Someone should ping Kevin Gorman on this, I believe he knows of some research. Does anyone know about his health? Is he able to respond?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Sydney Poore <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Christine. There is good work being done as learning has > taken place about the strengths and weaknesses of edit-a-thons. > > Because it has been know for a few years that one off edit-a-thons create > content but don't grow new users, now many people have been experimenting > with different ways to use edit-a-thons other than editor recruitment. > Having an edit-a-thon on a specific topic can increase the quantity and > quality of content on that topic even if the people never edit again. And > the people leave with a better understanding of Wikipedia and the behind > the scene working or the community that seem very mysterious to the outside > world. > > And also regular meet ups to edit like WikiSalons or /Wiki Editing Clubs > are being tried in as a way to create a stable group of people who enjoy > editing together. These people are true Wikipedians even thought they might > not be high volume users. The can fill a needed niche in Wikipedia > especially if they are editing about topics that are under represented on > Wikipedia or they have an alternative perspective than the average > Wikipedian. > > I'm launching an editing club in the topic area of oral health soon. > Because I always mention gender in my Cochrane Collaboration presentations > the women who edit in these clubs know that they are helping to balance the > gender gap on Wikipedia even though that was not their primary reason for > editing.Like most outside organizations Cochrane is at least 50% women. So > by doing these initiatives we are automatically helping the gender gap. > They see this aspect as an added benefit of our collaboration. > > Sydney > > > > Sydney Poore > User:FloNight > Wikipedian in Residence > at Cochrane Collaboration > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Christine Meyer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Kerry and all, >> >> I've been thinking about much of what you wrote. Being in this list has >> made me think about how to recruit and retain more female editors. I >> attended Emily's training about how to conduct workshops and edit-athons in >> Washington, D.C. last fall, which was a very valuable experience. Many >> things germinated during the training, including Rosiestep's creation of >> the Women Writers Project (I'm proud to say that I was present, in the same >> room, when she created it) and the planning stages of the GA Cup, which was >> hugely successful. There was an off-hand remark made during the training >> that I think all the edit-athons and workshops that have occurred since has >> borne out--that the most successful edit-athons in terms of recruiting new >> editors have been reoccurring. >> >> I wonder if the answer is the creation of editing clubs, something that >> has been discussed here before. The reason I'm thinking this way is that >> I'm preparing an educational session I'm leading at the end of April, at >> the District 9 Toastmasters spring conference in Yakima, Washington. (I'm >> a very active Toastmaster, like I'm a very active Wikipedian.) It won't be >> a workshop about how to edit WP, but a more general session about how to >> more effectively use WP to write speeches, although I am providing >> participants with a resource list about editing. So I've been thinking >> about how being a Toastmaster has made me a better WP editor, and how being >> an editor has made me a better Toastmaster. >> >> I'm starting to believe that a more effective way to recruit editors is >> to create clubs like Toastmasters, which meet regularly (once or twice a >> month) and have a core of 7 or 8 people. TM states that 20 members make a >> healthy club, and they should know; they've been in existence for 90 >> years. I agree that editors are born, not made. (Which is ironic, because >> TM's tag line is, "Where leaders are made.") Editing clubs, though, are >> ways to find those folks, and to mentor them through the complex WP >> policies. If they exist on college campuses, they can be folded into the >> university's existing club structure. They can, like TM clubs, be held in >> church basements or in hotel conference rooms or in hospital meeting rooms. >> >> I get what you say about experienced editors have little patience with >> the bungling newbies. However, if it weren't for a few more experienced >> editors who mentored me through my bungling stage, I probably wouldn't be >> here today. Adrienne Wadewitz, btw, was one of them. I think that we, as >> experienced editors, have a responsibility to mentor newbies--to pay it >> forward like others helped us when we were newbies. Shoot, I still need >> it. For example, I'd say that I'm a very experienced editor, and I'm >> stupid when it comes to creating tables. I'm getting assistance with that >> as we speak, in my most recent FLC ( >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets/archive1&redirect=no >> ). >> >> Anyway, that's what I've been thinking. >> >> Christine >> User: Figureskatingfan >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Certainly my own experience with edit training and edit-a-thons is >>> that, while people (both male and female) seem to enjoy the workshop, they >>> don’t come back for more. I increasingly share the view that Wikipedians >>> are born not made. I am not sure that outreach achieves very much, given it >>> is very difficult to scale. So, I am inclined to think that the best >>> investments are in nurturing new organic (as in “self-selecting”) editors >>> and maintaining the enthusiasm of the longer-terms editors. I think it is >>> ultimately “the community” that grinds all of us down in the long term. >>> I’ve heard it expressed in different ways by different folks. Some say >>> they’ve just sick of the vandalism fighting. Personally I did a very short >>> stint as a reviewer for Articles for Review because so many were of them >>> looked dubious notability and probably CoI that I thought why am I >>> bothering (the wrong attitude I know but at least know I understand why AfR >>> produces so few accepted articles – I think you either walk away or turn >>> into a Auto-Reject Reviewer). Others get tired of fixing problems created >>> by an endless stream of newbies making the same well-intentioned but >>> inappropriate edits. My personal peeve is the Lamington article which is >>> frequently changed to say it was invented in New Zealand, but with no >>> sources provided, in an article that currently documents every known early >>> mentions of lamingtons and shows all of them are Australian in origin >>> (sorry, Kiwis, but you need evidence to back up your persistent claims). >>> Others get tired of having run-ins with same grumpy old editors, the >>> gatekeepers, etc. The interaction between the >>> I’ve-really-had-enough-of-these-newbies and the >>> bumbling-but-well-intentioned newbie is clearly a bit part of the problem; >>> it seems one of them gets burned by the interaction (either the old hand >>> flays the newbie or the old hand gives and walks away).. >>> >>> >>> >>> My solution is not female-specific, but I think we do have to recognise >>> that we have years of effort gone into many articles. The people who put >>> that effort in don’t want to keep dealing with the newbie edits on what is >>> often very stable text. I think we have to consider that it isn’t >>> appropriate to have immature editors messing with mature content. It would >>> be kinder to all parties if we could (automatically) flag text that has >>> achieved “maturity” and give it some semi-protection from the newcomers, >>> directing them to the talk page rather than direct edits to the page >>> itself. But let other articles or parts of articles that don’t have >>> maturity to be more able to directly edits by relative newcomers. How do we >>> measure maturity? I am not sure, but I think indicators are survival of >>> much of the text over a long period (disregarding short-lived reverted >>> edits), large number of editors who have contributed to the development of >>> this articles, large watchlist, .., these are machine-measurable things, >>> i.e. could be automated. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think if we can prevent the interactions likely to be unpleasant then >>> maybe people can co-exist a little happier. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kerry >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Christine >> ____________________ >> Christine W. Meyer >> [email protected] >> 208/310-1549 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
