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

[Kerry Raymond]

I am with you 100% on the principle that if we don't change how we do things, 
nothing will change in terms of our outcomes. But I guess what we are debating 
is what the change should be.

Our problem is indeed one of ideology as we have three  statements of ideology 
underpinning Wikipedia. We have the vision:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free 
access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

We have the 5 Pillars which I assume we all know so I won't elaborate here

and we have the main page that says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free 
encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." 

Frankly these various ideologies don't combine terribly well and I think that 
"anyone can edit" is something that we do have to re-think. At the end of the 
day we are building and (increasingly) maintaining an encyclopaedia. We do need 
adequately educated people to do this. The ability to research and write is not 
innate, most people have to learn it through a formal education process. Now I 
am not suggesting a formal education barrier to participation but really, if 
you can't cite, you can't write for Wikipedia. Maybe you can fill other roles 
in Wikipedia but not as a content writer. 

We absolutely do need new contributors. We know we have a contributor gap and a 
content gap and there is research that shows these are related. But I am not 
convinced that the vandals and self-promoters are part of our contributor gap. 
I suspect our bad faith editors are predominantly white male and 1st-world, and 
we have plenty of good faith contributors from that group already. Do we have 
any evidence that vandals turn into productive contributors? Have we surveyed 
our existing editor community on how many of them started out as a vandal?

Maybe we could turn CoI and bias around to be a motivator? A lot of the 
self-promoters seem to be quite well educated. Let's have some new namespaces 
e.g. "CV" (for CVs), "Essay" (for opinions). Maybe you get to the right to one 
of these for every N  productive edits you do in mainspace. Obviously they get 
displayed to the reader in a way that makes clear these are "personal views" or 
whatever words are appropriate so there is no misrepresentation of what they 
are. And of course they should be subject to our normal rules about puffery, 
hate speech etc. And they can choose to have or not have an associated talk 
page. But I would put one caveat on these new namespaces, verified identity. If 
you want to advertise yourself and your views, you need to stand up and be 
honest about who you are (but it doesn't have to be linked to your normal user 
name or IP editing for those who edit on "sensitive" topics). After enough good 
mainspace edits, you get a token that you can "cash in" for one of these 
personal statement pages. This works well for the paid editors. They can write 
good edits on mainspace topics to earn tokens to write CVs and personal 
statements for their clients (as long as their clients are happy to verify 
their real world identity). And as the easiest way to get a good edit is to 
revert vandalism, maybe we can solve our vandalism problem that way.

Maintenance is a problem. 2016 we had a census in Australia. We still have 
loads of town/suburb articles with 2011 census date, and I stumble over 2006 
data too. (Note this is not easy to automate as the internal identifiers used 
for the places are not stable from one census to the next -- if it was, we 
would have automated this). Let's set this kind of stuff up into a pipeline 
like Mechanical Turk as another way to get "good edits". Indeed let's consider 
whether the price of paying folks in the third world to do this kind of 
maintenance might be worth it. They are pretty cheap and they need the money.

We need to nurture the good faith new contributors. Could we have something 
that isn't "un-do: but say "re-do" which acts some kind of referral to a more 
caring part of Wikipedia than your average editor to help them learn how to do 
it beter? E.g. Teahouse type people.

But back to the contributer gap. We do need to do something about oral 
knowledge, such as we have in Australian Indigenous communities. At the moment, 
this is a verification problem. But Indigenous people don't have a verification 
problem. They know who their elders are and they know who they trust to hear 
their lore fromMaybe we need a family of templates, e.g. {{Oral Quandamooka}} 
that tells the reader that what's inside this box (or however we present it) is 
oral knowledge provided by" SoAndSo, Elder Of the Quandamooka People", and 
within such templates, normal verification does not apply but there is some 
culturally appropriate real world verification that is used to authorised 
certain user names to use that template. It might not be the respected elder 
themselves as they may not be technologically savvy but it might be someone 
they designate to assist them with the task. And of course, 

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

[Jonathan Morgan]

whoops, last sentence of paragraph #5 should read "You *CAN* have higher
walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
higher newcomer retention (or diversity)."

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> Kerry,
>
> I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want
> to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your
> background and the thought you've put into this issue).
>
> I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds
> of actions, or editing certain pages, is a mistake. This was a mistake with
> ACTRIAL, and it would be a mistake with any other newcomer quality-control
> or harm-mitigation strategies--however well intentioned.
>
> It's a mistake for two reasons, First, it runs counter to the spirit of
> Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more 'closed' over time in both formal and
> informal ways. This is a common patterns for social movements as well as
> organizations--it's not unexpected, and to a certain extent it may be
> necessary, but in *Wikipedia's *case it directly violates the fundamental
> values and goals of the project. That means creeping bureaucracy and
> "in-group" mentalities are inherently more damaging to Wikipedia than it
> would be to, say, Microsoft, or Facebook, or even Stackexchange.
>
> Second, being explicitly denied the opportunity to make particular kinds
> of contributions (as opposed to being nudged towards other options,
> explained to why something is a bad idea, or shown the likely outcomes of
> certain actions) is an even bigger motivation-killer, long term, than
> having bad experiences due to stumbling onto the "freeway" (nice
> metaphor!).
>
> Especially considering that both the current EnWiki community and the
> current content embed major biases and gaps, we can't afford to make it
> harder for the new people who have the expertise, the perspective, and the
> passion to correct those biases and fill those gaps from participating as
> full-fledged members of the community. Full stop. You can't have higher
> walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
> higher newcomer retention (or diversity).
>
> Wikipedia (esp. EnWiki) has basically two options at this point, with
> maybe some narrow-ish middle ways between them:
> 1. Continue to make it harder and harder for new people to contribute,
> through political and technological means, thus preserving the current
> content to a great degree, but diminishing the relevance of the project as
> a whole as it becomes increasingly incomplete, out of date, and limited in
> scope.
>
> 2. Try to make it easy as possible for newcomers (with their new
> knowledge, sometimes different values, and yes, sometimes *mixed
> motivations*) to contribute, and try to make the project feel as exciting
> for them as it was for people who joined in 2004; accept that taking this
> track will lead to a degree of vandalism and COI (although probably not
> different in scale than current or historical levels), and invest heavily
> in algorithmic quality control, streamlined onboarding and socialization,
> diversity-friendly policy change, expansive and public offline initiatives,
> and all the other "suite" of methods intended to scale the ability of the
> current community to handle additional growth and diversity in content and
> contributors.
>
> #1 involves no great risk to the "community" besides gradual obsolescence;
> Wikipedia will go the way of many other social institutions that failed to
> adapt. But it will do so slowly, and continue to provide value in the
> process. It just won't ever be the world's encyclopedia.
>
> #2 involves risk because the intention behind it is that the community
> will look different, the content will look different, the mechanisms for
> contributing will look different, and the policies will look different in
> 10 years vs. today. But it is the only shot at continuing to meaningfully
> pursue the original mission at this point. I personally would love to see
> this happen--as a contributor, as a scholar, as a world citizen who
> believes in Wikipedia--but it involves risk because it means that people
> who have power will need to give it up. That's never easy.
>
> (Opinions my own, not those of WMF)
> - J
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
>> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>>
>> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
>> to prevent libel.
>>
>> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
>> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group
>> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add
>> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low
>> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If
>> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it
>> before it 

