people are not here to report a copyright problem, and neither of those two groups is trying to donate material. I accept that you want to keep the number of items in the left panel limited, but that means the right panel needs clearer demarcation.
My second main point is that the Schools partnership should be listed, ideally as a separate item on the left, but it arguably fits into the Press and Partnerships section.
And third, shouldn't GLAM be mentioned (may fit neatly into Press and Partnerships)?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, headdesk; thought I'd listed that - the glam thing, that is :). I totally agree with the licensing issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure how to better break it down :(. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half the sidebar on the left goes off the bottom of the screen and for some reason not only is it (considerably) longer than the middle in all of them, but there's this mass of completely empty space on the right for no apparent reason. So the layout needs some work, but at least my first reaction to this version isn't to run away screaming (unfortunately because that was my reaction to the other I don't really have anything else to add). -— Isarra ༆ 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was originally full width but I was advised to limit it, pixel-wise. There's not much we can do about the left sidebar other than massively compressing it, I think :(. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Advised by whom? That just makes the weight disparity even worse, making the left even heavier by comparison than it already is. And perhaps just not using it as a sidebar would work better, since the way it's set up it contains more content than the content itself in some cases - and there is ample vertical space... -— Isarra ༆ 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, oh yes. People hate long complicated phone tree menus. People hate the online equivalent. Kill it with fire and replace it with one email address that people contact. If we haven't got enough OTRS agents to handle that, the Foundation and the OTRS admins should actively recruit more. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We started with one address originally, but it caused major problems: important BLPy tickets got lost among simple questions. By separating incoming mail into relevant subqueues, we can give better attention to urgent things, and we can let n00b volunteers ease in with simple tickets without having to deal with the really nasty ones. - Jredmond (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more brilliant work by Ironholds! Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT. Cannot say this strongly enough. I'm sure there are tweaks that can be done before it goes live, but all in all, I can hardly wait to be able to use this helpful/easy-to-use tool with new editors, especially when I'm helping in the IRC -help channel (where many new/clueless/frustrated editors first wash up in their Wikipedia journey). Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It looks fantastic, and is so much easier to use than the prior cruft, but I have a few comments:
    1. I made an edit to draft2, the "readers" page, to emphasize editing. (Lots of people still don't know that's an option!)
      I've actually reverted this :). I agree that a lot of people don't know, but we want to be resolving things in the manner that is as non-frustrating for the end user as possible. If the person tries to edit, they're presented with wikimarkup (hella-scary), and if they then make the edit on their own, there's a good chance they'll have it undone if it's good-faith-but-fails-at-[thing], which isn't particularly encouraging. Email actually gets the issue fixed. I worry about directing more people to get involved until we've got a non-scary interface and help documentation that does its job. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a fair point about wikimarkup, especially once we throw in tables and transclusion. Most of the new-editor issues are less about the technical details of editing, though, and more about silly Wikipedia internals or working with other editors - and a new editing UI won't fix either of those. :( - Jredmond (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, but good help documentation can :). Wait until you see my next project ;p. Ironholds (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think a compromise could be reached here by including a quick link to "help for editors" in that sentence on the readers draft: if you don't happen to know you can edit, and you do happen to want to know more, here are our help pages, for better or for worse. I'd continue to emphasize "anyone can edit" because there are two reasons for that message, after all: 1) you too can edit, and 2) contents of articles may vary, caveat lector. Personally, I'd drop or reword the sentence about 'wikitext being hard to edit, so...' -- it comes off as unintentionally patronizing to me, *particularly* if we are trying to reach the demographic that edits but is instantly reverted (they've generally figured out wikitext just fine, just not culture). What about "if you'd prefer to email our volunteer team about a problem with an article, email xxxx with the article title and a description of the problem". Lastly, is a note about the talk page worth it? Maybe not? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We have talk pages for the explicit purpose of discussing articles, and while some talk pages are like a guided sausage-factory tour, it's still worthwhile (IMHO) to direct feedback there. I do like the "for editors" idea, though, either as a link within the "readers" page or as a distinct page on its own. - Jredmond (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I made another edit to draft3, the "article subjects" page, to add some whitespace and indicate that we need specific details on e-mails. Details help everywhere, but especially on BLP issues (which tend to be much more time-sensitive).
    3. Draft4 (on reuse) needs a bit more work than I can give it right now, unfortunately. I'd start by discussing the reusability of text, and then point people to image description pages where they can see licensing details for the specific file(s) they want. Copyright is really complicated stuff, so we won't be able to keep this page too simple, but we can link to more in-depth discussions from here.
