You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public... you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US now) go to the full globe instead...
2012/3/28 <birgitte...@yahoo.com>: > It seems to me that there has been a quite a variety of results to booster > activities, and that the poorest results have come from random educators who > decide to make a "Wikipedia class project" without consulting any veteran > editors rather than from people more thoroughly exposed to the sausage > factory nature of wikis. I don't doubt that outreach can be done very poorly, > I just don't really expect future programs, especially ones with old hats on > board, to make the same mistakes past programs have already discovered for > us. As far I can determine, contributors fall along a full spectrum without > any sort clear way to claim at what point an individual has become an > official editor, nor when one might have forfeited such a status. > > I think that biggest difference in our viewpoints stems from your belief that > there ever has been some sort of natural ecosystem of contributor motivations > and that activities not intended to promote a specific viewpoint are somehow > artificial. In a way, all of it was always artificial, or else it is really > all quite natural given the nature of the system. I can't manage to find > those labels meaningful. Nor can I find any objective criteria that would > make sense to populate two categories of contributors in the way you speak of > one side being boosted over the other by outreach. > > It is however the most natural thing in all of humanity to transform a > complex system down into some sort of false dichotomy. To transform a truly > varied world into "us" and "them." I dislike the necessity of suggesting that > your position may be partially supported by a failure of critical thinking. > However I am at a loss as to what your other side could be, besides that they > are not "us". > > Also while I understand that the last bit is a sort of talking point for your > position, I cannot see why the statistical goals are not understood as > indicative of significant qualities. It is like complaining a sports team > signed a big contract with star player just for the sake of statistics. > Statistics are how you take measure of meaning over time or across groups. > > Birgitte SB > > On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for this email Birgitte. I greatly enjoyed reading it, it give >> insight in not just your own motivation, but mine and several others who >> have come to know. I apologize for my following lengthy response as well. >> This is a well-articulated, reasoned response, that should stand apart from >> the ongoing discussion. >> >> This does not mean I don't disagree with some of your points in the >> discussion. I believe we have two fundamentally different perspectives o >> this. It shapes our opinion of where we are and where we are heading >> towards. The central difference resides on the difference between an editor >> and a member of the crowd. I do not believe every individuals can become an >> editor. I should make a clear distinction here that I am referring to >> active editors, not just every reader who can incidentally make as >> correction to never repeat again. The edits stand on their own, the >> individuals might not. That is where we differ on, the crowd we are both >> referring to is composed of a large majority of those, and very few actual >> editors. The conversion rate between the two has been out of proportion for >> some time now. >> >> It may be that collected edits might be what you are referring to here, not >> the individual contributor. Collected edits form the wisdom of the crowd, >> they are irrespective of who they came from. Editors, curators, new >> contributors, vandals, PR agents, occupy the entire spectrum of the crowd. >> The issue is between the normal ecosystem that came to be on its own, and >> the artificial albeit temporary addition to the equation. >> >> Activities undertaken to artificially boost one side, by incentives and >> outreach effort, have not yielded positive results. We are having this >> discussion because there is a trend that has developed. The past measures >> have not yielded favorable results. It has contrarily, in some cases, >> increased the already heavy burden on one side, the backlogs have only >> increased through them, so have copyright violations and so on. These >> attempts artificially inflate and unbalance the ecosystem, by temporarily >> bringing in an unmotivated crowd for the sake of statistics. >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I snipped previous emails because your summary is accurate and this ended >>> up being massive. Fair warning. >>> >>> Let's say this doesn't happen. Things stay exactly as they are now. No >>> increase in vandals nor PR agents nor anything other kind contributor for >>> the rest of the year. Do you imagine the workload for admins and veteran >>> editors to be acceptable? Do you imagine the quality of articles to be >>> acceptable? They are not. I and am not talking about award-winning levels >>> of quality. I am speaking articles right now that were tagged as being >>> inaccurate, contradictory, or biased many months ago yet still are >>> unaddressed. I am thinking of known contributor's of copyright problems >>> whose edits are cataloged and are waiting for someone willing to tediously >>> review them. I suspect a large factor in the attrition of veteran