Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
**Encouraging the student editors to come out of their walled gardens (or at least just peep over the hedge) while they are here "on assignment" might help. Pushing subject area WikiProjects to directly engage with relevant Education projects and vice versa is one way to show the students that there is a practically infinite variety of topics and things to do here - WikiProject Medicine has started such initiatives. I have a gut feel that the vast majority of student editors never click on a link that goes outside of their immediate project pages unless their teacher or an Education Project "coach" tells them to. The attitudes of "regular" Wikipedians to students seems to range mostly between indifference and bloody nuisance - very few seem to constructively engage with them. This can be seen by the almost total absence of posts by "regulars" on students' talk pages or their project talk pages - except for various bitey warning templates of course! [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
**Encouraging the student editors to come out of their walled gardens (or at least just peep over the hedge) while they are here "on assignment" might help. Pushing subject area WikiProjects to directly engage with relevant Education projects and vice versa is one way to show the students that there is a practically infinite variety of topics and things to do here - WikiProject Medicine has started such initiatives. I have a gut feel that the vast majority of student editors never click on a link that goes outside of their immediate project pages unless their teacher or an Education Project "coach" tells them to. The attitudes of "regular" Wikipedians to students seems to range mostly between indifference and bloody nuisance - very few seem to constructively engage with them. This can be seen by the almost total absence of posts by "regulars" on students' talk pages or their project talk pages - except for various bitey warning templates of course! [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
Having posted comments / feedback on hundreds of students pages I would estimate that response rates are in the 5% range. Agree this is a huge issue. We are putting both a great deal of WMF funds and editor community effort into the educational project. If no long term Wikipedians come out of it, the education program is not scalable. I have not seen any long term Wikipedians come out of the education efforts yet. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
Having posted comments / feedback on hundreds of students pages I would estimate that response rates are in the 5% range. Agree this is a huge issue. We are putting both a great deal of WMF funds and editor community effort into the educational project. If no long term Wikipedians come out of it, the education program is not scalable. I have not seen any long term Wikipedians come out of the education efforts yet. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
*As a point of reverence, when you say you haven't seen a long term editor come out of the program, how long a period are you talking about? Over the last year? Longer? [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] | [[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]] | [[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:05, 2 May 2014
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations in Afc submissions
Dear editors: I have started a discussion at the following location about whether and to what degree inline citations as opposed to general references should be required in Afc submissions before they are accepted to mainspace. My comments there are based on my understanding of relevant Wikipages such as WP:GENREF, WP:MINREF, and WP:Notability. I would appreciate discussion about whether I have interpreted these pages correctly. Here is the discussion:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6#Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations —Anne Delong (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Articles should be accepted to mainspace once they're clear of CSD. Anything else is cleanup – and if it offends you personally, you get to start fixing it.
- AfC is supposed to be there as an incubator and encouragement, not as quarantine. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Andy Dingley. Perhaps you'd like to add your opinion to the discussion! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Strengthening articles
I have for the moment stopped writing articles. I have been spending some time strengthening articles of others by adding sources, etc. Strengthening articles prevents decent articles from being nominated for the Articles for Deletion process, which can dicourage any writer. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I find myself swapping around. Some months, I'm all about new content, others, I gnome, others I build stuff up. Keeps it from getting boring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Wpollard: Yes I believe deletions can discourage editors. When the history of a respected editor such as user: Dennis Brown shows that more than nine percent of his edits have been deleted, and that 9% of his volunteer work on Wikipedia has not produced any visible results, I wonder how other less prominent editors feel about their own accomplishments here. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, a good portion of my deleted contribs might be articles I tagged for CSD for being vandalism or vanity pieces, before I got the bit. Plus other maintenance stuff that gets deleted for housekeeping reasons. I've never had an article I created get deleted, but then, I spend most of my editing improving existing articles rather than creating new. I'm just wired that way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually what causes new editor loss is reversion, and the way it's done (huggle & template messages are a major cause of it) according to multiple research papers on editor retention on wikipedia. What's interesting is the research also shows that reversion improves the quality of contribution by the new editors that do stay. I'd love to see scholarly work out there on AFD. I'm sure the process (the AFD discussion) is just off-putting as the loss of an article.
But TBH we could all spend years (and have since this project began) talking about what we believe causes editor loss, or we could look at the research and try to act based upon it. There's a great piece by Jonathan T. Morgan, Siko Bouterse, Sarah Stierch, Heather Walls on how effective the teahouse has been. There's other great research out there such as 'Effects of peer feedback on contribution' by Haiyi Zhu, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert E. Kraut, Aniket Kittur that actually contradicts the belief expressed here by Wpollard. Their finding that was "mildly worded" negative feedback increased motivation. However it is well documented elsewhere that the run of the mill way we do negative feedback on WP is destructive (for everyone not just newbies). I would encourage everyone here to google scholar "wikipedia editor retention"[1] and read around. There are very concrete things that could be done by putting the research into action, and indeed looking at how we do AFD and how new editors recieve the feedback of deletion could be one--Cailil talk 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)- We also need to consider whether some editors need to be retained, either by WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE issues. It is better to "turn" editors rather than discourage or (in some cases) block them, but discouraging is better than blocking.
A certain editor with name including that of a Canadian city might very well fall into that category.There are many people who wish to use Wikipedia for purposes other than that of creating and improving an encyclopedia, or whose actions (even if it good faith) damage the encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)- Simply put, I understand and agree that are many who are wanting to subvert wikipedia for other agendas. BUT that's generally not the case with the huge numbers of people we're loosing. We are loosing people because of POV-pushers but bizarely its the more banal, everyday unfriendliness that is the biggest problem. According to the studies--Cailil talk 09:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Arthur Rubin: As you know, you are definitely not alone in your thinking that a particular editor is damaging Wikipedia and should not be editing here. Since you seem consumed with this topic why not join forces with this other editor here and have your voices heard by the community at large? XOttawahitech (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That is good to hear. I've a habit of not using templates, and my automated edit percentage is in the single digits, which is unusual considering the amount of automated clerking I've had to do. I use a lot of "Dear friend" warnings with extended reasons, glad to see that actually helps. Of course, it is easy to find examples of where that didn't matter since they only wanted to vandalize ("a waste of time" some say) but every time it helps a potentially good editor by not putting them off, it is worth the times it didn't make a difference with the vandal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- We also need to consider whether some editors need to be retained, either by WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE issues. It is better to "turn" editors rather than discourage or (in some cases) block them, but discouraging is better than blocking.
- Actually what causes new editor loss is reversion, and the way it's done (huggle & template messages are a major cause of it) according to multiple research papers on editor retention on wikipedia. What's interesting is the research also shows that reversion improves the quality of contribution by the new editors that do stay. I'd love to see scholarly work out there on AFD. I'm sure the process (the AFD discussion) is just off-putting as the loss of an article.
