addendum |
→Seeking Consensus: Coordinators: titles are not needed to do any of these tasks; let's start looking for ideas |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
::::Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find ''potentially'' interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this ''is'' editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --[[User:JustBerry|JustBerry]] ([[User talk:JustBerry|talk]]) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
::::Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find ''potentially'' interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this ''is'' editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --[[User:JustBerry|JustBerry]] ([[User talk:JustBerry|talk]]) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks ''together''; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --[[User:JustBerry|JustBerry]] ([[User talk:JustBerry|talk]]) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
::::An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks ''together''; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --[[User:JustBerry|JustBerry]] ([[User talk:JustBerry|talk]]) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::Anyone interested in pursuing these things can do so, without the need of a "co-ordinators" title. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the past discussions on this project page; they suffer from the [[User:Isaacl/Community consensus|same problems with establishing consensus]] as in many other venues. But there are lots of initiatives that can be pursued as long as there is an interested group of people willing to commit time and effort to it, and so I think we should encourage people to raise them and follow up. It's not easy, because everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell. Nonetheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so let's start. On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues? |
|||
:::::<small>(*) On a side note, all these transcluded sections make it harder to link to them, and I'm not sure what is gained by having them.</small>[[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:32, 6 June 2018
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."
- Wikipedia:First contact
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests
Signpost
This is not so much about missing editors, but more about a missing newspaper and its editorial staff. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Death_knell_sounding_for_Signpost?_Proposals_required. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
We have lost another one
Looks like user:Coffee has retired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not certain, if this is the first time he's retired. Note, that he indef blocked himself, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Daicaregos & Cassianto (two long term editors) have retired :( GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
WP giving free pass to clear vandals for continued vandalism
Has it ever been brought up before, how WP policy/protocol/practice that permits ongoing vandalism are a source of editor frustration that c/ cause editors to become frustrated & leave? (For one example, IP 175.143.127.73. The IP's first edit was this. Followed consistently by more vandalism. Never stopped, never blocked.) Can someone explain why WP tolerates such nonsense? It ends up as a cancer, dumping unnecessarily more work on editors improving articles to un-do damage. (Why is policy postured to do that to reg editors? There is no thought it might be tiring? And that eventually editors might give up/quit?) --IHTS (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ya just gotta report such IP vandals to the administrative board that deals with vandals. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- That begs Q, why wasn't this vandal reported for over 10 months? (Clearly there is room for WP s/w improvement, to auto-report a user Talk containing multiple warning templates, to be reviewed by a proud "janitor".) Ok I have reported this vandal, we'll see what happens. Unlike you I have little faith in bureaucracies. (Case in point, after requesting permanent protection to stop continued vandalism at Ludo (board game), all I got was a series of incremental protections, which in the end of course had zero impact except wasting my time, wasting the admin's time, and frustating me. [I expect the admin wasn't frustrated at all, probably even enjoying the zero-impact-do-nothing measures, for whatever reason. The article continues to be vandalized, all I gained was frustration w/ WP impotency or unwillingness to do anything substantive about it.]) --IHTS (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well that worked well (due to Kudpung; thank u Kudpung!). --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra. I agree, continued vandalism is a hassle to deal with. I have found, however, that if you doggedly pursue vandals you can get them blocked. If you stay on them long enough you can convince admins to block for years at a time and protect pages indefinitely. It takes work that perhaps someone who focuses on writing content does not want to do. If this WikiProject wants to hold on to good countervandalism editors, it ought to do more to recognize their work and perhaps motivate them after testy exchanges. I see very little activity at WP:CVUA and editors here could do more to promote countervandalism as a means to protect content writers from burnout. Concerted support at RfAs for countervandalism admins would help, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- "I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra." Really? How is that is the spirit of Wikipedia? Perhaps you don't understand what the free flow of information entails and the work needed. You complain of human flaws but blame humanity in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a misanthrope. It says so on my user page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- "I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra." Really? How is that is the spirit of Wikipedia? Perhaps you don't understand what the free flow of information entails and the work needed. You complain of human flaws but blame humanity in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious his idea was requiring registration w/ lower vandalism. (Change suggestion to a WP premise.) You seem to miss the point that "