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

[Jonathan Morgan]

Kerry,

I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want
to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your
background and the thought you've put into this issue).

I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds
of actions, or editing certain pages, is a mistake. This was a mistake with
ACTRIAL, and it would be a mistake with any other newcomer quality-control
or harm-mitigation strategies--however well intentioned.

It's a mistake for two reasons, First, it runs counter to the spirit of
Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more 'closed' over time in both formal and
informal ways. This is a common patterns for social movements as well as
organizations--it's not unexpected, and to a certain extent it may be
necessary, but in *Wikipedia's *case it directly violates the fundamental
values and goals of the project. That means creeping bureaucracy and
"in-group" mentalities are inherently more damaging to Wikipedia than it
would be to, say, Microsoft, or Facebook, or even Stackexchange.

Second, being explicitly denied the opportunity to make particular kinds of
contributions (as opposed to being nudged towards other options, explained
to why something is a bad idea, or shown the likely outcomes of certain
actions) is an even bigger motivation-killer, long term, than having bad
experiences due to stumbling onto the "freeway" (nice metaphor!).

Especially considering that both the current EnWiki community and the
current content embed major biases and gaps, we can't afford to make it
harder for the new people who have the expertise, the perspective, and the
passion to correct those biases and fill those gaps from participating as
full-fledged members of the community. Full stop. You can't have higher
walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and
higher newcomer retention (or diversity).

Wikipedia (esp. EnWiki) has basically two options at this point, with maybe
some narrow-ish middle ways between them:
1. Continue to make it harder and harder for new people to contribute,
through political and technological means, thus preserving the current
content to a great degree, but diminishing the relevance of the project as
a whole as it becomes increasingly incomplete, out of date, and limited in
scope.

2. Try to make it easy as possible for newcomers (with their new knowledge,
sometimes different values, and yes, sometimes *mixed motivations*) to
contribute, and try to make the project feel as exciting for them as it was
for people who joined in 2004; accept that taking this track will lead to a
degree of vandalism and COI (although probably not different in scale than
current or historical levels), and invest heavily in algorithmic quality
control, streamlined onboarding and socialization, diversity-friendly
policy change, expansive and public offline initiatives, and all the other
"suite" of methods intended to scale the ability of the current community
to handle additional growth and diversity in content and contributors.

#1 involves no great risk to the "community" besides gradual obsolescence;
Wikipedia will go the way of many other social institutions that failed to
adapt. But it will do so slowly, and continue to provide value in the
process. It just won't ever be the world's encyclopedia.

#2 involves risk because the intention behind it is that the community will
look different, the content will look different, the mechanisms for
contributing will look different, and the policies will look different in
10 years vs. today. But it is the only shot at continuing to meaningfully
pursue the original mission at this point. I personally would love to see
this happen--as a contributor, as a scholar, as a world citizen who
believes in Wikipedia--but it involves risk because it means that people
who have power will need to give it up. That's never easy.

(Opinions my own, not those of WMF)
- J


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>
> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
> to prevent libel.
>
> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group
> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add
> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low
> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If
> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it
> before it is fixed by a subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from
> me to fix it before anyone is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them.
>
> The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very
> interesting research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop
> risk models that predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted
> edits (e.g. quality rating, 

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

[Pine W]

Those all sound like good suggestions. I have flagged this entire
conversation for me to review if and when I get funding for continuing work
on my project. I hope that the WMF Growth team is also aware of this
conversation.

By the way, Edward, if you're still reading this, thanks for letting us
have an extended conversation about community health in the thread that you
started about the CEI survey.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:54 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> Stripping out a long email trail ...
>
> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs
> to prevent libel.
>
> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in
> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group
> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add
> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low
> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If
> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it
> before it is fixed by a subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from
> me to fix it before anyone is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them.
>
> The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very
> interesting research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop
> risk models that predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted
> edits (e.g. quality rating, length, type of article eg BLP, level of
> readership, number of active watchers, etc) and there might be separate
> models specifically for newbies revert risk and female newbie revert risk.
>
> Or we just simply calculate the proportion of  reverted edits and just use
> declare anything over some threshold as “high risk” and not bother finding
> out what the article characteristics are. We could also calculate what is
> the newbie revert rate.
>
> Then we have something actionable. We could treat the high risk articles
> (by predictive model or straight stats) as semi-protected and divert
> newbies from making direct edits. Or at least warn them before letting them
> loose. For that matter, warn any user if they are entering into a high
> conflict zone.
>
> When you learn to drive a car, you normally start in the quiet streets,
> not a busy high speed freeway, not narrow winding roads without guard rails
> up a mountain. Why shouldn’t we take the same attitude to Wikipedia? Start
> where it is safe.
>
> 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!

[Kerry Raymond]

Stripping out a long email trail ...

I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs to 
prevent libel.

What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in “high 
risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group which 
deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add schools to 
local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low levels of 
watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If the newbie first 
edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it before it is fixed by a 
subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from me to fix it before anyone 
is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them. 

