Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

[Oliver Keyes]

Just to chip in here; Privacy, with *any* feature we introduce, is a top
priority. When Product Development was coming out with the features
engineering plan, anything that looked like it could screw with individual
privacy was very, very quickly nipped in the bud.

Now, if by "social" you mean "features purely dedicated to
recreational/sharing activities", the answer is no: we're not currently
planning any. From my (personal) perspective, it is very very hard to do
these things and integrate into other services without putting our users at
risk. And putting our users at risk is not what we're about. We're not
doing what Facebook does because we're *not Facebook*.

If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater
communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority -
I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any
suggestions along the way :).

On 21 April 2012 21:52, Mono  wrote:

> Tom, has a reputable news source actually verified this? Even Wikipedia
> editors know that HuffPost isn't reliable...
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:
>
> > On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Kučera  wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features
> at
> > all???
> > >
> > > These go in the right direction:
> > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform
> > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
> > >
> > > Is WMF going to act finally???
> > >
> >
> > Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed
> > social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons
> > and so on. And editors don't want it.
> >
> > See
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twitter_etc
> > .
> >
> > English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller
> > community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate
> > with.
> >
> > If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with
> > deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do
> > hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine
> > discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided
> > the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that
> > were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook,
> > which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in.
> > Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up
> > information on health conditions they think they might have, as well
> > as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity,
> > advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I
> > wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles
> > shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share
> > that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has
> > allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after
> > Facebook algorithmically outed him as gay. [1]
> >
> > I do also hope we'd decide on what basis we'd choose these social
> > services. Okay, yes, Facebook is pretty popular in the West. And
> > Twitter. And maybe G+. But what about in China: do we want to support
> > sharing to sites that are being censored by the Chinese government?
> > Does the Foundation have the expertise to know what the popular social
> > networking sites are in every country and language in the world? And
> > we'd then become a commercial player: if we had done this years ago
> > and had added MySpace integration, the moment MySpace stops being so
> > popular and Wikipedia (whether that's the community or the Foundation)
> > de-emphasizes the MySpace sharing/social functionality, there'd be a
> > big stack of headlines about how Wikipedia is pulling out of MySpace.
> > We really ought to be neutral in this market, and there's only one way
> > to be neutral: try as hard as possible not to participate.
> >
> > You know, there might be an easier solution here: people who are into
> > the whole social networking thing, their browsers ought to improve
> > sharing with their social networks. Social plugins for browsers like
> > Firefox and Chrome are opt-in for the user, and can give a better
> > experience than Wikipedia pages being turned into NASCAR-esque branded
> > adverts for dozens of social sites. I know Mozilla people have been
> > discussing coming up with better ways of doing social sharing at the
> > browser level.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/facebook-targeted-advertising-gay-teen_n_1200404.html
> >
> > --
> > Tom Morris
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Richard Symonds]

I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...

Richard
On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima"  wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _
> *Béria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. *
>
>
> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:
>
> > A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
> > with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
> > the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> > efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
> > who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> took
> > it on.
> >
> > Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> the
> > ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> the
> > exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
> who
> > has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> member
> > of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >
> > It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> extremely
> > remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> commission,
> > and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > pb
> > ___
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > phili...@wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] User retention statistics?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Thank you all for the replies, I need some time to process this 
information.


Cheers
Yaroslav

1. What is the average lifetime of a Wikipedia editor (for instance 
the
one with at leat 1000 contributions)? I recollect smth about two 
years, but
I am pretty sure I have never seen any research on this. How does it 
depend

on the number of contributions?

2. What are the main reasons why these editors stop editing? Is this
correct, for instance, that external reasons are much more important 
than
internal (on-wiki troubles and wiki-related harassment) reasons? The 
same

for say those above 1 edits?

Thanks in advance
Cheers
Yaroslav

__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Huib Laurens]

Yeah, they are doing a very good job...

One year a go with all the "abigor" drama everybody told go to the
umbutsman commision, and they never responded...

I'm happy to see that we keep the failing commite with the same people yet
another year.