- To be fair, a good portion of my deleted contribs might be articles I tagged for CSD for being vandalism or vanity pieces, before I got the bit. Plus other maintenance stuff that gets deleted for housekeeping reasons. I've never had an article I created get deleted, but then, I spend most of my editing improving existing articles rather than creating new. I'm just wired that way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is we have teams of people working in the best of good faith with these automated tools. I've seen a number of people doing hundreds of automated edits with AWB etc and I see a lot of (patronizing) huggle/twinkle usage. I think returning to personalized constructive criticism might be the only way forward. For me the "dear friend" method isn't great either. This might be a cultural thing that divides the Anglophone world but the "have a nice day" approach rankles with me. But again maybe the research can help us find what the best tone actually is--Cailil talk 10:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Another missing wikipedian? -- Kudpung
User:Kudpung last edit was logged on 2 March 2014. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I emailed him about that time and never got a reply. He and I will chat from time to time, so it was somewhat unusual to not reply, but I didn't draw any conclusions from it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- He's only been gone for a month. Wait and see; I'm sure he'll be back soon. Kurtis (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- This seems unusual for Kudpung. I hope everything is ok with real life. I know how hard reality can be.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- May is here and he still hasn't edited. He just stopped - leaving his status gadget snnouncing that he is "around". —Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I emailed him again two weeks ago, no reply. I might try to Skype him this weekend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mentorship IEG Proposal
Hi folks. There is an Individual Engagement Grant proposal related to creating a new approach mentorship that a small team of us have devised, based largely on the proposal advanced by the late Jackson Peebles before his passing. We intend to review current programs and create a pilot to test a more lightweight kind of mentorship. We believe this approach will be a good fit for many editors who wish to mentor as well as for editors who want to learn specific editing skills through mentorship. Feedback is helpful for us as we'd like to address any concerns or suggestions the community may have, and will also help the grant committee in guiding their decisions. If you are interested, we look forward to hearing your feedback on our proposal over on meta (but you're welcome to leave some here if you'd like). I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I assume @Worm That Turned: is familiar? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Familiar, but cannot actively support people being paid to help newbies. If the community has got to the point that no one is willing to help then we're not a community any more. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Paid? I can see conflicts on the horizon. Are the paid employees "more equal" than unpaid volunteers? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Before arbcom I put a lot of effort into mentorship and adoption. I worked with a large group of people doing it and doing it well. I've been rather out of the loop for 15 months, and I do believe that mentorship and adoption on wikipedia has fallen by the wayside. That's fair enough, especially since the Teahouse has picked up the slack of being nice to new people.
I just cannot agree that 4 editors should be paid a stipend for leading a wikipedia project like this. I don't want to stand in it's way, because the end may justify the means and the goal is admirable, but nor can I support it. Wikipedia is built by a volunteer community and one of the roles is welcoming and helping new members of the community. It's one thing to pay a developer to create new technical methods to make welcoming easier, it's quite another to pay the helpers. WormTT(talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Before arbcom I put a lot of effort into mentorship and adoption. I worked with a large group of people doing it and doing it well. I've been rather out of the loop for 15 months, and I do believe that mentorship and adoption on wikipedia has fallen by the wayside. That's fair enough, especially since the Teahouse has picked up the slack of being nice to new people.
- Paid? I can see conflicts on the horizon. Are the paid employees "more equal" than unpaid volunteers? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Familiar, but cannot actively support people being paid to help newbies. If the community has got to the point that no one is willing to help then we're not a community any more. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: I think one or other of us has misread this proposal - I was under the impression that the reimbursement was being granted for the purposes of developing a new mentorship program, not participating in it. I would expect the RI project, when complete, to have produced a body of evidence and a number of tools which will allow the actual (unpaid) mentors to do a better job. It's clear from both yours and my efforts at the Adopt-A-User project that what we had in place needs to be improved, and I don't see an issue with paying someone to work towards improving the technical and systematic elements of that process. I don't think anyone involved with the RI project was considering paying people to actually mentor new users. Yunshui 雲水 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was being over dramatic, you're right, I don't believe that the intention was to pay people to actually mentor. However, I also see very little there that can't be done by volunteers and needs a paid stipend. WormTT(talk) 14:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you may inadvertently hit upon something... I might put in a grant proposal for paid mentorship. £50 for every adoptee taken up, £1 for every constructive edit they make, £50 per hundred words of advice that you give them, £200 when they pass your adoption school and £500 if they create an article rated B-class or better. We could probably retire and make a living from that. Yunshui 雲水 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Plus, y'know, some editors might get some help... that was obviously foremost in my mind. Yunshui 雲水 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the plan was not to pay mentors, and was never a consideration. @Worm That Turned: Can I ask you to clarify what roles/tasks on this project should and should not be funded through a stipend? Perhaps we just need to do a better job of describing roles and tasks on the proposal itself. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was being over dramatic, you're right, I don't believe that the intention was to pay people to actually mentor. However, I also see very little there that can't be done by volunteers and needs a paid stipend. WormTT(talk) 14:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: I think one or other of us has misread this proposal - I was under the impression that the reimbursement was being granted for the purposes of developing a new mentorship program, not participating in it. I would expect the RI project, when complete, to have produced a body of evidence and a number of tools which will allow the actual (unpaid) mentors to do a better job. It's clear from both yours and my efforts at the Adopt-A-User project that what we had in place needs to be improved, and I don't see an issue with paying someone to work towards improving the technical and systematic elements of that process. I don't think anyone involved with the RI project was considering paying people to actually mentor new users. Yunshui 雲水 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I had not really thought of it the way Worm's initial comment characterized it ... ideally, as much as can be done by volunteers acting as volunteers should be done by volunteers acting as volunteers, but to be blunt, we do not have as many volunteers as we used to, which means that to assist the new editors, we have to look at other avenues. Actually, I have not been asked to adopt someone in a long time, and the one person who started adoption with me disappeared, so I do not know what to think. I used to have a rather "hopping" adoption course, not so anymore. Go Phightins! 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd second Worm's comment here, but my greater concern is just who would get this stipend. At least in some parts of WMUK, the people closest to the party are those least appropriate to be there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what you mean by "closest to the party." The people, in short, who would be getting paid in this grant would be responsible for research, data analysis, programming, graphic design, project management, and conceptual planning of the program. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: et al. I just wanted to chime in on this thread and agree that the payment is purely for getting design and development work done. I also agree that it is a bummer that we can't just do everything with volunteer time, but the sad fact of it is that many of those lending their various expertise to the project need to eat. The cool thing about an IEG like this is it allows Wikipedians who usually work on wiki stuff in their volunteer time to tackle substantially larger projects without sacrificing food, shelter and security. I see an IEG as more of a living stipend that's available to help us get important work done that would otherwise be impossible. If the IEG was actually paying people a competitive market rate (for contractors in the US/Europe) for all of the hours that grantees will end up working, the proposal would probably be 3-4 times more expensive. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown:, re. "Are the paid employees "more equal" than unpaid volunteers?", as a volunteer on the project myself, I'll be pushing to ensure that is not the case. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what you mean by "closest to the party." The people, in short, who would be getting paid in this grant would be responsible for research, data analysis, programming, graphic design, project management, and conceptual planning of the program. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 160#"I actually hate it here" ```Buster Seven Talk 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I had already caught that admin/editor at WP:BN when he requested his bits removed and did a little homework on him. (for someone who is inactive, I manage to stay a bit active behind the scenes...) He hasn't been willing to be forthcoming as to the reasons, but he really hasn't been "active" in two years either. I didn't see anything obvious, and I wouldn't jump to any conclusions here. Some people don't like change, like something when it is new and hate it when it becomes mainstream. Some people hate steak, although I can't fathom why. So, I have no idea why he left but it appears to be an atypical case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this the editor who quit over his contribution at Ancient history? I believe that it was added back as it was accurate and relevant.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is there now:
Classical antiquity is a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered around the Mediterranean Sea, which begins roughly with the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (9th century BC), and continues through the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th century AD), ending in the dissolution of classical culture with the close of Late Antiquity.