The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very interesting 
research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop risk models that 
predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted edits (e.g. quality 
rating, length, type of article eg BLP, level of readership, number of active 
watchers, etc) and there might be separate models specifically for newbies 
revert risk and female newbie revert risk. 

Or we just simply calculate the proportion of  reverted edits and just use 
declare anything over some threshold as “high risk” and not bother finding out 
what the article characteristics are. We could also calculate what is the 
newbie revert rate. 

Then we have something actionable. We could treat the high risk articles (by 
predictive model or straight stats) as semi-protected and divert newbies from 
making direct edits. Or at least warn them before letting them loose. For that 
matter, warn any user if they are entering into a high conflict zone.

When you learn to drive a car, you normally start in the quiet streets,  not a 
busy high speed freeway, not narrow winding roads without guard rails up a 
mountain. Why shouldn’t we take the same attitude to Wikipedia? Start where it 
is safe.

Kerry
___
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!

[Pine W]

Further thought regarding the notability criteria for BLPs: Asaf made a
suggestion awhile ago, and unfortunately I can't remember exactly where I
heard about it, but I thought that it was a good idea. He suggested being
more context-specific when considering the bar for BLPs. I think that his
statement went something like this: in a culture where having information
about someone be published in newspapers is a rarity, the lack of being
published in a newspaper is not a good test for whether someone should be
considered notable. I think that Asaf's proposal was more nuanced than I'm
describing it, but in general I thought that it was worth seriously
considering.

If someone meets a revised notability bar for a BLP, there may still be a
problem with finding information that is verifiable and reliable. I don't
know of a good way to deal with that. I think that we have a problem with
believing (this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think that you'll
understand my point) that if something is written in a book that is
published by a reputable publisher that therefore it must be reliable and
verifiable, while something is not reliable and verifiable if it is
communicated only orally in a culture where written communications are rare
or nonexistent. I don't know how to deal with that problem, but I do think
that it's a problem.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:06 AM Pine W  wrote:

> WSC,
>
> I think that we'd need to be very careful about lowering the bar for BLPs
> on ENWP, because there are innumerable non-notable professionals who seem
> to pay people to add their biographies (and/or small organizations) to
> Wikipedia, and I am more happy to keep them out of the world's encyclopedia
> unless they've done something that's more significant than publishing an
> occasional scholarly article, owning a small consultancy, and receiving a
> few professional distinctions like "adjunct professor of cardiology at XYZ
> University". I'm not saying that we can't lower the bar, but we'd want to
> be very careful about doing so in order to avoid giving marketers and PR
> people a wider opening for using Wikipedia as a marketing and PR platform.
>
> I'm very supportive of improving the user experience for aspiring
> contributors who use mobile devices, but I am not optimistic that this will
> lead to a substantial increase in the population of ENWP Wikipedians who
> can become proficient with the details of our many policies, are willing to
> persist through negative experiences with other contributors (including
> vandals, overzealous patrollers, POV-pushers, etc.), and volunteer their
> time for high profile roles like WikiProject coordinator or ENWP
> administrator. Perhaps non-English Wikipedias do better with editor
> retention; I'm also thinking that Commons might be a good place for new
> contributors to start if and when mobile editing becomes more user-friendly.
>
> I think that making reversions feel less hostile would be good for
> diversity and good for editor retention in general, so I'd suggest that WMF
> prioritize working on that point. I'm also hoping to improve user
> onboarding with my video project and in collaboration with the WMF Growth
> team. I generally appreciate how Kerry is thinking about these problems;
> she and I have both given feedback to the WMF Growth team.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
___
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!

[Jonathan Cardy]

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting piece of research.

I’m glad, though not surprised to see that among the regulars women are more 
likely to become admins than men. I would like to count that as evidence that 
the core community is not consciously sexist, though it may also be proof of a 
theory of mine about the heyday of Adminship 2004-2007 - just before I started 
editing. This was the era when “good vandalfighter” was sufficient 
qualification to pass adminship. It was also the era when a lot of teenagers 
and adolescents came to the defence of wikipedia and patrolled it for the sort 
of vandalism that is now reverted by computer programs. My hypothesis about 
that era is that teenage boys would oppose each others requests for adminship 
(RFA) if they thought that other boys were younger or less qualified than they 
had been when they became admins. But teenage boys didn’t oppose the RFAs of 
teenage girls. Girls, and women in general, are less likely to push the 
boundaries by running for adminship before they are clearly qualified, and here 
I think the vagueness of the criteria for adminship may deter women more than 
men. It would be interesting to look at the gender ratios of clear versus 
narrow results at RFA, I suspect that women are disproportionately among the 
near unanimous results (>95% support) as opposed to those with more substantial 
opposition.

I am disappointed to hear that the gender ratio is not improving, but 
considering the ossification of a broadly stable community and the shorter 
Wikipedia career of women, the risk is that the gender gap grows over time 
unless we can lengthen the Wiki career of women or get an infusion of new women 
into the community.

The higher revert rate, and greater contention, does leave me wondering if 
Wikipedia’s notability criteria may be institutionally sexist or at least a 
reflection of sexism in society. In academia and many other professions it is 
or has been harder to get to the top if you take a career break to have a 
family. Wikipedia’s notability criteria generally skew our biographies to those 
who get to the top in their professions. This could be a double whammy for 
women editors, if they write about other women they may be steering themselves 
to subjects deemed by wikipedia to be more marginally notable, and if they seek 
to avoid controversy by writing about the unsung figures in a field they are 
skewing themselves towards articles where sufficient notability for includion 
in Wikipedia is itself controversial.

The huge differential between female readership and female editorship and our 
relative failure compared to some other sites leaves me wondering how much of 
this is down to our problems with mobile editing. In theory Wikipedia can be 
edited on the mobile platform, however very very few do that, and the mobile 
platform is much closer to being a broadcast media than the “desktop” platform. 
If the  gender ratio among PC and netbook users is different to the gender 
ratio among tablet and smartphone readers then this could account for some of 
our gender imbalance - and make improving editing on mobile a gendergap issue 
as well as an ethnic-gap issue.