Best,

Huib
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Etienne Beaule]

Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

Ebe123


On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" 
wrote:

> I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> 
> Richard
> On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima"  wrote:
> 
>> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
>> a new process, Philippe?
>> _
>> *Béria Lima*
>> 
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
>> construir esse sonho. *
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:
>> 
>>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
>>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
>>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
>>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
>>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
>>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
>> took
>>> it on.
>>> 
>>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
>> the
>>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
>> the
>>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
>> who
>>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
>> member
>>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
>>> 
>>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
>> extremely
>>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
>> commission,
>>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> pb
>>> ___
>>> Philippe Beaudette
>>> Director, Community Advocacy
>>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>> 
>>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>>> 
>>> phili...@wikimedia.org
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Risker]

Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
point out that there has never been a vote for this position.

Risker/Anne

On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule  wrote:

> Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
>
> Ebe123
>
>
> On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" 
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> >
> > Richard
> > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima"  wrote:
> >
> >> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of
> running
> >> a new process, Philippe?
> >> _
> >> *Béria Lima*
> >>
> >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> >> construir esse sonho. *
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> >>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
> >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> tool,
> >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> >>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> Board,
> >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> >> took
> >>> it on.
> >>>
> >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> >> the
> >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> >> the
> >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
> >> who
> >>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> >> member
> >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> >> extremely
> >>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> >> commission,
> >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> pb
> >>> ___
> >>> Philippe Beaudette
> >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >>>
> >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >>>
> >>> phili...@wikimedia.org
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Lodewijk]

Hi Anne,

it was however common procedure to ask publicly for applications before
making a decision on who are the best candidates. Maybe they are the best
there are - maybe not, we'll never know.

As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
privately).

Best,

Lodewijk

El 22 de abril de 2012 21:46, Risker  escribió:

> Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
> point out that there has never been a vote for this position.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule  wrote:
>
> > Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
> >
> > Ebe123
> >
> >
> > On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds"  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of
> > running
> > >> a new process, Philippe?
> > >> _
> > >> *Béria Lima*
> > >>
> > >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> > >> construir esse sonho. *
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > >>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.
>  Charged
> > >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> > tool,
> > >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism
> and
> > >>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> > Board,
> > >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> > >> took
> > >>> it on.
> > >>>
> > >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the
> ombudsmen
> > >> the
> > >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All,
> with
> > >> the
> > >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is
> Pundit,
> > >> who
> > >>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> > >> member
> > >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> > >>>
> > >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> > >> extremely
> > >>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> > >> commission,
> > >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best wishes,
> > >>> pb
> > >>> ___
> > >>> Philippe Beaudette
> > >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > >>>
> > >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > >>>
> > >>> phili...@wikimedia.org
> > >>> ___
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lodewijk, 22/04/2012 23:58:

As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
privately).


If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask 
the commission whether they reached them.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Béria Lima  wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _
> *Béria Lima*
>
>
Hi Beria -

It's a good question, and a fair one.

The truth is, there were a couple of factors:  first, did I believe the
current commission was doing a good job?  No, I actually think they're
doing an *exceptional* job.  Second, was there a desire from among
themselves for change?  Yes, Pundit wanted to be a steward, but when
Christine and I were scouting for this committee, we had anticipated
someone rotating off and had another commissioner who was already trained
and participating.  So the commission was stable.

Then, what is the cost and benefit of the search?  On the benefit side,
there's the ability to form a new commission with all the myriad benefits
that flow from that.  But on the contra side, I sort of felt like stability
is something good right now: systems are changing everywhere, and maybe
keeping this one with a core group of stable people who are doing a good
job is a good idea.  I continue to believe that is true.

In addition, running a search is costly: in time for volunteers and staff.
 This is a secondary consideration - obviously, if the preceding had not
been true, we'd have made the staff time to run the search.  But when I
looked at the realities of my transition to a new team, to not having
Christine to help, and at Maggie's workload, there was a definite savings
in "time beyond the norm" that would have been used to run this search.

They're hard:  it's more than just asking for volunteers.  We put together
the commission with an eye toward diversity of gender, project, language,
and geography, and we needed Wikimedians who are above reproach: this folks
are the ultimate arbiters of the checkuser tool, and they have to be
unblemished.  So much as a whiff of an issue around privacy, and things
could get very uncomfortable... so we did a lot of deep diving into
backgrounds.  It's a very very time intensive process, and we could frankly
use the time other places.

Finally, I continue to believe that we should stick with traditions that
make sense, but give them enough flexibility to change with circumstances:
so re-appointing the commission this time was partially intended to set
that as a possible solution going forward.  That said, in order to prevent
a "permanent committee", I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would
ever reappoint a full commission more than one time. But, I wanted to have
reappointment in my (or whomever's) list of tools for the future if need
be.

