Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[80hnhtv4agou]

I believe administrators outside of the US, in en wikipedia and in wikidata 
etc., 
 
do not understand, our freedom of speech and our right to due process, and 

that there is  a cultural misunderstanding and a lack of patience on there 
part, 

which leads to an abuse  of power  and a breaking of the rules when it comes 

to blocking  IP’s and others for  just standing up for themselves.  and to that 

end, do not see the good faith edits made, that  were not reverted, and based 

on  other’s intelligent  level not there's.  Everything starts out nice, on tea 
room’s,

noticeboards, forums, and on there talk pages etc.,  and then all goes south, 

as in en wikipedia, and with a now “conflict of interest” just block you, to 
end it.
 
In wikidata which is more technically challenging, editors that claim ownership 

of pages and coming from outside of north america and europe, revert on 

misunderstanding’s, and can not express them self in english, so just rely on 

administrators noticeboard to complain against IP’s without warning,
 
not giving the chance for the ip to defend himself, and to explain that it was 

an edit war. administrators that see these posts at 100’s an hour, just block 

the IP’s or the pages without any kind of  investigation, based on lies of the 

accusers. and these same  administrators that have participated on
 
there talk pages are now in a “conflict of interest”, being  directly involved.
 
and in ru wikipedia, ru wikidata, english speakers are not welcome, from 

there board down to there users. 


>Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:28 AM -05:00 from Ziko van Dijk 
>:
>
>Hello Kerry,
>
>While I agree to most what you said, I think that the bigger picture should
>include that: newbies are not always good contributors, and not always
>good-faith contributors. And even if they have good faith, that does not
>mean that they can be trained to become good contributors. Dealing with
>newbies means always a filtering. MAybe different people are differently
>optimistic about the probability to make a newbie a good contributor.
>
>Kind regards,
>Ziko
>
>Kerry Raymond < kerry.raym...@gmail.com > schrieb am Do. 27. Sep. 2018 um
>06:47:
>
>> While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think
>> most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of
>> the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen
>> some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk
>> out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk
>> first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good
>> experience.
>>
>> Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a
>> newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also there's a
>> high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have
>> contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the most
>> spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully
>> helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any action
>> themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block or
>> at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their
>> User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However, such
>> replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a
>> reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I
>> don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.
>>
>> One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see
>> it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of an
>> edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a
>> lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions
>> one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the
>> edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is
>> one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately "express
>> doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if
>> someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or
>> whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at what
>> that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt
>> about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns that
>> suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really only
>> be seen as a "big picture".
>>
>> Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking
>> about ways research can help with this problem.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
>> On Behalf Of Pine W
>> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2018 1:07 PM
>> To: Wiki Research-l < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >; Rosie
>> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Kerry,

While I agree to most what you said, I think that the bigger picture should
include that: newbies are not always good contributors, and not always
good-faith contributors. And even if they have good faith, that does not
mean that they can be trained to become good contributors. Dealing with
newbies means always a filtering. MAybe different people are differently
optimistic about the probability to make a newbie a good contributor.

Kind regards,
Ziko

Kerry Raymond  schrieb am Do. 27. Sep. 2018 um
06:47:

> While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think
> most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of
> the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen
> some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk
> out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk
> first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good
> experience.
>
> Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a
> newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also there's a
> high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have
> contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the most
> spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully
> helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any action
> themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block or
> at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their
> User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However, such
> replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a
> reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I
> don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.
>
> One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see
> it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of an
> edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a
> lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions
> one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the
> edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is
> one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately "express
> doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if
> someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or
> whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at what
> that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt
> about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns that
> suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really only
> be seen as a "big picture".
>
> Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking
> about ways research can help with this problem.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2018 1:07 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l ; Rosie
> Stephenson-Goodknight 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
> that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
> continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
> retention, civility, and diversity.
>
> I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
> willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
> commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
> experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
> intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
> that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their
> original contributions were in good faith.
>
> I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.
>
> Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can
> think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale
> ways.
>
> 1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and
> continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict
> resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
> I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural
> change could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that
> there are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which
> can be tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my
> impression is that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to
> remove admin privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
FYI https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/work/Q27797938