WSC

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Wiki-research-l  on behalf 
of Kerry Raymond 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:05:02 AM
To: 'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

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 to

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

[Kerry Raymond]

As advice to an individual editor on how to deal with good faith but 
problematics edits, I would say give the newbie feedback on exactly what the 
specific problem is with their reverted edit explain how to fix it, and 
continue to watch the article and their user talk page to see how they are 
going, and keep offering help until they get it right.

For my long answer on how to do it at scale, see my other longer email.

Kerry
 

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2018 5:01 AM
To: Wiki Research-l 
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

Kerry,

This discussion about reverts, combined with my recent experience on ENWP, 
makes me wonder if there's a way to make reverts feel less hostile on average. 
Do you have any ideas about how to do that?

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) 
___
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!

[Kerry Raymond]

I have seen this too in face-to-face situations. While it is COI, if it’s 
notable and written factually, I don’t worry too much (I might swing past it 
later and just remove any puffery that may have crept in). I do stop them 
writing about themselves or other living people with whom they may have a COI. 
There’s a fine line between “having an interest” and “having a conflict of 
interest” and I find the dead/living distinction tends to make a difference. An 
article about a dead person is unlikely to be promotional, which is the big 
concern with COI.

 

I find edit-a-thons have more risk around CoI and notability, particularly when 
the organisers have not provided a list of possible topics but let the 
participants choose their own (I am generally supporting these events as an 
experienced Wikipedian rather than organising them). Also they are often larger 
groups than training sessions so it is a lot more difficult for me to know what 
they are all writing about and be able to chat to them about why they chose 
that topic, so I am far less likely to be aware if there is CoI.

 

Kerry

 

From: Ziko van Dijk [mailto:zvand...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2018 10:21 PM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Cc: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
; Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 

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

 

Hello Kerry,

 

Sorry, I did not see all the mails and the context before.

 

I remember a gentleman in a training lesson who wanted to write about his 
grandfather. Notability no problem, and no obvious bias. Why not assume Good 
Faith. But still, one might ask oneself whether this is an ideal situation. It 
is tricky. In general I totally agree that the hostility is a problem.

 

Kind regards

Ziko

 

 

Kerry Raymond mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com> > 
schrieb am Sa. 29. Sep. 2018 um 08:27:

Well, I run training and events. The folk who turn up to these are always good 
faith, typically middle-aged and older, mostly women, and of  above-average 
education for their age (our oldest Australians will not all have had the 
opportunity to go to high school) and generally acceptable IT skills. I think 
most of them are capable of being good contributors and their errors are mostly 
unintentional, e.g. copyright is not always well understood and so there are 
photo uploads from “family albums” or “our local history collection” where the 
provenance of the image is unknown  and hence its copyright status is unclear. 
But off-line activities like mine are too few in number to make a significant 
impact on en.WP. We have to get better at attracting and on-boarding people via 
on-line.

 

Obviously on my watchlist I see plenty of  blatant and subtle vandalism, so I 
am not naïve about that, but I do also see what appears to be good faith 
behaviour from newbies too. I suspect people who only see their watchlist have 
a more negative view about newbies than I do.

 

So, yes, we may have to filter out some of the good faith folks if their 
behaviour remains problematic, but reverting them for any small problem in 
their early edits certainly isn’t proving to be an effective strategy. 

 

Kerry

 

From: Ziko van Dijk [mailto:zvand...@gmail.com <mailto:zvand...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:27 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
mailto:wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >; kerry.raym...@gmail.com 
<mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com> 
Cc: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight mailto:rosiestep.w...@gmail.com> >


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

 

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 mailto: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 abou

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

[Pine W]

Kerry,

This discussion about reverts, combined with my recent experience on ENWP,
makes me wonder if there's a way to make reverts feel less hostile on
average. Do you have any ideas about how to do that?

Thanks,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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!

[Pine W]

Ziko,

That's certainly true. I think that Aaron Halfaker and the ORES team were
hoping to use ORES to identify with greater certainty which newbies are
likely to be good-faith very early in their edit counts, so as to try to
route those newbies to the Teahouse and other places where they could get
support. Perhaps Aaron or Jonathan Morgan could comment on how successful,
or unsuccessful, those efforts with ORES were.

More recently ORES seems to be focusing on helping experienced Wikimedians
to identify vandalism.

Gerard makes a good point that moving the needle in a statistically
significant way on a huge project like ENWP is a challenging goal. On the
other hand, the continuing inflow of new editors, on ENWP and elsewhere,
gives me hope that we have some time to increase the viability and
sustainability of the projects. Also, on ENWP and other large projects, if
someone finds a way to increase the retention of good-faith contributors by
a relatively small percentage, because the numbers involved are so large, a
small percentage change can be very valuable in terms of absolute numbers.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:27 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> 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

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Kerry,

Sorry, I did not see all the mails and the context before.

I remember a gentleman in a training lesson who wanted to write about his
grandfather. Notability no problem, and no obvious bias. Why not assume
Good Faith. But still, one might ask oneself whether this is an ideal
situation. It is tricky. In general I totally agree that the hostility is a
problem.

Kind regards
Ziko


Kerry Raymond  schrieb am Sa. 29. Sep. 2018 um
08:27:

> Well, I run training and events. The folk who turn up to these are always
> good faith, typically middle-aged and older, mostly women, and of
> above-average education for their age (our oldest Australians will not all
> have had the opportunity to go to high school) and generally acceptable IT
> skills. I think most of them are capable of being good contributors and
> their errors are mostly unintentional, e.g. copyright is not always well
> understood and so there are photo uploads from “family albums” or “our
> local history collection” where the provenance of the image is unknown  and
> hence its copyright status is unclear. But off-line activities like mine
> are too few in number to make a significant impact on en.WP. We have to get
> better at attracting and on-boarding people via on-line.
>
>
>
> Obviously on my watchlist I see plenty of  blatant and subtle vandalism,
> so I am not naïve about that, but I do also see what appears to be good
> faith behaviour from newbies too. I suspect people who only see their
> watchlist have a more negative view about newbies than I do.
>
>
>
> So, yes, we may have to filter out some of the good faith folks if their
> behaviour remains problematic, but reverting them for any small problem in
> their early edits certainly isn’t proving to be an effective strategy.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Ziko van Dijk [mailto:zvand...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:27 PM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia
> survey are published!
>
>
>
> 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 Fac

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

[Kerry Raymond]

Well, I run training and events. The folk who turn up to these are always good 
faith, typically middle-aged and older, mostly women, and of  above-average 
education for their age (our oldest Australians will not all have had the 
opportunity to go to high school) and generally acceptable IT skills. I think 
most of them are capable of being good contributors and their errors are mostly 
unintentional, e.g. copyright is not always well understood and so there are 
photo uploads from “family albums” or “our local history collection” where the 
provenance of the image is unknown  and hence its copyright status is unclear. 
But off-line activities like mine are too few in number to make a significant 
impact on en.WP. We have to get better at attracting and on-boarding people via 
on-line.