Hope that gives you some insight into my thinking.

pb
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

>
> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
> commission whether they reached them.



I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to position
it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

pb
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

[Thomas Goldammer]

Hi all,

Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
and therefore took a while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
within the committee, also for future committee searches.

However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
people to the right place where they could get help for their
individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
cases to this body.

Best regards,
Thogo.

2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette :
> 
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
>> commission whether they reached them.
>
>
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to position
> it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
> not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

[Fabrice Florin]

Here's a thoughtful suggestion on this topic from a journalist who emailed me 
today about our editor engagement challenges at Wikipedia.

I generally agree with his observations that Wikipedia needs to be more social. 
And one of the ways we can do this is to encourage more positive feedback for 
editors, both from within Wikipedia -- and from the broader community outside 
Wikipedia.

To be continued ...


Fabrice

__


Subject: Re: GIFT ECONOMY -- suggestion for Fabrice

Here's my 2-cent suggestion for Wikimedia:

The value that a user gets in making gratis contributions to any site
including Wikipedia is in the feedback from your fellow users. No feedback,
or negative feedback, and you don't hang around.

...

On Wikipedia, there is very little in the way of positive feedback if you
do something good, and a ton of negative feedback for everything from a
style/format error to those "this article needs more whatever" boxes. Yes,
those things are necessary to maintaining quality, but if you contribute
content (which I've only done a little of) they wear you down. It's like
being in a course where the professor fills your papers with criticism and
never once says, "good job".

So I think the answer is that Wikipedia needs to be more social. It needs a
different kind of moderation. And it needs more mechanisms for positive
feedback.


__

Fabrice Florin
Product Manager,
Editor Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6827 work
fflo...@wikimedia.org

On Apr 22, 2012, at 2:51 PM, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:34:34 -0700
> From: Oliver Keyes 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Just to chip in here; Privacy, with *any* feature we introduce, is a top
> priority. When Product Development was coming out with the features
> engineering plan, anything that looked like it could screw with individual
> privacy was very, very quickly nipped in the bud.
> 
> Now, if by "social" you mean "features purely dedicated to
> recreational/sharing activities", the answer is no: we're not currently
> planning any. From my (personal) perspective, it is very very hard to do
> these things and integrate into other services without putting our users at
> risk. And putting our users at risk is not what we're about. We're not
> doing what Facebook does because we're *not Facebook*.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you just mean "features to promote greater
> communication and networking between editors", that's a clear priority -
> I'm happy to talk to people about the work we're doing, and to hear any
> suggestions along the way :).
> 
> On 21 April 2012 21:52, Mono  wrote:
> 
>> Tom, has a reputable news source actually verified this? Even Wikipedia
>> editors know that HuffPost isn't reliable...
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 April 2012 18:41, Jan Ku?era  wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 how do we want to work on editor retention if we lack social features
>> at
>>> all???
 
 These go in the right direction:
 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Improving_our_platform
 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
 
 Is WMF going to act finally???
 
>>> 
>>> Only with community approval. On English Wikipedia, we have discussed
>>> social media/social network integration repeatedly. Share This buttons
>>> and so on. And editors don't want it.
>>> 
>>> See
>>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Share_pages_on_Facebook.2C_Twitter_etc
>>> .
>>> 
>>> English Wikinews already has some, but there's a much smaller
>>> community there who can decide which services we wish to integrate
>>> with.
>>> 
>>> If we're going to have social "features" (and I use that word with
>>> deliberate scare quotes around it) mandated by the Foundation, I do
>>> hope we are going to worry about privacy. A former co-worker of mine
>>> discovered that NHS Direct, the health information website provided
>>> the UK's National Health Service, had Facebook share this links that
>>> were transmitting every page you went to on NHS Direct to Facebook,
>>> which could be matched to your Facebook profile if you are logged in.
>>> Which is kind of shocking given that people use NHS Direct to look up
>>> information on health conditions they think they might have, as well
>>> as all sorts of other personal issues (sexual health, gender identity,
>>> advice on fixing lifestyle health issues like smoking and drinking). I
>>> wouldn't want the clickstream of people visiting Wikipedia articles
>>> shared on Facebook without them pretty explicitly choosing to share
>>> that information. We've already seen one kid in Britain who has
>>> allegedly been thrown out of his house by fundamentalist parents after
>>> Facebook algorithmically outed him