Based on patrolling thousands of speedies and prod deletions at enWP, of the people whose articles get rejected at enWP, I would say that fewer than 20% of them have even the least likelihood of becoming helpful regular editors. (and I've the reputation of taking an extremely broad view of what might be conceivably be a potentially useful article),
So the actual conversion rate of potential editors is about 1 in 32 for those who write potentially useful articles that nonetheless get rejected as compared to 1 in 22 of those whose articles get accepted. That means that our procedures for scaring away editors of rejected articles only scare away 1/3 of the possibly good ones, and 2/3 persist nonetheless. I am not sure how much better we can get it without doing very extensive work with those editors. We might get a higher yield by working with editors who make edits, but not new articles, encouraging them to continue to make others. Anecdotally, many people edit to fix a single error or add a single fact , and never really want to do anything more. On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:11 AM, emijrp <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all; > > I think we can compare our retention rate with other communities like Wikia. > If its retention rate is higher, we can learn from them, otherwise they can > learn from us. > > Also, some months ago I read about a Facebook study which said that > "Facebook users who edit their profiles in the first day, use to get > involved". But now, I can't find that study. > > Regards, > emijrp > > 2010/9/23 Peter Gervai <[email protected]> > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:49, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > It would take a major effort to get individual wiki communities to >> >> And by that you mean communities on enwp? :-) >> People bite everywhere, and the reasons are the same as well, as you >> properly pointed out. Enpw is the largest so people bite there most >> often. >> >> > (That's because there's ridiculous amounts of complete rubbish to sift >> > through. I'm not saying it's simple or easily remedied negligence on >> > the part of existing community members, because if it was it would >> > have been trivially remedied by now.) >> >> But still I agree that the original topic is mostly non-problem. >> >> Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