 

Obviously on my watchlist I see plenty of  blatant and subtle vandalism, so I 
am not naïve about that, but I do also see what appears to be good faith 
behaviour from newbies too. I suspect people who only see their watchlist have 
a more negative view about newbies than I do.

 

So, yes, we may have to filter out some of the good faith folks if their 
behaviour remains problematic, but reverting them for any small problem in 
their early edits certainly isn’t proving to be an effective strategy. 

 

Kerry

 

From: Ziko van Dijk [mailto:zvand...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:27 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
; kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Cc: Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

 

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 mailto: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 
<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 mailto:wiki-research-l@lists.wikime

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

[80hnhtv4agou]

 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
>> Stephenson-Goodknight < rosiestep.w...@gmail.com >
>> 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
>> a discussion awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for
>> administrators, and I'm adding her to this email chain as an invitation for
>> her to participate in this discussion. I think that offering training to
>> administrators could be helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.
>>
>> 2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
>> of my training project <
>>  
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project
>> >
>> that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
>> sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
>> in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
>> newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
>> and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
>> improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
>> contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
>> their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
>> received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
>> incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
>> overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pine
>> (  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>> ___
>> 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



___
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!

[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 

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]

rst 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 conclude that we could reduce the number
> > of warnings for vandals, whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non
> > neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material.
> > Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> > neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t generally
> > have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block, the same isn't
> > always true of others.
> >
> > The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> > effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that
> > the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> > snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> > that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails
> to
> > improve the behaviour of some who would comply with stricter civility
> > enforcement. It would be really useful to have a study one could point to
> > when that argument next recurs.
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> > 
> > From: Wiki-research-l  on
> > behalf of Pine W 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> > To: Wiki Research-l
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> > are published!
> >
> > I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
> > it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
> > intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
> > ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
> > dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
> > neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
> > example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
> > questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
> > allegations.
> >
> > On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve
> itself
> > directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend
> Wikimedia
> > events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply
> unhappy
> > with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for
> those
> > choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
> > for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are
> elected
> > from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
> > elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
> > Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers,
> and
> > over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators
> appearing
> > to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions
> are a
> > precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process
> is
> > a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
> > difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly
> skilled
> > people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
> > avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
> > committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
> > very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
> > diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that
> I
> > haven't worked out.
> >
> > We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
> > discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest
> doing
> > so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about
> blocking
> > all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
> > net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated
> when
> > keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
> > negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Wou

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

[Kerry Raymond]

Again, to bring this back to some research question, why do female newbie 
editors get reverted more?

Possible research question. Where (topic space) are the reverts happening and 
what types of reason given? Is there any sign that male/female are affected 
differently? To what extent does level of editing experience affect this?

One research side-question. Should we just be comparing male vs female or 
should we look at the unknowns? I know some people think that we have more 
women than we think but that they choose not to self-identify as such on 
Wikipedia. If we compared various statistics for no-gender editors with that of 
self-identifying male and female editors, does it give us any insight on what 
the likely gender composition of the no-gender group are. For example, if among 
self-identifying editors we known there is a 90-10 gender split, then if the 
no-gendered are also 90-10 split, then statistics about the non-gendered 
editors should show corresponding averages (male stat * 90 + female stat * 10). 
If they do not, then can we use a range to statistics to back calculate the 
likely gender split of the non-gendered group? Has anyone ever done this? 

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2018 10:05 AM
To: 'Research into Wikimedia content and communities' 

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

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

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

[Kerry Raymond]

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

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

[Pine W]

Hi Kerry,

Your comments are well taken (at least by me)!

I like the idea of letting users upvote or downvote edits, and having a
time-weighted average of those scores be public or at least visible to
administrators. Users who accumulate a significant number of downvotes
would be good for admins to review, especially if those downvotes come from
multiple users in a short period of time. Upvotes could be closely linked
to the "Thanks" feature, except that users could be offered the option to
thank anonymously or thank non-anonymously. I suggest that you propose your
suggestions in IdeaLab, and I may make some comments on the IdeaLab post.
The Anti-Harrassment Tools Team might be interested in that idea for their
own reasons.

Regarding reversions, I think that I heard Jonathan Morgan once say that
reverting good-faith new editors makes them significantly more likely to
stop editing. Perhaps he could share some research or thoughts on that
point, and any other thoughts about the problem with excessively aggressive
reversions and/or comments on reversions.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:47 AM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> 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

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

[Kerry Raymond]

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 a discussion awhile back with 
Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm adding her to this 
email chain as an invitation for her to participate in this discussion. I think 
that offering training to administrators could be helpful in facilitating 
changes to ENWP culture.

2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context of 
my training project 
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project>
that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. 

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 themselves  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. 


>Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:08 PM -05:00 from Pine W :
>
>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 a discussion
>awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm
>adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in
>this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be
>helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.
>
>2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
>of my training project
>< 
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project
> >
>that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
>sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
>in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
>newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
>and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
>improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
>contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
>their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
>received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
>incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
>overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.
>
>Regards,
>
>Pine
>(  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>___
>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!

[Pine W]

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 a discussion
awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm
adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in
this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be
helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.

2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
of my training project

that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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!