    - Jredmond (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You've done a great job, Ironholds. I also think there are some good suggestions on this page, but you seem to be working through all of them. This will be much better once it's done. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A desperately needed and well-done improvement. wctaiwan (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support & comment -- cleaner, looks good. Comments: I'd retain a link to the general FAQ somewhere; I think having one link is better than trying to address "top questions" but removing it altogether seems extreme; I like to browse FAQs personally and I doubt I'm the only one. I'd also work on the text a bit; I think it can be cleaner and shorter even than what you've got. And lastly, does OTRS net many questions from editors? What about people whose edits are reverted? I'm not sure of the demographics; do 'questions about editing' need to be called out (either as a separate category: help for editors, or under 'readers'?) Anyway, all in all nice work. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, not particularly. I'm looking forward to doing some analysis of what kind of questions OTRS is getting after this has been in place for a while - it'll be nice to find out what the documentation is missing :). Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: only if "Article subjects / Help for the subjects of Wikipedia's articles." is changed to something more second-person-ish like "Article subjects / How to deal with articles about you or someone you represent". It is simply not clear enough as is. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked; I agree with the change :). Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as someone who is often on the article subject side of things - I'm confident this is an immense improvement. I have some very small nit-picky suggestions I'll put on the Talk page there. Corporate 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The page is simply bad at the moment. mabdul 00:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been bold and now implemented this :).
  • I reluctantly oppose this implementation. The current version of the contact page encourages and facilitates self-resolution of problems, pre-filters problems we won't solve, and directs others to on-wiki resolution methods. Because of the staffing levels, emailing us should be a last resort rather than a first resort. The first reaction of someone hitting Contact Us and being presented with this new page is to scan through it, see the email address, and fire off an email saying "hi, do you have any more information on my dead grandmother that there's a two-line stub about?", ""I am a PR and attach the authorized bio of my client, please use this and his approved headshot in place of your existing article", and so on. These are filtered by the current structure. Stifle (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This would be better put at the discussion on the "contact us" talkpage :). And, no, I disagree; it doesn't facilitate self-resolution, it facilitates trying to resolve yourself and buggering it up. Wikitext is difficult and unpleasant to use, and that's before we stick in the various community policies and principles and needs for X, Y and Z which we expect newbies to know by default. I'm happy to not put email first iff you can show me another human-readable place they could get help from. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • (Moved to the right place) Stifle (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think an FAQ is a basic requirement to put ahead of the email address, similar to the previous "top questions", to cut out the email types I mentioned above, plus "Can I really edit", "Can I copy your site", and "can you please add an article about foo". Stifle (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A good middle-ground might just be a subtle shift in emphasis. Bring more emphasis to the Talk page and using it first and less emphasis on email, offer a couple more links to Help pages - that sort of thing. Minor tweaks. Corporate 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like this page, but when I start out by clicking "Help", I never come to it, but instead come to the rather horrible page at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem. Shouldn't the Help path lead to this page too? JN466 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Tutorial etc still links there as well. Can we perhaps just redirect all the old subpages to the main new one? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so now :). Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be more here and here - not sure if all these should go to the main page, or to one of the new subpages. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that everything is live: I've gone through and added a space between addresses and any punctuation. OTRS does most of its queue-sorting through the recipient address, but if the pattern isn't an exact match then the message isn't delivered properly. (I know, that's fundamentally broken. No need to preach to the choir.) We've already had a couple dozen badly-routed messages since the switch; in each case the sender copied/pasted the address from the new Contact page, and inadvertently included the period that closed the sentence. The extra space should stop the broken routing (at least from that cause). - Jredmond (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extra space has helped; no badly-routed info-en messages today. - Jredmond (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment; correspondence to the main OTRS address appears to have skyrocketed since this change (In the region of 10 emails an hour-ish) --Errant (chat!) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most of those are from people who haven't grasped the idea of decentralized content control - and they'd have written us anyway, even though that's the least efficient way to get content issues addressed. - Jredmond (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New design is much better, but the talk pages of the new subpages need redirecting here. Rd232 talk 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

Actually I am not that impressed. When I clicked on Contact Wikipedia I expected to see a short intro'/disclaimer and then a list of problems/issues and a link to click on for each that takes you directly to a corresponding page/message editor. Simple. Direct. Items like Licensing, Donors, Press and partnerships should be at the bottom of the list as the average reader is not concerned with those. -- I did not expect to do a lot of reading through multiple messages telling me to go some where else. As it is I have to search and read, and search and click to get to where I would like to go and I'm still not quite clear on that. Where do you report a tech problem? The 'Contact Wikipedia' main page/Readers section doesn't give you a clue. The Contact Wikipedia link should bring you to a page that allows you to, uh, 'Contact Wikipedia' without alot of extra hunting around and clicking to do so. i.e.
Contact Wikipedia:
1. Report a tech problem
2. Report a problem with a page article.
3. Report this..
4. Report that.
5. etc, etc...
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the mobile interface, which has its own "report a technical problem" mechanism, we only get about three or four reports of technical trouble per month - and most of those seem to be about either editing the lede section or asking why things look weird on IE. Technical issues are just not a significant source of messages, especially when compared with messages about factual errors, vandalism, procedural questions, BLP stuff, copyvios, reuse requests, photo submissions, permission grants, press inquiries, donation help, or snippy "YOU ARE SO BIASED AGAINST MY VIEWS" complaints. (Also: please read WP:CONTACT again; there's an address right there which is getting a lot of use.) - Jredmond (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contact_us&oldid=519274564"