--Mark Miller (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I thought others might be interested in the discussion that followed there, (at that thread). ```Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that when it was originally posted and made the change on the article myself but when I went back to check It appears my save didn't take, but that thread is TLDR to me. I suppose my point being that if that contribution was actually returned and has stuck, what reason does the editor have for staying away. I hope they return, but some people get upset over time and get worn down.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I said it was atypical. The single edit issue was bothersome, but that isn't likely "the" reason. Some people do get bored or tired of the place, and not every exit gives us useful info on improving the place. I'm not sure this case does or not, but it wasn't obvious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- What it reminded me of, was that our ancient history editors are under constant attack by editors with far less experience and expertise and that these articles can get pretty heated. As one of those ancient history editors I can at least attest to why this editor may have been worn down. Sometimes it can be very difficult to get others to understand their mistakes or errors in these areas and many times students seem inclined to edit over with garbage in good faith, but don't understand that there are sources and academic mainstream research that must be used for referencing and not just some random history website...and good lord there are a lot of those.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which reminds me, I need to get back to work on the article Theatre of Pompey and finish referencing the article. It lacks a lot of references from when I was researching and writing many years ago and then forgot to add the actual sources I was using. It was one of my first major contributions and its also a nice, obscure article that hardly anyone else edits. I kinda liked that. But I also tend to coordinate some of the ancient history projects like WP:ROME. Perhaps a discussion on one or more projects could gain us some further information about how these editors feel about issues and problems they have and what they think could be done to better the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- But he was an admin, so he knew the system. Often, admin will leave for different reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and I actually believe there had to be other reasons but this just reminded me of why I stopped contributing to the ancient history articles. it can be as bad as political articles at times.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- But he was an admin, so he knew the system. Often, admin will leave for different reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which reminds me, I need to get back to work on the article Theatre of Pompey and finish referencing the article. It lacks a lot of references from when I was researching and writing many years ago and then forgot to add the actual sources I was using. It was one of my first major contributions and its also a nice, obscure article that hardly anyone else edits. I kinda liked that. But I also tend to coordinate some of the ancient history projects like WP:ROME. Perhaps a discussion on one or more projects could gain us some further information about how these editors feel about issues and problems they have and what they think could be done to better the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- What it reminded me of, was that our ancient history editors are under constant attack by editors with far less experience and expertise and that these articles can get pretty heated. As one of those ancient history editors I can at least attest to why this editor may have been worn down. Sometimes it can be very difficult to get others to understand their mistakes or errors in these areas and many times students seem inclined to edit over with garbage in good faith, but don't understand that there are sources and academic mainstream research that must be used for referencing and not just some random history website...and good lord there are a lot of those.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I said it was atypical. The single edit issue was bothersome, but that isn't likely "the" reason. Some people do get bored or tired of the place, and not every exit gives us useful info on improving the place. I'm not sure this case does or not, but it wasn't obvious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that when it was originally posted and made the change on the article myself but when I went back to check It appears my save didn't take, but that thread is TLDR to me. I suppose my point being that if that contribution was actually returned and has stuck, what reason does the editor have for staying away. I hope they return, but some people get upset over time and get worn down.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I thought others might be interested in the discussion that followed there, (at that thread). ```Buster Seven Talk 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"I actually hate it here"
Thanks to User: Buster7 or starting this thread. I actually hate it here is discussion about the toxic editing environment at wikipedia which many, including Jimbo Wales, agree exists. The discussion, which is long, but not wp:TLDR due to the quality of participants, revolves around how pervasive this toxic environment is, whether it is getting worse, whether it affects admins more than other editors, whether it is only the reflection of normal society/human nature and nothing more, the changing nature of wikipedia, etc.
Some interesting statements such as the following make it a must read:
- Bad people are certainly driving the good people away
- it's just anonymous people working without pay
- set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company
and much, much more....XOttawahitech (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Like most of these discussions, I didn't find it particularly satisfying, because the participants in more or less equal measure seem to be of one these two minds:
- The problem is obvious. The admin corp (and ArbCom) contains horrible bullies who prey on hapless and innocent editors. Of course there's a toxic environment and people are leaving in droves.
- The problem is obvious. The editor corps contains horrible bullies, trolls, and fanatics who insult and alienate hapless and innocent editors, and the admin corps (and ArbCom) is very weak and slow to act. Of course there's a toxic environment and people are leaving in droves.
- Well it can't be both. Having been here about nine years my experience is tend to lean pretty much to #2. (I note that the "I hate it here" guy is, after, an admin.) But others disagree and disagree vociferously and in reasonable numbers. Whether this is a manifestation of generally being disappointed with formal authority in general I don't know. If we could mostly agree that was #1 or #2 we could move forward. But we can't and, I guess, neverf will, so I don't know what we can do beyond nibbling at the edges of the problem. Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't it be both? Wikipedia is not a zero sum game, and it's huge -- five million (6,828,234) articles. So it's certainly possible some editors are lost to #1, and some to #2. Hard to for me to say which, but I've undoubtedly seen potentially more of #1 because of the unsavory (dispute resolution or dramahboard) places I hang out, so, like everyone else, my experience is obviously not universal. NE Ent 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't it be both? Only the most simplistic view would think that all admins are the same, or all editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK yes there are places where the first parts 1 or 2 apply. I spend less and less time at the dramah boards and more in our quieter and more productive places so my perspective is somewhat skewed, but if people were leaving in droves I would expect to see evidence of that. For starters the number of admins would be falling much more sharply. True the trend is downwards, but with so few making it through RFA we would need a nett turnover of 5% in our active admins for there not to be a decline. As for editors more generally, yes we are facing a gentle decline, and unlike some earlier years I don't think we can dismiss the recent decline as just more efficient processing of vandalism. But a certain amount of turnover is inevitable in any volunteer community. I'm not convinced that the drop we are seeing is more than one should expect from the rise of the smartphone and with it the shift of Wikipedia from a potentially interactive site to largely a broadcast one; and the fact that our readers are less likely to see the vandalism and typos that used to recruit them into editing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Crisis? What crisis?"
