I like Jonathan's suggestion about logging edit conflicts and trying to
figure out the correlation between edit conflicts and people leaving. Might
also be worth looking into how reversions, deletion notifications, and
giant warning templates also affect how likely people are to continue
editing.
There certainly are some POV-pushing editors (e.g. biographers of
non-notable businesspeople, academics, artists, or political candidates)
and in my opinion we are right to prevent from contaminating mainspace with
marketing materials. On the other hand I've seen some overzealous
patrollers make errors in being aggressive to good-faith contributors.
The last time I checked, there were efforts on ENWP to increase the skills
of patrollers and AFC reviewers, and I hope that those produce the desired
effects. Research into this would be beneficial.
Pine
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Jonathan Cardy <werespielchequ...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Some of these things are more difficult to test than others, and indeed
> some are easier to resolve than others. I'm pretty sure that we lose a lot
> of new editors due to edit conflicts. I suspect we can define the people
> who become active editors as being the people who learn how to resolve edit
> conflicts without losing their edit. Unfortunately there are no public logs
> of edit conflicts, but it should be possible to create such logs and test
> how predictive they are of people stopping editing. If such research
> produced the expected result that this was one of the major reasons why we
> lose editors, then there are some minor fixes that have been languishing
> for years in phabricator and its predecessors so we could easily halve the
> number of edit conflicts. If the research showed that edit conflicts
> weren't driving people away from the pedia then we would have learned
> something surprising, and that is always a good thing.
>
> At the other end of the transition scale we have a very very long tail of
> occasional editors. I suspect there is a large group of people among them
> who think of themselves as Wikipedia users but who will fix the odd typo or
> other error if they come across it. I'm assuming such individual editors
> now edit more rarely as they encounter fewer typos etc on Wikipedia. Rather
> than worry that these editors are editing more rarely, I would like to find
> a way of measuring such a group that lets us count their finding fewer
> typos per hundred hours of reading as a positive sign of quality
> improvement rather than as a decline in editing numbers.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 06:06, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> A few years ago the WMF did a survey of former editors, partly to
> >> learn why they'd left. One of the most common responses was "I haven't
> left yet".
> >
> > With the benefit of hindsight (a wonderful thing), that might be a bad
> way to have asked the question. A better way might have been to ask why
> they are no longer active and what circumstances/change would be likely to
> make them active again. What we really want to know if the reasons for
> inactivity are internal/external to Wikipedia and whether the conditions
> for re-engagement are internal/external to Wikipedia. And for the internal
> ones, we'd like to know more specifically what they are.
> >
> > "I haven't left yet, but as soon as my new baby has started school, I
> might have the time for Wikipedia again" (i.e. the cause of inactivity and
> return to activity is outside of Wikipedia's control). There is not a lot
> Wikipedia can do about such a contributors.
> >
> > "I left because I was sick and tired of the unpleasant way people
> behave, but I enjoyed contributing otherwise and would do so again if the
> culture was a lot nicer" is something that WP has some control over but not
> something you can fix in an afternoon.
> >
> > "I left because I just found it too hard, I kept forgetting when to use
> [[ and when to use {{ and I never figured out that <ref> thing" is someone
> that we could potentially re-engage on the spot by saying "hey, try the
> Visual Editor!".
> >
> > Or maybe "I haven't left yet" is more literally true than we think. It
> is possible that the person is still active on Wikipedia but under a
> different user name or as an IP so they just appear to have become inactive
> under their former user name. If a person has had some unpleasant
> experiences on Wikipedia and that is why they became inactive, there are a
> lot of good reasons why they might not like to return under the same user
> name. Wikipedia has an infinitely long memory for things like bans and
> blocks and watch lists last forever. If you got yourself in trouble
> previously but you want to start afresh, you probably want to create a new
> account. If you had bad experiences with some other user who was regularly
> unpleasant to you, you would want a new account as they can watch your User
> page and Talk page forever to detect if you ever return. *Changing* your
> user name doesn't solve that problem, creating a new account does. And of
> course you may just have forgotten your username or your password and
> created a new account.
> >
> > Personally, I am inclined to think that the "I haven't left yet" editors
> (who aren't active under another user name) are probably effectively lost
> to us. Some other interest has almost certainly chewed up their spare time
> during their absence from Wikipedia. There's a big gap between "I'm not
> saying No" to "I'm saying Yes".
> >
> > The other issue is that even if the desired circumstances for
> re-engagement are in place, you still need some kind of way to communicate
> this fact to the "lost users". Given that providing an email address isn’t
> mandatory on creating an account, we can only communicate with those who
> did provide an email address and hope it is still an active one.
> >
> > For example, perhaps we should be emailing all the "lost users" (where
> we can) periodically and saying "Hey, try that Visual Editor" or "get
> involved with #1Lib1Ref" or mentioning some other positive thing that might
> convince them to give it another go.
> >
> > It's been said (and I really don't know if it's true) that people
> respond better to being needed than to being wanted. Maybe we can use that
> in Project Boomerang. Find an article that the lost user has made a lot of
> contributions to but which hasn't grown much since (ignoring all the
> re-categorisations, MoS enforcements, reverted vandalisms, and other edits
> that don't greatly enhance the information content of an article) and tell
> them that article XYZ needs them to come and keep it up-to-date.
> >
> > In sales, they often say it is 10x the effort to get a new customer than
> to retain an existing one. Maybe instead of putting effort into onboarding
> new users (who we have to put through a massive learning curve very fast or
> watch them die the slow death of many reverts and AfC rejections), we
> should put more effort into re-engaging lost users (there's less of a
> learning curve to bring them back).
> >
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