[Jonathan Morgan]

A recently published report which is relevant to this discussion:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_equity_report_2018/Barriers_to_equity

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:57 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving
> 50-50 male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times
> 49-49-2). Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at
> domestic tasks than their husbands, even when both are in full-time
> employment, and clearly less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But
> still men now do more housework than they once did. (My husband would argue
> that I have never let housework take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm
> not typical!). Similarly, we have not yet seen pay rates for women reach
> parity with men but they are moving closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that
> might once have been the norm in many occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia
> is a child of the 21st century; one might expect it to more closely reflect
> the societal norms of this century not the 19th century.
>
> Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty.
> But I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that
> import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.
>
> I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said
> when there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events
> that it wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The
> majority of people who attend my training class and come to the events I
> support are women. It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't
> want to do. As you say, it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment
> to do it in and that's what women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men
> don't like it either.
>
> What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia
> written by the most unpleasant people"?
>
> Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations.
> You tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of
> acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy
> program for those who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those
> who wish to stay and continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will
> be "managed out" through performance reviews. You run surveys that measure
> your culture throughout the whole process. Interestingly the cultural
> change almost always involved being less critical, more collaborative, less
> micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more self-starting, many of which I would
> say apply here (except perhaps for being more self-starting, I don't think
> that's our problem).
>
> En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new
> culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have
> years of evidence to demonstrate that.
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
> Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> (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 communi

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

[Kerry Raymond]

I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving 50-50 
male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times 49-49-2). 
Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at domestic tasks 
than their husbands, even when both are in full-time employment, and clearly 
less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But still men now do more housework 
than they once did. (My husband would argue that I have never let housework 
take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm not typical!). Similarly, we have 
not yet seen pay rates for women reach parity with men but they are moving 
closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that might once have been the norm in many 
occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia is a child of the 21st century; one might 
expect it to more closely reflect the societal norms of this century not the 
19th century.

Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty. But 
I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that 
import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.

I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said when 
there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events that it 
wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The majority of 
people who attend my training class and come to the events I support are women. 
It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't want to do. As you say, 
it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment to do it in and that's what 
women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men don't like it either. 

What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia 
written by the most unpleasant people"?

Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations. You 
tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of acceptable 
and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy program for those 
who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those who wish to stay and 
continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will be "managed out" through 
performance reviews. You run surveys that measure your culture throughout the 
whole process. Interestingly the cultural change almost always involved being 
less critical, more collaborative, less micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more 
self-starting, many of which I would say apply here (except perhaps for being 
more self-starting, I don't think that's our problem).

En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new 
culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have years 
of evidence to demonstrate that.

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 

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

(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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_health_initiative> team just 
hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online har

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

[Jonathan Morgan]

ity work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails to
> improve the behaviour of some who would comply with stricter civility
> enforcement. It would be really useful to have a study one could point to
> when that argument next recurs.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ____________
> From: Wiki-research-l  on
> behalf of Pine W 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> To: Wiki Research-l
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
>
> --
>
> Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
> it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
> intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
> ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
> dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
> neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
> example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
> questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
> allegations.
>
> On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
> directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
> events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
> with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
> choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
> for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
> from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
> elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
> Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
> over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
> to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
> precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
> a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
> difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
> people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
> avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
> committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
> very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
> diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
> haven't worked out.
>
> We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
> discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
> so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.
>
> --
>
> Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
> all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
> net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
> keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
> negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
> like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
___
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!

[Jonathan Cardy]

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 conclude that we could reduce the number of warnings for vandals, 
whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non neutral editors, copy pasters 
and those who add unsourced material. Afterall, many of our editors started 
without getting issues like neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who 
we have don’t generally have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a 
block, the same isn't always true of others.

The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling effect 
theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that the high 
quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of snark, even to 
the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe that tolerance of 
bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails to improve the behaviour 
of some who would comply with stricter civility enforcement. It would be really 
useful to have a study one could point to when that argument next recurs.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Wiki-research-l  on behalf 
of Pine W 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.

--

Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
allegations.

On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
haven't worked out.

We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.

--

Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
ne

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

[Kerry Raymond]

Instead of putting down every idea as not being able to work without the 
benefit of an experiment, let's reverse the question.

Researchers, forgetting for a moment whether the community would accept it, if 
you were asked by the WMF BoT to make recommendations on experiments to run on 
en.WP to try to make it more attractive to women (since that's the aspect of 
diversity on which we seem to have the most data and the most research), what 
changes would you suggest for the experiment and why?

Let's at least get the ideas onto the table before knocking them off.

Or do we genuinely believe this is something that cannot be solved?

Kerry



___
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!

[Pine W]

I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.

--

Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
allegations.

On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
haven't worked out.

We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.

--

Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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!

[Jonathan Cardy]

Vandalism used to be dealt with entirely manually, then it became semi 
automated with tools like huggle, nowadays much of it is rejected by the edit 
filters without the vandals managing to save an edit. So while it is still a 
problem, it is much less of a problem than it used to be. Far less gets through 
to need human attention, and far less is actually seen by the readers. If it is 
rejected by edit filters or held up by pending changes then it isnt seen by the 
readers, we could do better, the German language Wikipedia has a much better 
system called flagged revisions. But vandalism is much less of a problem than 
it once was.

Against that we have an issue with IP contributions that newspapers and others 
don’t have. We recruit our editing community by being easy to edit. One theory 
of Wikipedia recruitment is that a large proprtion of new editors make an IP 
edit or two before deciding to create an account, and that closing down IP 
editing would reduce our recruitment of new editors. Of course that has to be 
balanced against the possibility that we would get rid of lots of vandals. But 
here we have to remember another theory, that  vandals and trolls will do the 
minimum registration necessary to do their vandalism or trolling, but people 
who were going to be helpful and point out a typo are easily deterred. Perhaps 
someone on this list would fancy doing a research project on this, but I am 
inclined to assume that the trend amongst news sites is to drop comments 
sections entirely rather than merely restrict them to those who create an 
account, and that this implies that the model of restricting comments to those 
willling at least to create a throwaway account keeps more of the toxicity than 
it does of the goodfaith contributions.

I have seen plenty of sites that have restricted comments further by requiring 
new accounts to disclose an email address, and that step might be one that 
deters a larger proportion of badfaith users than goidfaith ones. But I can’t 
see Wikimedia making such a drastic step in reducing openness, especially with 
2018 looking like a year of declining editor volumes with the rally of 2015/16 
having ended.