editors >>> is the current workload as it stands. It is hard to stay motivated when >>> you can't hardly notice your work has made any dent in the backlog. >>> >> >> Yes, there is a difference between the actual workload, generated by >> inaccuracies, copyright violations, policies, plain old vandalism, and the >> one brought in artificially to address a trend. One side is already having >> a hard time with regular tasks, veteran editors are facing attrition, new >> editors are sometimes adding to the backlog instead of lowering it. >> >> Temporarily Incentivizing and bringing in a large number of unmotivated >> editors for the sake of numbers, only exasperates the problem. I believe >> this is the cost of experimentation MZMcBride and others were referring to. >> It only increases the workload over the normal, by temporarily recruiting >> one side of the crowd from which only a minority will continue editing. >> >> >>> >>> I suppose I simply see the bigger concern to be: What if we don't add >>> 1,000 new curators who care to learn how to interpret copyright law and >>> 3,000 new contributors who are willing respond to RfCs and participate in >>> peer review? The vandals will come as inevitably as 8 year-olds transform >>> into 12 year-olds. The PR agents are equally likely to remain consistent. I >>> don't really understand the basis of the concern that this outreach is >>> expected to add more vandals and PR agents. Why is it so suspect that this >>> project could add sincere and useful people which are, perhaps in some >>> aspects of their personality and/or circles of interest, simply a different >>> kind of person than you and I who self-selected to contribute without any >>> such an overt program? But truthfully while there are certainly tasks I >>> selected to work on my own, because I find them inherently captivating >>> (poetry) or because I am inherently driven to understand and make sense out >>> what is presented as arbitrary and seeming senseless to me (copyright law), >>> there are many contributions of significance I have made only because an >>> overt effort was made asking me to contribute personally (peer review >>> Evolution pre-FA) or by a generalized campaign (Proofreads of the Month). >>> So perhaps, the people brought in by such outreach won't be such a >>> different kind of contributor after all. >>> >> >> We can not easily recruit curators. We can make it a part of someone's >> curriculum, provide workshops and teach classes, but it can not motivate >> someone to do so beyond what is required. Curators of content, >> would indisputably have to be self-motivated. New contributors might not >> understand what an RfC is, how to do peer review, our job could only be to >> educated them to the best of our abilities. A job, we haven't been doing >> too well to begin with. >> >> There is also something to be said about the costs. These experiments >> monetarily costs a good deal, not to mention the workload it requires from >> volunteers. All of which pales in comparison to the cost of making new >> editors on English Wikipedia, a priority; the focus for WMF remains those >> new editors. It is in my mind a travesty to focus on them and overlook the >> existing veteran editors and curators. They are deserving of more attention >> than what they receive, this problem only compounds to an abject >> proportion, when you start moving away from English Wikipedia, to sister >> projects and other languages. Curators are not easy to recruit, while >> veteran editors face attrition, our measures completely ignore this core >> group that basically power the projects everyday, for something that might >> affect the statistics and the conversion rates for tomorrow. >> >> I am not suspect that we can not add well meaning and sincere individuals >> willing to contribute, I, like others, am only basing it on the past >> experiments. It is not an easy task, past attempts to engineer the >> community and contributors have not yielded the expected results, it does >> not mean that future experiments will not succeed. The priority there >> should be containing any such fallout from the existing ecosystem. >> >> Disproportionate work load, is another issue. The automated tools and their >> proliferate usage is symptomatic that the existing community does not have >> the time to deal with the workload under normal circumstances. This is in a >> closed environment of its own, the tools are community made and used; a >> reaction to the disproportionate distribution. Add to it attempts to >> engineer the community and incentivize individuals who don't have the >> patience to commit, this would get far too disproportionate, you would have >> more attrition than ever before. And sadly, those attrition statistics >> aren't followed as closely as the new editors. >> >> >>> If the underlying concern is that there are not enough veteran editors >>> willing to educate them, or that these newcomers won't conform to our ways >>> sufficently. Well then maybe the newcomers can educate us instead. We are >>> great at some things we have done, but we are crap at a whole bunch of >>> other things. And was all trial and error to begin with! If new people >>> come and want to do things differently, I can only imagine they will be >>> trying to change the crap things not the great ones. >>> >> >> Perhaps. But I have rarely seen a large, functional, existing communities >> change to accommodate new members. From an example already cited on this >> thread, there might be