the work needed
" under current protocol potentially discourages/loses editors. This point needn't go philosophical, but yeah, wherever humans are there'll always be a dark side. If that's "human nature" then "blaming" humanity makes no sense. --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious his idea was requiring registration w/ lower vandalism. (Change suggestion to a WP premise.) You seem to miss the point that "
Seeking Consensus: Coordinators
There seems to be an issue with inactivity amongst the currently listed coordinators. Dennis Brown has declared their status as inactive. John Carter has been blocked indefinitely months ago. Awilley has declined to continue coordinating. SlimVirgin has declined to continue coordinating. I am still waiting to hear back from Mark Miller, Go Phightins!, Doctree. Buster7 is active. Isaacl and I continue to help out with WP:EOTW (as well as Buster). Propositions on how to move forward? I strongly think we do need active coordinators, as the project will most probably not become active again on its own. --JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The project needs active participation; it's unclear if co-ordinators are needed. If someone were to assume a co-ordinator role, it would be helpful if they first established a track record of ongoing engagement with the project. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do agree with the active participation bit, but I do hesitate to agree on the assessment for the need for additional co-ordinator(s). I do agree with the fact that it would be helpful for the co-ordinator to have an established "track record of ongoing engagement with the project." I think it would be helpful to have at least a few editors, preferably the co-ordinators tasked with revitalizing the project, actively looking out for potential contributors to the project (extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, cordial, consistent efforts to reach out to discouraged or frustrated editors, etc.). The awareness of the project's ongoing efforts is not as broad as we may think (yes, amongst experienced Wikipedians who have been editing for some years now), which I have come to understand in my interactions with fellow editors; perhaps you may disagree with my assessment. Part of this revitalization will probably need to entail refocusing the project's efforts to a few specific sub-projects, Editor of the Week included. --JustBerry (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key question is there any obstacles for looking for potential contributors or starting other initiatives that requires a title of "co-ordinator" to resolve? As I've said numerous times before, let's find interested contributors, and discuss what to work on, before trying to revamp anything. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find potentially interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this is editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --JustBerry (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks together; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --JustBerry (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone interested in pursuing these things can do so, without the need of a "co-ordinators" title. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the past discussions on this project page; they suffer from the same problems with establishing consensus as in many other venues. But there are lots of initiatives that can be pursued as long as there is an interested group of people willing to commit time and effort to it, and so I think we should encourage people to raise them and follow up. It's not easy, because everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell. Nonetheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so let's start. On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues?
- (*) On a side note, all these transcluded sections make it harder to link to them, and I'm not sure what is gained by having them.isaacl (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The key question is there any obstacles for looking for potential contributors or starting other initiatives that requires a title of "co-ordinator" to resolve? As I've said numerous times before, let's find interested contributors, and discuss what to work on, before trying to revamp anything. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do agree with the active participation bit, but I do hesitate to agree on the assessment for the need for additional co-ordinator(s). I do agree with the fact that it would be helpful for the co-ordinator to have an established "track record of ongoing engagement with the project." I think it would be helpful to have at least a few editors, preferably the co-ordinators tasked with revitalizing the project, actively looking out for potential contributors to the project (extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, cordial, consistent efforts to reach out to discouraged or frustrated editors, etc.). The awareness of the project's ongoing efforts is not as broad as we may think (yes, amongst experienced Wikipedians who have been editing for some years now), which I have come to understand in my interactions with fellow editors; perhaps you may disagree with my assessment. Part of this revitalization will probably need to entail refocusing the project's efforts to a few specific sub-projects, Editor of the Week included. --JustBerry (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)