- Go to a Wiki meetup. First thing that comes up is the toxic atmosphere, the reasons behind it and some of the names involved. Then compare across a random selection of WP people there (presumably active if they're there, and geographically selected) and even though they all edit in disparate areas of interest, you hear the same problems and the same names. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well what names? If the problem really is "Well, there are some bully admins and they drive people away and at the same time there are some bully editors and they drive people away and the admins won't do anything about it" then we're kind of screwed, in that we have a kind of situation where the admin corps is too strong and too weak at the same time. Unless... if there really are bully admins on a power trip, could we not sic them on the bully editors somehow? If there are admins who are looking for excuses to harass and block people, wouldn't pointing them to editors who are the habit of writing "go fuck yourself" to other editors or whatever be grist for their mill? It seems like it would much easier to harass, power-trip, and block someone who is actually a bad editor then just some unoffending mook you run into. I suppose it's not that easy though? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see "admins vs editors" as the big distinction – it's more about cliquey bullies vs. the rest. We have a lot of cases where a narrow subset of editors and admins work together, against other editors or the aims of the project. This is often thought to be caused by "my wikifriends can do no wrong", but I think it's more about self-selecting cliques of the middling (but easily led) following the downright harmful in righting one (and only one) Great Wrong. When some wikipedians see one particular policy as important above all others (copyright / BLPs / sourcing / socking / spam, all of which are reasonable to a reasonable level), there's a tendency for those who share the same bias to club together and support each other. We saw this very clearly about the return of the long-banned Betacommand, when a handful of admins who are similarly dogmatic about NFC images were very quick to sweep any discussion of this socking under the carpet. There's an infamous tag team of an editor who deletes massive amounts of articles for lack of sourcing (out of all proportion to the need, and with regular abuse of our RS standards) working with a bully of an admin who threatens blocks for anyone who disagrees, or even someone who adds new sources to support the removed content. Bullying and simplistic bureaucratic dogma are the problems, not administration or admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Without naming names (we probably have different names anyway), I think Andy makes a good point. To be honest, an editor who occasionally tells someone to "go fuck yourself" isn't really the problem. That is annoying but typically well earned, from my experience, and I'm not prone to overreact. Some of the best and most prolific contributors tend to be a little temperamental and I think you have to tolerate a bit of heat. Encourage better behavior, but not overreact to every use of the word "fuck". I see the bigger problem being one where people use the system against editors to push their flavor of dogma, as Andy states. We do have some people who go on crusades against whatever perceived "threat" to Wikipedia they are hot about, and overzealous enforcement (which is often selective enforcement) does drive people away. Most contributors don't want to have to be a policy expert to edit here. Others just want to be policy experts more than edit. And yes, it isn't admin vs. editor, the camps are divided by Wiki-dogma, not by bits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see "admins vs editors" as the big distinction – it's more about cliquey bullies vs. the rest. We have a lot of cases where a narrow subset of editors and admins work together, against other editors or the aims of the project. This is often thought to be caused by "my wikifriends can do no wrong", but I think it's more about self-selecting cliques of the middling (but easily led) following the downright harmful in righting one (and only one) Great Wrong. When some wikipedians see one particular policy as important above all others (copyright / BLPs / sourcing / socking / spam, all of which are reasonable to a reasonable level), there's a tendency for those who share the same bias to club together and support each other. We saw this very clearly about the return of the long-banned Betacommand, when a handful of admins who are similarly dogmatic about NFC images were very quick to sweep any discussion of this socking under the carpet. There's an infamous tag team of an editor who deletes massive amounts of articles for lack of sourcing (out of all proportion to the need, and with regular abuse of our RS standards) working with a bully of an admin who threatens blocks for anyone who disagrees, or even someone who adds new sources to support the removed content. Bullying and simplistic bureaucratic dogma are the problems, not administration or admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well what names? If the problem really is "Well, there are some bully admins and they drive people away and at the same time there are some bully editors and they drive people away and the admins won't do anything about it" then we're kind of screwed, in that we have a kind of situation where the admin corps is too strong and too weak at the same time. Unless... if there really are bully admins on a power trip, could we not sic them on the bully editors somehow? If there are admins who are looking for excuses to harass and block people, wouldn't pointing them to editors who are the habit of writing "go fuck yourself" to other editors or whatever be grist for their mill? It seems like it would much easier to harass, power-trip, and block someone who is actually a bad editor then just some unoffending mook you run into. I suppose it's not that easy though? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK yes there are places where the first parts 1 or 2 apply. I spend less and less time at the dramah boards and more in our quieter and more productive places so my perspective is somewhat skewed, but if people were leaving in droves I would expect to see evidence of that. For starters the number of admins would be falling much more sharply. True the trend is downwards, but with so few making it through RFA we would need a nett turnover of 5% in our active admins for there not to be a decline. As for editors more generally, yes we are facing a gentle decline, and unlike some earlier years I don't think we can dismiss the recent decline as just more efficient processing of vandalism. But a certain amount of turnover is inevitable in any volunteer community. I'm not convinced that the drop we are seeing is more than one should expect from the rise of the smartphone and with it the shift of Wikipedia from a potentially interactive site to largely a broadcast one; and the fact that our readers are less likely to see the vandalism and typos that used to recruit them into editing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I agree Wikipedia has problems that cannot be classified as “admins vs editors”, however I believe some admins do not realize the chilling effect of their words and actions on the community. Take for example the new/old article I just created/re-created. Russell Mills (publisher) apparently had a wiki-article about him which was speedily deleted in 2010, and no one saw fit to re-create since then, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Had to do some digging to find what you were talking about. In my opinion Kevin shouldn't have deleted it G10 without review from another set of eyes, but that was recently after enwp became paranoid about negative BLPs. It also shows why admin should only tag articles that aren't obviously vandalism, so two sets of eyes are on every deletion. I probably would have removed the "fired" part, and maybe even sent it off to AFD or stubbed it if I couldn't find any sources. Even now, having only one source is worrisome, I assume others exist and should be added. I don't see what Kevin did as abuse or misuse, just hasty. BLP is one of those areas where there isn't a singular consensus and there are people who really go overboard "protecting" people from Wikipedia. BLP fanaticism is problematic, but I'm not sure this is a prime example.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Sorry for not being specific enough - I have now corrected the link above to point to Russell Mills (publisher) (instead of Russell Mills), and thanks for providing information about the deleted article that non-admins are not privy to. For example I had no idea that the deleted article used the word "fired". I hope the current "dismissed" will not get this article deleted again, sigh…
- By the way the new article which was created on April 7, has had nothing added to it since its creation save for a nice big fat notability banner right at the top, another sigh… It still has no categories, no stub-links, no additional refs (which can easily be located in other wiki-articles that link to it), no information at all except:
- Russell Mills was the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen. He was dismissed in 2002 by CanWest Global Communications Corp. following the publication of a story critical of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and an editorial calling for Chrétien's resignation. After he was dismissed he was became a Nieman Fellow. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The deletion was quite correct under the guidelines at the time. The article had no references, and contained controversial (not just negative) material. Now, it would be tagged per {{BLP prod}}, but there was a backlog of about 59,000 articles, with no sources, about living persons.