more credence to this claim already. >> >> >>> I disagree with this summary. In fact, the wisdom of crowds is considered >>> wiser because it assumes the members are *not* homogeneous. The model, >>> however, does not give more weight to members with qualities that normally >>> would earn them weight in more traditional models, which the point most >>> people find counter-intuitive. The reason a larger crowd is supposed to be >>> wiser is because a larger crowd is assumed to be more diverse. I do not >>> see see why a diversity of motivations to participate should be any less >>> desirable than other forms of diversity. >>> >> >> There is probably truth in that statement. But I still believe that >> motivation separates the crowd, when half the contributors are trying to >> work in good faith and be productive, the other half might be consciously >> trying to sabotage the wisdom. No statistical method of analysis can take >> this into account. If people intentionally promote lies and falsehood >> within a group, it only distorts the end results. >> >> >>> I agree I was speaking of the wisdom of crowds model more than the wiki >>> model. I do think there is a wiki-model which has emerged by happenstance >>> and in fleshing it out below realized that the wisdom of crowds is not >>> really inherent to it. For the record, I believe the key facets of a >>> working wiki are as follows: >>> >>> *Low barriers to participation >>> *Self-Governance by participants >>> *Participation is transparent >>> *Critical mass of participation is maintained >>> >>> These are what seem to separate wikis which flourish from wikis which >>> whither. But why use a wiki if you do not want to form the wisdom of >>> crowds? Looking up the key factors for wisdom of the crowds are (these I am >>> not just throwing out there like the above which I really did write before >>> looking this up!): >>> >>> *Diversity of opinion >>> *Independence >>> *Decentralization >>> *Aggregation of output >>> >>> So you can so see why wiki's are such a good model for forming the wisdom >>> of the crowds. Critical mass will often naturally grant a diversity of >>> opinion. Self-Governance inherently grants independence and often leads to >>> decentralization (although I can imagine wiki participants choosing a >>> centralized governance model and losing that one). Transparency means >>> records which preserves all the raw data needed for aggregation. So the two >>> models are a natural fit and tend to feed into one another. After all, it >>> is hard to imagine a critical mass of participants governing themselves in >>> any way at all familiar to our experience without forming the wisdom of the >>> crowds. >>> >> >> I agree with that summarization. >> >> >>> >>> I addressed some of this above and I hope the inline replies do not annoy >>> you, it easier for me to think of it in pieces. I am probably less >>> "social" than the average contributors, but still I feel the community >>> aspect is truly necessary. Especially, with regard to the more tedious >>> chores of curation. If all we needed was people to share their writings on >>> subjects they are passionate about, I would hold your opinion. But >>> community is the power driving much necessary and tedious work (copyvio!). >>> Honestly I burned out on copyright years ago. But I remember thinking >>> myself once upon a time thinking to myself "I cannot leave all of this work >>> for Moonriddengirl to do, no one else helping her! I' ll at least fix X >>> before calling it a night." I do not believe I had any purely social >>> interaction with her at the time of that experience (or ever!), but just >>> receiving some explanation from her and seeing her doing so much good work >>> made me feel an obligation to pitch in. I am certain SJ means community >>> building as working together on a common objective and necessary education >>> of any contributors new to some area of the wiki, rather than socializing >>> for it's own sake. Proofread of the month at Wikisource is probably a good >>> example, but he can correct me if I have misunderstood. Along these lines, >>> I personally find community to be supremely motivating. >>> >> >> Ok there is a distinction here. You were part of the community first, you >> *chose* at some point to work on something in this ecosystem without any >> incentive. The community aspect came in later, to retain and constantly >> engage you. There are different approaches to this. I hope you will agree >> that there are several prolific editors who are even less social than >> anyone. They can continue to contribute year after year without so much as >> a single community-oriented interaction. There are those who remain >> near-anonymous, not revealing a single facet about their personality or >> engaging any other editor. It used to be once that they were not in the >> minority, as it may be now, but their work is not affected by lack of the >> community aspect that might drive others. In my opinion, community aspect >> is more important to retention and engagement, than recruitment. >> >> It takes most new editors months until their first direct interaction >> on-wiki. I have known editors who said they went for an year before they >> had a direct interaction with another editor. It was usually limited to >> warnings and corrections, some have spent even longer without it. It rarely >> affects their work, it does affect their own motivation if they continue >> editing in vacuum. >> >> >>> >>> Truthfully I am highly self