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Wiki-research-l  on behalf 
of Pine W 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 3:05:00 AM
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

I am a bit more optimistic than Kerry, although I agree that wider support
for VE and more publicity for the "thanks" feature would be good.

I agree with Kerry's concern about our labor supply being too small for the
demand. Related to this is the difficult situation with our diversity
statistics for content contributors; I would hope that if we could improve
our diversity that we could do so in a way that created a net positive for
the labor supply.

I would not trade down transparency for other possible benefits, and I
believe that *off-wiki* WMF and its associates like AffCom should be more
transparent about problematic situations and bad news.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that vandalism on ENWP is a huge problem. It's
a problem, but I don't think that it's going to overwhelm the encyclopedia
soon. However, I do think that it's a nontrivial timesink for experienced
users and ambitious users who want to protect the quality of the
encyclopedia. It would be interesting if there was research that estimated
the amount of time that good-faith editors on ENWP spend on cleaning up
vandalism and handing out blocks.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:56 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> It comes as no great surprise to me to see these survey results show very
> little change in matters of some concern (e.g. diversity, community
> health). Quite simply, if you don't change the system, then don't expect
> the outcomes to change. I can't speak about most projects but I don't see
> any change on en.WP in terms of how it operates since the last WMF
> strategic plan published in 2011. We had a non-diverse toxic culture then;
> nothing changes; culture remained the same. Our active editor numbers go
> down, the number of articles to be maintained goes up, do the maths and see
> the long-term problem. Admin numbers are also declining.
>
> One big potentially positive change was the Visual Editor. WMF built the
> Visual Editor specifically to open up editing to a wider ground of users
> and, as someone who does training for new users, it is a game changer for
> making it easier for new users. However, en.WP didn't change. VE is not the
> default for new editors on en.WP. It is not enabled for en.WP talk pages,
> project pages, or even the Teahouse, or any forum where new users might
> report problems or harassment etc. Almost any how-to help page gives
> information only for source editor 

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

[Kerry Raymond]

Pine, I would absolutely disagree with you about off-wiki transparency. Why 
should a woman have to publicly disclose the contents of a thoroughly 
disgusting sexual email for public entertainment because they reverted some 
guy's edit. Why should a women be expected to provide details of an physical 
unwanted contact at an event for other men to pontificate about?  That's what 
transparency would mean.  The right of the 90% of Wikipedia contributors who 
are men to get to decide if a woman has the right to be offended by these 
things. Let's put it all out there in the open so everyone can get involved.

"Couldn't it just have been a friendly hug?". "So did his hand actually tweak 
your nipple or just brush part of your breast?" And so on.

And of course anyone in the world with a web browser could watch on too, such 
as the women's partner, her parents, her children, her colleagues. And of 
course IPs and new accounts could come along and join in the conversation and 
get involved too in the interrogation. "How lowcut was your dress? Did you have 
a bra on?"

Transparency would not work off-wiki and I don't think it works on-wiki for 
harassment issues. You might think it does because I suspect a lot of stuff 
doesn't get reported on the public forums. The folks in private process (such 
as oversight) probably see a lot of ugly stuff that the rest of us don't, or 
the woman just walks away from Wikipedia because they don't know there are 
private ways to report problems or they think it's easier just to walk away.

If you want to address diversity, I think you have to address the need for 
privacy in complaints processes. Although I have only outlined issues relating 
to women here, I am sure there are similar issues for people of other races, 
other religions, other cultures and so on.

Kerry




___
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!

[Pine W]

cy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain
> as non-real-world accountable as always. As many online newspapers and
> other forums are turning off comments as they have learned that
> anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to completely unproductive name calling,
> defamatory comments, and not the constructive civil debate envisaged, yet
> at en.WP we persist in believing that the same approach can create a
> positive collaborative culture, which clearly it has not.
>
> There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change
> the culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of
> its own accord.
>
> However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying
> the WMF livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am
> here in Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East
> diversity by shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to
> participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l 
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia
> > communities is now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers,
> > Program Organizers, and Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us
> > hear from the experience of Wikimedians from across the movement so
> > that teams are able to use community feedback in their planning and
> > their work. This survey also helps us learn about long term changes in
> > communities, such as community health or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Rep
> > ort
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions.
> > Once the results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help
> > them understand their results. Most teams have already identified how
> > they will use the results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> > and share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a
> > blog that you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4
> > 000-community-members/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
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!

[Kerry Raymond]

It comes as no great surprise to me to see these survey results show very 
little change in matters of some concern (e.g. diversity, community health). 
Quite simply, if you don't change the system, then don't expect the outcomes to 
change. I can't speak about most projects but I don't see any change on en.WP 
in terms of how it operates since the last WMF strategic plan published in 
2011. We had a non-diverse toxic culture then; nothing changes; culture 
remained the same. Our active editor numbers go down, the number of articles to 
be maintained goes up, do the maths and see the long-term problem. Admin 
numbers are also declining.

One big potentially positive change was the Visual Editor. WMF built the Visual 
Editor specifically to open up editing to a wider ground of users and, as 
someone who does training for new users, it is a game changer for making it 
easier for new users. However, en.WP didn't change. VE is not the default for 
new editors on en.WP. It is not enabled for en.WP talk pages, project pages, or 
even the Teahouse, or any forum where new users might report problems or 
harassment etc. Almost any how-to help page gives information only for source 
editor users. Commons has blocked new users from using the VE to upload 
own-work photos (and no useful error message is provided to tell them what to 
do - just something generic like "server error" is returned because Commons 
just "fails" the upload and doesn't pass back a reason to the VE).