The point is that the relevance of research and of its authors becomes
increasingly clear from the data we hold in Wikidata.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 02:05, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> Pine
>
> This paper has some good studies about gender and new editors and reverting
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shilad_Sen/publication/221367798_WPClubhouse_An_exploration_of_Wikipedia's_gender_imbalance/links/54bacca00cf253b50e2d0652/WPClubhouse-An-exploration-of-Wikipedias-gender-imbalance.pdf
>
> It shows that both male and female newbies are equally likely to drop out
> after being reverted for good-faith edits, BUT that female newbies are more
> likely to be reverted than male newbies, leading to a greater proportion of
> them dropping out.
>
> It also shows that male and female editors tend to be attracted to
> different types of topic. "There is a greater concentration of females in
> the People and Arts areas, while males focus more on Geography and
> Science." (see Table 1 in the paper). And their engagement with History
> seems lower.
>
> So why are newbie women reverted more? This paper does not investigate
> that. But I think it has to be either than they are reverted because they
> are women (i.e. conscious discrimination) or because women's edits are less
> acceptable in some way.
>
> I have *hypothesised* that newbie women may get reverted more because
> women show higher interest in People but not in History suggesting women
> are more likely to be editing articles about living people than about dead
> people. BLP policy is stricter on verification compared with dead people
> topics,  or with topics in male-attracting topics like Geography and
> Science, so women are perhaps doing more BLP edits as newbies and more
> likely to be reverted because they fail to provide a citation or their
> citation comes from a source which may not be considered reliable (e.g.
> celebrity magazine).
>
> If this could be established as at least a part of the problem, maybe
> there might be targeted solutions to address the problem. E.g. maybe
> newbies should not be allowed to edit articles which are BLP or have a high
> revert history (suggesting it's dangerous territory for some reason, e.g.
> real-world controversy, "ownership") and are deflected to the Talk page to
> suggest edits (as with a protected article or semi-protected article).
> Currently we auto-confirm user accounts at 10 edits or 4 days (from
> memory). But these thresholds are based on the likelihood of vandalism
> (early good-faith behaviour is a good predictor of future good faith
> behaviour). But, having trained people, I know that the auto-confirmation
> threshold should not be used as "beyond newbie" indicator; they are newbies
> for many more edits.
>
> How many edits do you need to stop being a newbie? I don't know, but as I
> know myself with over 100k edits, if I edit an article outside my normal
> interests, I am far more likely to be reverted than in my regular topic
> area, so we can all be newbies in unfamiliar topic spaces. There is a lot
> of convention, pre-existing consensus and other "norms" in topic spaces
> that the "newbie to this topic" doesn't know. All editors in this situation
> may back off, but the established editor has a comfort zone (normal topic
> space) to return to, the total newbie does not.
>
> Kerry
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
To move the needle on English Wikipedia, the numbers involved are huge. So
at best things change incrementally. What fails most of the research is
that it only considers English WIkipedia whereas changes are much easier on
the smaller projects.

I do go as far that in order to become more inclusive we should stop
focusing on English Wikipedia both in attention, spending and research and
by English. Then again there are too many systemic impediments.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 02:44, Jonathan Morgan  wrote:

> (Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
> to increase gender diversity)
>
> Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to
> without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with
> enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and
> hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and
> review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
> social/software system.
>
> I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
> gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
> increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
> increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
> there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
> non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
> policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
> aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
> collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
> Wikipedian.
>
> Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
> outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
> better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once
> the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile
> wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these
> kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall
> impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important
> precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to
> new editors.
>
> The Community Health
>  team
> just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online
> harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since
> they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this
> list, and will point out this thread.
>
> Jonathan: This study  is the
> one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up
>  (expansion?)
> that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short
> but powerful enthnographic study
> . And this lab study
>  on
> the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by
> now--former contributors survey
> ,
> which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people
> leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point
> that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.
>
> Thanks for raising these questions,
>
> - J
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks Pine,
> >
> > In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP
> editing
> > is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy
> > with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to
> > propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone doesn’t mind
> > wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
> >
> > Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> > would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
> >
> > I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses of
> > my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which
> promising
> > lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
> >
> > One where we might have more agreement is over the default four warnings
> > and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block edit warrers
> > for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till a fifth
> offence. I
> > know that the four warnings and a block approach dates back to some of
> the
> > earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to bet that it wasn’t very
> > scientifically arrived at, and that a study of the various behaviours
> that
> > we treat this way would probably