motivated to explore and understand things, >>> the community, however, is what motivates me to share my understanding. If >>> I didn't feel community engagement, I imagine I would have merely lurked >>> till I got busy and forgot I had been fascinated by the place. I am sure I >>> would still consult Wikipedia and Wikisource, even if I hadn't ever >>> belonged to the community but I would rarely remember to pull back the >>> curtain and lurk. I have lurked in scores of places over the years, >>> sometimes one thing in particular will really motivate to comment. Mostly I >>> begin to comment and find the barrier to participating troublesome and >>> change my mind, less often I actually leave a comment on the topic that >>> motivated me. Nowhere else have I stuck around more than three months. And >>> I am not even sure how you guys laid a claim on me. And it is not the >>> overall project, although I really still find the whole idea as marvelous >>> as ever, it the people that I bound to more than the idea. As I said I >>> really don't have the strong individual social ties that I see among others >>> here. So I mean the collective of people, the collective which also sees >>> this Marvelous Possibility which barely resembles the feeble attempts we >>> have managed so far. I feel this collective belongs a little bit to me and >>> owns a little bit of me in return. That it would be irresponsible of me, >>> no, worse dishonorable of me, not to tell you guys that I see rocks ahead >>> when I happen to see rocks ahead. Or to stay quiet when people are talking >>> about the sky falling and it all seems rather normal to me. I know people >>> can perceive me as angry sometimes (often?), but really I am not so >>> attached to what is finally decided out of my line of sight. However, I do >>> feel this obligation with you guys that I feel no where else outside of my >>> employer, with those things sent for public consumption. That I have share >>> any strong convictions with you, even when I find it unpleasant, in order >>> to sleep in good conscience. It matters much less to me whether or not my >>> opinion prevails than that I offered it, that I discharged my duty. So this >>> is all rather anecdotal, but I believe community engagement is really the >>> only thing that has ever driven my participation past the curious stage. I >>> wanted to help the hard-working and helpful *people* I observed on the >>> wikis long before I understood the full implications of the project. And >>> then at some point, which I can't pin down, it had become my community >>> where I was obligated to share myself, which is an even stranger thing in >>> my experience. This part is probably incomprehensible, but I cannot >>> articulate these thoughts any clearer. I tried not to use the word >>> community to steer clear of begging the question in describing community >>> engagement, but substitute community for any of that if makes more sense. >>> >> >> And this is the part I am most grateful to you for writing. I have nothing >> more to say about this then, Thank you. I see my own self in more than half >> of what you are describing.(I hope Sj and a couple of other board members >> can see the similarities in the part about being perceived angry, warning >> when I see rocks, and sharing my strong convictions.) >> >> >>> Maybe my non-article writing background is influencing me here, but there >>> really are simple tasks anyone on Facebook could do (Proofread of the >>> month). There are things that can be done entirely individually without >>> *needing* to understand a single policy tome (peer review). I also imagine >>> a lot of potential for breaking down existing backlogs into some >>> incremental tasks which could used as introduction to more complex issues. >>> I am sure there is all kinds of other stuff I haven't been exposed as well. >>> And really do you think people on Facebook really care that much about >>> some song or what they ate? Those people are just sitting in front of a >>> computer feeling bored. They are being directly prompted to "post your >>> status" while eating a plate of food and the radio playing in the >>> background. They could equally satisfy their boredom being asked to do >>> something useful on a wiki. I don't imagine Facebook really appeals to >>> them any more than it appeals to me. It probably just appeals to them more >>> than nothing at all. >> >> >> There is still some requirement to contribute I suppose, just as it would >> be to reading a newspaper or writing a letter - Not everyone is cut out to >> be an editor. I don't believe that those are the same skill sets that >> entail pressing "Like" to something, and editing an article. The >> distinction again, is editing not performing simplified task that would >> only require someone to press a button. I would reiterate that Facebook is >> a social networking platforms, after all the "Likes", status updates and >> "lol"s, there would be nothing left of value. In our case, what we are left >> with in the end, is the goal, the other aspects of a community might only >> be incidental in the end. No one is stopping anyone from relieving their >> boredom on Wikipedia, the person just has to choose. Maybe we can find >> incremental tasks and setup ways to make certain tasks as easy as playing a >> game on FB, but then again, isn't that one of the criticism about automated >> tools and turning patrolling into a game. >> >> Regards >> Theo >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