- You created the article, you should be the one to add the information, if you can find a reliable source. I could improve the article, but I do not believe it would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements anyway, so it would not be (IMO) a productive use of my time. I have occasionally added references to articles about subjects I do not consider notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Russell Mills was the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen. He was dismissed in 2002 by CanWest Global Communications Corp. following the publication of a story critical of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and an editorial calling for Chrétien's resignation. After he was dismissed he was became a Nieman Fellow. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Had to do some digging to find what you were talking about. In my opinion Kevin shouldn't have deleted it G10 without review from another set of eyes, but that was recently after enwp became paranoid about negative BLPs. It also shows why admin should only tag articles that aren't obviously vandalism, so two sets of eyes are on every deletion. I probably would have removed the "fired" part, and maybe even sent it off to AFD or stubbed it if I couldn't find any sources. Even now, having only one source is worrisome, I assume others exist and should be added. I don't see what Kevin did as abuse or misuse, just hasty. BLP is one of those areas where there isn't a singular consensus and there are people who really go overboard "protecting" people from Wikipedia. BLP fanaticism is problematic, but I'm not sure this is a prime example.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: I agree Wikipedia has problems that cannot be classified as “admins vs editors”, however I believe some admins do not realize the chilling effect of their words and actions on the community. Take for example the new/old article I just created/re-created. Russell Mills (publisher) apparently had a wiki-article about him which was speedily deleted in 2010, and no one saw fit to re-create since then, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- One of the areas I am active in on WP is history of early Christianity, historicity of events in the Bible both old and new testaments, biblical scholarship, and WP lost two of its most valuable editors in related areas, PiCo and History2007 in the last year, so this is not generalised speculation "it's bullying admins,no it's bullying editors" but actual cases, maybe untypical due to the area of editing, I don't know, but what those two editors could not deal with any more were the constant disruption caused by POV pushers, either biblical fundamentalists, or more frequently, strident anti-religion editors who would not be satisfied until every article about Christianity has "this is all a lot of made up rubbish" written across the top of every page in large letters. The problem in this area anyway is that it takes weeks or months or years of arguing, collecting "evidence", going to various noticeboards and dispute resolution procedures, to get an admin to do anything, they are much too lenient and slow moving in my opinion. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" brings in a lot of ignorant people with strong prejudices to contentious areas that require a bit of knowledge, for WP's concept "just let anyone edit anything" to work it needs some way of removing obviously biased editors with no idea of what they are talking about instantly, not only after they have worn everyone's patience out and driven away the few valuable editors willing to spend their time making WP a credible resource.Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is very true. The problem is, people lean on admin to come in and sort it out when all the parties are pissed off at each other over POV, and we aren't experts on that topic. This is why admin don't make content decisions, yet our actions sometimes can CHANGE the content if we end up blocking a couple of people on one side of the argument. I think that sometimes, we get labeled as taking sides, when really we are just doing our best to figure out who is causing the most problems. And yes, I'm sure that sometimes an admin does take sides even if trying to be coy, but not most of the time. I hate being dragged into Middle East brawls for this reason, for I'm utterly ignorant of the content, and no matter what I do, someone is going to call my actions "biased", in one way or another. Of course, this is one reason that many admin avoid these areas, and they are under "policed", so to speak. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, Andy, your definition of "bully" is a little strange, and your definition of "threatens blocks for anyone who disagrees, or even someone who adds new sources to support the removed content" is even stranger. I certainly threaten you with blocks periodically, but I suspect it's far less often than your misbehaviour warrants one. Assuming that the "someone who adds new sources" pertains to Torchiest, I'll point out that I didn't threaten him at all. He made one large edit, an edit that contained a policy-compliant citation for one section and set of non-compliant tags for other sections. I removed only the sections that did not comply with policy, issuing no threats in the process. He later added back in the material with citations and it remains there without complaint. Compare that to your behaviour, where you reverted against WP:BURDEN, ran to ANI screaming, didn't get much support, yet you reverted again, once again violating WP:BURDEN while simultaneously accusing people that were editing in alignment with WP:RS of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Then you come here and make insinuations without naming names, as if that somehow makes spewing falsehoods more palatable. So, here we are on a talk page about editor retention. Care to explain exactly why you think you are an editor that people should be concerned about retaining?—Kww(talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Were your ears burning Kww? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a wide variety of personalities among its editors. and some people who are willing to take strong action are needed to balance people who prefer to edit less boldly. I like Herostratus's point about matching up admins and editors with these overbearing personalities, since the latter won't likely be cowed or driven away, and the rest of us can get on with improving the encyclopedia. HOWEVER, there's another, more subtle form of "bullying" which experienced editors sometimes use with new editors, often without realizing it, and that is patronizing comments ("There, there, dearie, don't get excited; your ideas are quaint, but we know better, and someday you'll see how smart we are and come to agree with us.") While it's unpleasant to have nasty comments thrown your way by "bullies", at least with these their improper behaviour is obvious to everyone; the patronizing putdowns, on the other hand, are just as damaging and hurtful, yet are more difficult to respond to in a calm rational way when you think others won't value your response anyway. Even editors like those of us here who work on Editor Retention (and I include myself) may need to consciously avoid falling into this patronizing mode of interaction. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe the solution is to just get head out of asses, and realize "anyone can edit" doesn't mean one is entitled to be a dufus, and/or a jerk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anne, that is one reason I'm not a big fan of punishing "civility" based solely on swear words. If you block only the blunt people, you are left with patronizing passive aggressive types. "I'm sure you're a smart person, but only a fool would think that $x" is no better than "Don't be an idiot, $x is true". Both are insulting, even if one is wrapped in saccharine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Research shows editor retention problem isn't with old hands
This point is made by User:WhatamIdoing over at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22I_actually_hate_it_here.22. According to WhatamIdoing research established the problem is that newbies don’t stick around, not that experienced editors are leaving. Do you agree? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- This project must look at research about this problem rather than giving opinions. It's thoroughly logical that in a volunteer environment people can't/wont stay here forever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a life sentence. But the issue with editor retention is with newbies. How to keep IPs and other people who do drive-by edits. And while I agree that some of the "protected" editors whose behaviour wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere are not helpful either to new or current editors, the fact of the matter is all research shows that it's run of the mill actions (templates, reversion) taken by many many users are putting new editors off.
There have been strategies piloted by researchers regarding feedback to new editors a summary of this is in the lit review I mentioned in the sections above.
Fundamentally if you want this project to have an impact you need to look at the facts. We can all talk around in circles here & come up with great initiatives or theories about user groups that although interesting have no impact on editor retention. This page wont remain if it's used primarily to talk about other people - it's not a forum--Cailil talk 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)- Templates are great for saving time, but we need to counterbalance them with personal interaction. Even if new editors are finding the processes mystifying, they are more likely to persist if other editors encourage them and admit to having had similar problems when they were beginners. A little reassurance that any mistakes can easily be undone is good too; many new editors may worry about making a mess, and don't know about the saved history of the articles. Another way to make new editors feel wanted is to ask their help with an article related to one their working on; for example, if they've added sources to one article that might be useful in a related topic, maybe ask if they'd consider adding them there. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but it's actually quiet complex. Different editors respond in different ways, and I highly recommend reading the paper 'Don't Bite the Newbies: How reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work' for a fuller explanation & view on this. As well as 'Thee rise and decline of an open collaboration system: how wikipedia's reaction to popularity is causing its decline' & 'Defining, Understanding, and Supporting Open Collaboration Lessons From the Literature'.
The WMF is aware of this research and that's why the Teahouse exists. If this project wants to help with those efforts then the contributors here need to read themselves in.