The old adage "praise in public, criticise in private" remains inverted in the 
world of Wikipedia. Everyone can see reverted edits and the criticisms on User 
Talk pages. Meanwhile "Thanks" (our lightest weight way to praise) is 
effectively private (yeah, I know there is a public log, but at most it tells 
you who likes who). And what the public log does show is that most people never 
thank anyone anyway, which again speaks volume about our culture. We are all 
for transparency except curiously when thanking for a particular edit. 
Transparency leads to a lack of privacy that comes with it is a turn-off to 
some new users. I know from training some new users don't think it's OK that 
everyone can read their User Talk page or that their entire contribution 
history is visible to all. They generally believe that if they were to 
misbehave, then of course someone in authority (admins in our world) should be 
able to look at such things for the purposes of keeping the place safe and 
functioning effectively, but they don't see why just anyone should be able to 
monitor them, which is a means by which you can stalk someone or wikihound them 
on Wikipedia.  Interestingly pretty much all of those who raise these concerns 
are women, who are, in real life, the most common victims of privacy invasions 
(think "up-skirt-ing" vs "up-trouser-ing", think Peeping Tom vs Peeping 
Tomasina) and stalking. So should we look at trading off some transparency in 
order to get more diversity?

Vandalism. Many years ago, when I questioned our very soft policy on vandalism 
(it takes 4 to allow you to request to block an account), I was told that 
"yeah, there is a lot of vandalism now but Wikipedia is new and once people 
realise its value and that vandals get blocked, it will stop happening over 
time". Sadly nobody told the vandals this, as, based on my watchlist, they are 
still very active and still mostly IPs. I note we have not changed our IP 
policy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain as non-real-world 
accountable as always. As many online newspapers and other forums are turning 
off comments as they have learned that anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to 
completely unproductive name calling, defamatory comments, and not the 
constructive civil debate envisaged, yet at en.WP we persist in believing that 
the same approach can create a positive collaborative culture, which clearly it 
has not.

There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change the 
culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of its own 
accord.

However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying the WMF 
livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am here in 
Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East diversity by 
shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to participate live. One 
small step that WMF could take ... 

Kerry 

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
To: Wiki Research-l 
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

Hi Edward,

Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to the 
WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l subscribers, 
so I suggest that you cross-po

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

[Pine W]

Hi Edward, I'm surprised that this thread only appears in my email under
Research-l, but I can see in the WMF mail archives that you sent the email
to other lists also. I wonder if that happened because you used bcc. Maybe
there is a bug in Gmail. On the topic of diversity research, thanks for the
link to the team reports. I'll put those on my list of things that would be
good to browse.

Regarding the topic of harassment that the person with the email
"80hnhtv4agou" raised, I think that it's good to ask what more could and
should be done. My view is that WMF shouldn't be directly intervening in
community activities, but WMF support for community self-governance is
welcome with actions such as developing better moderation tools and
providing financial support to affiliates and community members who want to
develop evidence-based training modules. Sydney Poore is on the
Anti-Harrassment Tools team and I'm pinging her here to invite her to add
any comments that she has.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:45 PM Edward Galvez  wrote:

> Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
> Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.
>
> "Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
> program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
> and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
> lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
> progress (gender on the projects). And perhaps some aren't even on our
> radar. I think many teams are still working to understand what are the
> problems and possible levers that can help us to bring change to these
> measures.  Some of those teams include Contributors/Audiences team,
> Anti-Harassment Tools, Trust & Safety and Community Resources. Each of
> these teams bringing their own strengths and angles to the problem. I
> invite you to read the team reports
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report/Team_Reports
> >
> .
>
> The research team is also working on finding a way to capture demographic
> data as well this year. While we gather this data through CE Insights it is
> not the most optimal way to measure demographic data. There was also the
> recent email by Erik Zachte about language diversity (Email subject:
> "Wikipedias, participation per language") Always to good to start to
> measure what you want to change.
>
> I also invite you (and perhaps everyone on this list) to reflect on: what
> numbers are most concerning for you related to diversity? What could you do
> to improve diversity on the projects? And decide how you would like to take
> action.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Edward
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Edward,
> >
> > Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> > the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> > subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> > lists.
> >
> > After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> > answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside
> and
> > outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for
> years,
> > and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources
> are
> > being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> > that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> > presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> > Research-l.
> >
> > Have a good weekend,
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities
> > is
> > > now published!
> > >
> > > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > > members across
> > > four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers,
> > and
> > > Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> > > Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> > > community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also
> > helps
> > > us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community
> health
> > > or demographics.
> > >
> > > The report is available on meta:
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
> > >
> > > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once
> > the
> > > results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them
> > understand
> > > their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> > > results to help improve their work to support you.
> > >
> > > The report could be useful for your work in the 

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

[Edward Galvez]

>
>  others I am not uncertain whether we put a lot of attention (Education &
> Age),
>

Oops - meant to say "I am not certain.."
___
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!

[Edward Galvez]

Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.

"Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
progress (gender on the projects). And perhaps some aren't even on our
radar. I think many teams are still working to understand what are the
problems and possible levers that can help us to bring change to these
measures.  Some of those teams include Contributors/Audiences team,
Anti-Harassment Tools, Trust & Safety and Community Resources. Each of
these teams bringing their own strengths and angles to the problem. I
invite you to read the team reports

.

The research team is also working on finding a way to capture demographic
data as well this year. While we gather this data through CE Insights it is
not the most optimal way to measure demographic data. There was also the
recent email by Erik Zachte about language diversity (Email subject:
"Wikipedias, participation per language") Always to good to start to
measure what you want to change.

I also invite you (and perhaps everyone on this list) to reflect on: what
numbers are most concerning for you related to diversity? What could you do
to improve diversity on the projects? And decide how you would like to take
action.

Hope this helps!
Edward


On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities
> is
> > now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across
> > four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers,
> and
> > Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> > Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> > community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also
> helps
> > us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> > or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once
> the
> > results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them
> understand
> > their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> > results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> and
> > share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> > you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, 

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

[Said Hamideh]

unsubscribe


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM Edward Galvez  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
> now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across
> four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
> Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
> us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> or demographics.
>
> The report is available on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
>
> For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
> results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
> their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> results to help improve their work to support you.
>
> The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
> What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
> share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> you can read.[1]
>
> We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
>
> All the best,
> Edward
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Edward Galvez]

Hi everyone,

I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
now published!

This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
members across
four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
or demographics.

The report is available on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report

For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
results to help improve their work to support you.

The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
you can read.[1]

We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
Hope to see you there!

Feel free to email me directly with any questions.

All the best,
Edward


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc


-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation

-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l