A soft measured tone in personal correspondence will help some of the new editors stay, but others don't need that (and in fact assimilate quite well already), and again others wont stay either way. So from the research it seems that it's as much about current users knowing how to behave with different types of new editor and how best to help these newbies, rather than asserting the importance of their own "wikipedia experience" (read: agenda). That requires a major shift in emphasis and attitude.
The site has over 4 million articles it no longer needs the kind of behaviour and attitude it did in 2003. We've moved from creation to curation (for the most part) and that's an uncomfortable shift--Cailil talk 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)- It's not an "uncomfortable shift", it's simply untrue. Eric Corbett 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The above isn't my opinion it's what's in the research. When wikipedia started off not only content but policies were in development. Now we tweak policy (at best) & we have 4 million articles, many of which are high quality (thanks to content writers like yourself). New editors don't have the same opportunity to write about the big topics (Marxism, Shakespeare, cold fusion, the big bang) in the same way we all did in 2003-2006.
I don't know about you but when I look at other wikis the most attractive ones to edit are the ones that are incomplete. En-WP's incompleteness while it may never be gone is always shrinking. And as a wiki it is/was designed for that open-ended, crowd sourced content creation. That's why en-WP has succeeded. BUT according to studies on editor retention and the gender gap (you can find many in google scholar and some here) the fact that 4 million articles exist (with thousands of them being Good Articles and Featured Content) does have an impact on the community in terms of a) its rules and b) its openness to new members and new ideas.
Interestingly one of the earlier pieces of research on editor retention suggested (and I don't totally agree here but this is their argument) that the number of new "good faith" editors has been falling since 2005 & that this related to the fact it appears that there's less to do. Now I'd love to say "this is untrue", but frankly if this wasn't the case we wouldn't be loosing new editors, this project wouldn't exist, and neither would the teahouse--Cailil talk 02:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)- When Wikipedia was first in development, all of the other wikis didn't exist. Now there are specialized wikis for everything including the kitchen sink, not to mention all of the blogs and social media sites, etc. It's not surprising that there are fewer editors here now when people have so many other choices. On the contrary, it's amazing that so many thousands of people still show up here every month to add to the encyclopedia. Many of the other sites have very little in the way of standards or policies, so editors can muck about freely, but Wikipedia can't do that and maintain its quality, so there's always a balancing act between making it fun and keeping its direction. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Editor retention is about retaining our editors, editor recruitment is the problem of recruiting new editors. Historically our biggest problem was in the very low rate at which we convert people from trying Wikipedia editing into becoming regular editors. Once they become regular editors then only a minority leave each year, and of course some who leave eventually come back, which adds to the complexity of measuring this. But we have problems with both recruitment and retention, hence we now have this project as well as longer standing ones such as the welcome committee.
- The retention and recruitment situations are both complex, and we should beware overly simple analysis of either of them. Yes one of the factors is that some of the topics people might want to edit about are now much more complete, and also that the average level of quality has risen, those wikipedia readers who would fix the odd vandalism or typo as they come across them are making fewer changes per hour of reading wikipedia. Another factor is that our de facto quality standards have risen, so the community is no longer welcoming to those who make uncited additions..... We also shouldn't underestimate the shift from PC to tablets and mobiles, and the resulting shift of Wikipedia to being less of an interactive medium and more a broadcast one. Those are just some of the factors now affecting recruitment. This project however is intended to focus on editor retention. The teahouse and the welcome committee can worry about recruiting new editors, in this project I would suggest we try to focus on retaining the editors who we have.
- There is some evidence that our retention of the editors who became very active in the early years of the project is much better than it is for newer editors. I noticed this some years ago re our admins, though I don't know if it applies more generally. That could be a sign that we have become cliquey and that more recent active editors find it difficult to become "core" members of the community, or it could be a statistical illusion and we will find that once the wikigeneration of active editors who first edited in 2010 reach their fifth anniversaries of their first edits their retention rate will improve to the same level as others who have been active for five or more years. One of the things I have been doing is looking at the editors who have created fifty or more new articles and not yet had the autopatroller flag set. It is surprisingly easy to find such editors who have been working with barely any interaction with the community. I'm hoping that my setting those of them who are ready for it as Autopatrolled will do a little to make some of those editors feel more appreciated, but if anyone has the time, I would really like to see what would happen if some of those editors then found that one of their articles was nominated by someone at DYK. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if one reason that the editors that started out early in Wikihistory have stuck around better than newer editors (assuming that is the case) is simply due to the type of people that were attracted to Wikipedia when it was unknown, versus now that is is mainstream. If I were to guess, using nothing but instinct, I would imagine that early adopters were turned on by the "Free as in speech and Free as in beer" aspects, and because back then, Wikipedia was virtually counterculture. Now, it has a social network aspect to it, plus the host of spammers now that didn't exist back when I started in 06. Anyone who is really into GPL, "Free", etc.....they have already joined and likely many years ago. Those (like myself) are more ideologically driven by the idea of creating an encyclopedia simply because information wants to be free, so they stick it out. Some new users might feel that way, but I would guess that isn't the motivation for most of them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers I see where you're coming from but actually the research is showing exactly what Ottawahitech said at the top of this subthread - the retention problem is with the newer editors. Yes there is a difference between recruitment and retention, but the problem seems to occur after the reader becomes an editor and before they feel anchored in the community. I also think there is a little bit of fallacy in the idea that we should trying to stop old hands leaving. Wikipedia is not a life-sentence editing is a charitable act that requires a lot of free time and some basic IT knowledge/confidence. Not everyone can sustain these for 10 years plus. Hell not everyone can do it for 3. In a sustainable community new people come on board to replace those who are no longer active. What En-WP is experiencing is a lack of newer editors becoming experienced editors to replace the "natural wastage" (that's a horrible HR term but that's what this is called) of older wikipedians who leave or who have less and less time to contribute. If we focus on retaining the people who have less and less time to contribute we're actually missing the point. Something is putting newer editors off staying at En-WP. If we don't start retaining them then En-WP has a limited future or at least it wont continue to exist in its current form. I think Dennis has a point about the generational gap as do you about WP becoming a broadcast medium, but as yet the community or site policy (or both) hasn't caught up with this fundamental shift in media and market--Cailil talk 14:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cailil: I do a fair bit of work over at wp:Missing Wikipedians which revolves around established users. I agree that some leave simply due to "natural wastage", but not the majority. It is my anecdotal observation that many leave when they become disenchanted with certain aspects and feel they cannot effect change. There is also a surprisingly high number of established editors who have no choice in the matter because the community "rejected" them. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the community "rejecting" users I assume you're talking about bans. Frankly bans whether handed down by arbcom are off the table here.
On the issue of you observation there's an article called 'Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia' and others in my own lit review that deal with the power structure here. Outside research is showing that while there's a a lot of clamour about cliques and cabals we don't actually have an oligarchy here. Now in my own experience I've seen people who've gone from having a "following" to not having a personal power base leave because "they become disenchanted with certain aspects and feel they cannot effect change" - the founders of wikipedia review for example. People who want to use this site for whatever personal reasons wont/can't last - it is designed to counter this impulse because its a crowd sourced encyclopedia based on 3rd party scholarly research but that excludes original synthesis of materials.
In 'Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia' the authors are suggesting that "knowledge creation and knowledge retention are actually distinct phases of community- based peer production, and that communities may on average experience more turnover than ideal during the knowledge retention phase". Now that this site has entered a curatorial or "data retention" phase editors who were of the earlier mindset (content creation) are lost because the site changed but they haven't. But again a wider understanding of why some poeple leave volunteer activities is needed, and believe it or not research exists on that topic: 'Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclopedia: Wikipedians and why they do it' and 'Volunteers in Wikipedia: why the community matters' are worth reading, as would general research about why volunteers give up voluntary activities--Cailil talk 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the community "rejecting" users I assume you're talking about bans. Frankly bans whether handed down by arbcom are off the table here.
- @Cailil: I do a fair bit of work over at wp:Missing Wikipedians which revolves around established users. I agree that some leave simply due to "natural wastage", but not the majority. It is my anecdotal observation that many leave when they become disenchanted with certain aspects and feel they cannot effect change. There is also a surprisingly high number of established editors who have no choice in the matter because the community "rejected" them. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above isn't my opinion it's what's in the research. When wikipedia started off not only content but policies were in development. Now we tweak policy (at best) & we have 4 million articles, many of which are high quality (thanks to content writers like yourself). New editors don't have the same opportunity to write about the big topics (Marxism, Shakespeare, cold fusion, the big bang) in the same way we all did in 2003-2006.
- It's not an "uncomfortable shift", it's simply untrue. Eric Corbett 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but it's actually quiet complex. Different editors respond in different ways, and I highly recommend reading the paper 'Don't Bite the Newbies: How reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work' for a fuller explanation & view on this. As well as 'Thee rise and decline of an open collaboration system: how wikipedia's reaction to popularity is causing its decline' & 'Defining, Understanding, and Supporting Open Collaboration Lessons From the Literature'.
- Templates are great for saving time, but we need to counterbalance them with personal interaction. Even if new editors are finding the processes mystifying, they are more likely to persist if other editors encourage them and admit to having had similar problems when they were beginners. A little reassurance that any mistakes can easily be undone is good too; many new editors may worry about making a mess, and don't know about the saved history of the articles. Another way to make new editors feel wanted is to ask their help with an article related to one their working on; for example, if they've added sources to one article that might be useful in a related topic, maybe ask if they'd consider adding them there. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- This project must look at research about this problem rather than giving opinions. It's thoroughly logical that in a volunteer environment people can't/wont stay here forever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a life sentence. But the issue with editor retention is with newbies. How to keep IPs and other people who do drive-by edits. And while I agree that some of the "protected" editors whose behaviour wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere are not helpful either to new or current editors, the fact of the matter is all research shows that it's run of the mill actions (templates, reversion) taken by many many users are putting new editors off.
Eddy Nominations waiting for seconds
There is currently a single nomination in the "Q" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations eagerly awaiting a second so they can move over to the Accepted "Q". New nominations are always welcome. Is there an editor you know or work with that would deserve a pat on the back? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Some thoughts
Hey, User:Ansh666 here. I'm retiring (for the foreseeable future), and I just thought some of you may want to hear my reasons, so here goes...
Apart from personal reasons (you could probably extrapolate from my old user page), I got fed up with people, especially new users, who didn't bother to learn the rules before coming in and generally raising hell because of it. Maybe it's because I have such a knack for picking up and working within that sort of thing (I'm going into Game design for a reason), but it really bothers me when people don't explore everything they can about a site or process or something before they try to use it. (I did write a short user essay related to this to blow off my steam; it's located here.) And since what I've been dealing with mostly includes areas such as current events articles, AfD and AfD-related cleanup, and lurking on the various admin boards (WP:AN/I really does suck the life out of you), I get large doses of this with everything I do. I think that initiatives such as WP:The Wikipedia Adventure will help in this regard, but you can't force people to use it (that is, if they even learn about it), and a lot of people (POV pushers, WP:FRINGE types, advertisers, etc.) wouldn't care anyways. Sucks, but what can you do, eh?
A smaller reason is related to what I was doing with AfDs. I'd comment, close some now and then, and clean up after screwed up closes or incomplete nominations. Problem is, much of those tasks require administrator tools (CSD/G6 deletions and delete closes for AfDs, though as far as I can tell a non-admin can close a discussion as delete and tag G6, though heavily discouraged), and looking at recent RfAs (read: Cyphoidbomb) there's no way in hell I'd ever be able to convince 50+ people to give me the bit, even if it's just for uncontroversial G6es. Honestly, the pain of waiting for an admin to get to a G6 or obvious pile-on delete AfD close is excruciating, and contributed a lot to my decision to stop doing that stuff.
Now, I was never one to be a content creator, as I hate writing and citing with a burning passion - this is actually probably the longest thing I'll ever write here on Wikipedia (at least, in coherent sentences)[citation needed] - so I've chosen to just step away, since there's nothing really that I would potentially enjoy apart from that. It'll take a while; I'm still IP-editing right now, but without stuff like a watchlist it should be a lot easier to drop the habits. And, bonus, all of you guys won't have to suffer through my horrible parenthetical notes and tangents any more.
Well, thanks everyone here for trying your hardest to keep this wonderful place from going too far downhill. Cheers, 206.117.89.4 (talk) (ansh666) 03:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Is it appropriate, with all the content policies that are in place, to describe Wikipedia as "the compendium of all human knowledge"? If not, this image does need to be changed, since a lot of the problems that I allude to in the first section are caused by newcomers thinking that anything can - and should - be on here. Then, they're driven away because they violated some policy stuff that they didn't know about (ugh!) and the cabal doesn't want their epic knowledge or something...
- Wikipedia has never been or aimed to be "the compendium of all human knowledge", and if you're approaching it with that mentality, it's likely to explain why you're becoming frustrated at deletion debates and policy discussions. Ironically, for the author of Don't cite policies or guidelines until you've actually read them, you don't appear to have read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is the first of the five pillars and probably the most core of all Wikipedia's core policies with the arguable exception of WP:NPOV. – iridescent 16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: According to Compendium: "... a "universal" encyclopedia can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge..." XOttawahitech (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: [double ping!] yet another shining example of people misreading me. I'm arguing that it's not, and that people who do claim this piss me off. Thanks. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, did I cite WP:NOTEVERYTHING? I didn't even mention it. You seem to be the one misusing my essay here, ironic, innit? 206.117.89.4 (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: [double ping!] yet another shining example of people misreading me. I'm arguing that it's not, and that people who do claim this piss me off. Thanks. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Attracting and Retaining Volunteers
See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention#External links XOttawahitech (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanking editors to cheer them up
I wonder how many editors use the new(ish) notification system to thank other editors? I personally find this place big and impersonal at times, and wonder if others here also find it so. I see that one of the main reasons (see: Wikipedia_community#Motivation) editors come here is that "it’s fun'", and since just about anyone here has come across situations that make it less fun (sorry, original research) – I was just wondering if thanking editors more often, even those who are not aware of one’s existence, may help tide them over when when it is not fun anymore? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I use the "thanks" feature a few times a week, but more for simple things, or things I don't necessarily want to make a public fuss over. More often I use a barnstar, which I think has greater impact. Not just for accomplishments, but for when I see an editor have a hard time, but handle it well. Or when someone just steps up and admits they were wrong about something. Those are difficult and discouraging times, so a barnstar and someone saying "A lesser person might have just walked away" is helpful. I actually try to do that often. Like I've said before, the most important parts of WER aren't what we say on these pages, but what we do every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I use it often to say thanks for a helping hand or to acknowledge a fellow editors act of collaboration (even if I'm not involved). It takes a second and has lasting results. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. It only takes a second. I'm always pleased when someone thanks me, so imagine most others will appreciate this simple gesture. If one looks at a diff and finds it constructive, why not thank the editor? Barnstars are even better, but require more considered thought and effort. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- One thing I always use thanks for is to thank admins for making the edit that I have requested at RPP or ANI or SPI or even AIV. Admins have duties that are highly under-appreciated and a greater workload than most regular editors. They deserve the thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @John from Idegon: I would be careful about making such a recommendation because some admins receive dozens of notifications a day - something that only contributes to their workload (I am speculating here). I have also had a bad experience when thanking an admin who took it the wrong way and started (again I am speculating) following me around Wikipedia. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- We admin probably get more recognition than we deserve, although most do appreciate a "thank you" notification or barnstar when appropriate. We are human, after all. Still, the reason that the Editor of the Week program was started was to thank people that quietly clean up articles, write new articles, gnome around, and just make Wikipedia a better place for the reader, who is the most important Wikipedian of them all. Without the reader, there would be no reason for us to even ponder these things. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that showing appreciation is a great way to encourage editors, new or otherwise. I never use the "thank" option,though, because I think that it goes against the philosophy of openness in Wikipedia communication. It bothers me that the thanks notifications can't be seen by others. While editors here at WER are thanking others to encourage helpfulness and good editing practices, and to cheer them up, other editors may be "thanking" for edit warring or uploading copyvios and undoing our good work, and there is no way to know. I prefer to thank other editors on various talk pages, where everyone can read it, and I like to read the encouraging notes left for others. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anne: FYI, there is some logging of thanks: [2] Your point still has some weight, of course, generally people aren't going to go dig into those logs, and I doubt most people even know they exist. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Joe Decker, I was aware of that, although it doesn't say for what the editor was being thanked, which the messages do. I should have mentioned the log in my discussion above, so thanks for including it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: That is a good point, but what about the use of email/participation in IRC/etc? To me they are more of a concern than the use of thanks, which is at least partially open. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Very true, Ottawahitech. Sorry; I didn't mean to distract from the main point of this thread, which is that thanking editors for their work, by whatever means, is bound to cheer them up. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: I appreciate all honest contributions to the conversation and don't believe they distract from the main point. I have always been curious to find out why so few editors take advantage of these notification tools. Your posting gave me one clue to the puzzle, so I thank you for making it. XOttawahitech (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Very true, Ottawahitech. Sorry; I didn't mean to distract from the main point of this thread, which is that thanking editors for their work, by whatever means, is bound to cheer them up. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anne: FYI, there is some logging of thanks: [2] Your point still has some weight, of course, generally people aren't going to go dig into those logs, and I doubt most people even know they exist. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I quite like the fact that thanks aren't publicly displayed. There almost always seems to be at least one user who will object to almost any process in Wikipedia, so the fact that it is one-to-one means that you don't have these users interluding in what is otherwise a positive process. Can you imagine the disputes that would arise, where users would bring up encouraging things that editors doesn't like, disagree with the premise of the thanks for that particular edit. etc., if thanks were given regularly in the same way they are and displayed to all and sundry? --LT910001 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- While travelling today my wife and I stopped at a Long John Silver's which has a big bell that satisfied customers can ring. Ringing the bell when we left got a wonderful "thanks for the thanks" response from everyone behind the counter and in the prep area. I don't worry about why others might ring the bell. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- When someone reverts vandalism on my user pages or some article I've been working on, I send a thanks notification. When someone makes a particularly concise and powerful point in a discussion, I send a thanks. When someone says something so funny that I laugh out loud (especially if it was very inappropriate), I send a thanks. Those might not need barnstars, but a thanks is a like a tip of the hat, and I think is appropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I get thanked for all sorts of things - saving a new article from CSD is one, agreeing with somebody in an AfD debate that isn't going their way is another, the odd bit of advice I give to the ANI peanut gallery can be a third, and finally stuff like this where I just fancy having a laugh. It does keep me going and realise my work is appreciated in places. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have been reminded by this thread that when I was a new editor, didn't know anybody yet, and was just working on a couple of articles that I had started myself, people from this project took the time to encourage me. It's easy to remember to thank editors who have helped with something I'm working on, but I don't often stop to notice and thank those who are working away on their own. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I get thanked for all sorts of things - saving a new article from CSD is one, agreeing with somebody in an AfD debate that isn't going their way is another, the odd bit of advice I give to the ANI peanut gallery can be a third, and finally stuff like this where I just fancy having a laugh. It does keep me going and realise my work is appreciated in places. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with thanking someone and it not being obvious what I have thanked them for. We also have private e-mail access that no one can see....well others do. My E-mail provider sucks and my e-mail is down. Carry on.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I like thanking editors. One reason I think it is good is because it is quite lonely editing in one of Wikipedia's little corners, and I think 'thanking' a user lets them know that there are other users who are appreciative of their small efforts in that little corner. --LT910001 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Keeping student editors past the end of the semester
Student editors who contribute to WP "under duress" as participants in an educational course get fairly intensive training on the ways of the wiki, thus many of them perforce become reasonably competent editors in a very short time. The overwhelming majority of them disappear the second their college assignment is completed and never come back. I believe they could become valuable Wikipedians if only we can keep them here after their assignment is over. How do we convert "student SPAs" into long term Wikipedians? Perhaps we need to collaborate with the Educational Program to try to figure out a strategy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would imagine that the environment as a whole, rather than a single thing, would play into that. If they enjoy it when are forced to do it, they are more likely to come back. They again, the very act of being "forced" to for credit may taint the experience. Since student projects are becoming more common, that is a very good set of questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Encouraging the student editors to come out of their walled gardens (or at least just peep over the hedge) while they are here "on assignment" might help. Pushing subject area WikiProjects to directly engage with relevant Education projects and vice versa is one way to show the students that there is a practically infinite variety of topics and things to do here - WikiProject Medicine has started such initiatives. I have a gut feel that the vast majority of student editors never click on a link that goes outside of their immediate project pages unless their teacher or an Education Project "coach" tells them to. The attitudes of "regular" Wikipedians to students seems to range mostly between indifference and bloody nuisance - very few seem to constructively engage with them. This can be seen by the almost total absence of posts by "regulars" on students' talk pages or their project talk pages - except for various bitey warning templates of course! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Having posted comments / feedback on hundreds of students pages I would estimate that response rates are in the 5% range. Agree this is a huge issue. We are putting both a great deal of WMF funds and editor community effort into the educational project. If no long term Wikipedians come out of it, the education program is not scalable. I have not seen any long term Wikipedians come out of the education efforts yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- As a point of reverence, when you say you haven't seen a long term editor come out of the program, how long a period are you talking about? Over the last year? Longer? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)