Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:42:

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:


Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:


Open these two pages:




Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts.

Focus

on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.

Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
trend.


They don't.



Are you willing to concede that they look *markedly* different from the
English ones, and don't show a clear downward trend starting in 2007, as
the English ones do? :))


Sure, I am: en.wiki is the one in the worst conditions. However, any 
hypothesis explaining decline (or proposing corrections) only for 
en.wiki and not for all the other wikis (which similarly experienced it) 
is IMHO useless.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
>
>>> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the
>
>> Well,  Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia,
>> so it had to be taken down.
>
>
> Esperanza was killed because it became
> problematic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza
>
> Perhaps bits of the idea may be useful, but it was a bad
> implementation and is generally not missed.

It's a bit late to try to ressurect something that never lived... I
don't think there is a way
back from admitting that WMF should stay out of running anything else
than the servers,
and fund (in a fit of honesty) every effort at making forking
feasible... otherwise there is
no hope for them...


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:

>> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the

> Well,  Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia,
> so it had to be taken down.


Esperanza was killed because it became
problematic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza

Perhaps bits of the idea may be useful, but it was a bad
implementation and is generally not missed.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the 

Well,  Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia,
so it had to be taken down.

I'm worried about people saying "the same thing won't happen  to us"
or "Esperanza is behind us now".

This is blatantly not true. Just look at the state of en.wikipedia!

We're going to have to do a lot of work to get things koving again :-/

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 15/01/13 00:21, Richard Farmbrough wrote:

Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with
opposition - in the case of references in particular.  And not only from
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who
will block for putting references in numerical order.  These are the
sorts of things which would not have lasted long in (admittedly slightly
mythical) Good Old Days


Unfortunately, even this admin has some justification for what he's 
doing: he probably encountered someone who was using reordering to 
introduce subtle vandalism (since it can't be checked in diff).


Again I see that part of the problem is that there are too few people 
guarding too much content, but I don't see what to do to change this.


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Richard Farmbrough]

Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with 
opposition - in the case of references in particular.  And not only from 
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who 
will block for putting references in numerical order.  These are the 
sorts of things which would not have lasted long in (admittedly slightly 
mythical) Good Old Days


On 04/01/2013 15:48, David Gerard wrote:
I spent idle time in the holiday week working on [[:en:OpenOffice]]. 
Wikitext is just awful these days, particularly in an article like 
that where every assertion needs and has a cite. Anyone who thinks 
wikitext is just fine for the job, I urge you to click "edit" and 
contemplate fixing the guacamole you see before you. Sure hope the 
visual editor makes managing references on an article like that 
easier. - d. ___ 
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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

Socialization is usually best achieved through rewards rather than
through punishments. The principle reward is a sense of achievement when
good editing is done or good administrative work done. In the case of
editing the reward, absent trouble, is instantaneous as your work is
published.

Fred

> Yes, of course - why didn't we think of that?  Actually the lack of
> rules and lack of punishments means (meant) it was bloody hard to game
> the  system.  Now we have a calcified set of rules and an oligarchy,
> passive-aggressives have a field day.  Rules-lawyers abound, polite
> requests to the oligarchy are met with insults about "mind-set" and
> other newspeak comments. Meanwhile the 99% of editors that just want to
> edit and the 95% of admins that just want to help the project are
> stymied at every turn, scared to get involved in the processes.  A
> number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the
> Wikiquette noticeboard has gone.  Power is increasingly in fewer and
> fewer hands, a significant number of whom have, over the years, and
> indeed recently, abused that power.
>
> The solution for social problems is socialisation.  We have some great
> exponents of that art in Dennis Brown, Worm That Turned and several
> others.  For those that won't be socialised, the solution is ostracism -
> or blocking as it is known.  Provided this is used with caution on
> community members, and with no longer duration than necessary it is a
> good solution.
>
> On 04/01/2013 06:27, Tim Starling wrote:
>> The solution for social problems is to have rules and a means to
>> punish people who break them.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Richard Farmbrough]

Yes, of course - why didn't we think of that?  Actually the lack of 
rules and lack of punishments means (meant) it was bloody hard to game 
the  system.  Now we have a calcified set of rules and an oligarchy, 
passive-aggressives have a field day.  Rules-lawyers abound, polite 
requests to the oligarchy are met with insults about "mind-set" and 
other newspeak comments. Meanwhile the 99% of editors that just want to 
edit and the 95% of admins that just want to help the project are 
stymied at every turn, scared to get involved in the processes.  A 
number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the 
Wikiquette noticeboard has gone.  Power is increasingly in fewer and 
fewer hands, a significant number of whom have, over the years, and 
indeed recently, abused that power.


The solution for social problems is socialisation.  We have some great 
exponents of that art in Dennis Brown, Worm That Turned and several 
others.  For those that won't be socialised, the solution is ostracism - 
or blocking as it is known.  Provided this is used with caution on 
community members, and with no longer duration than necessary it is a 
good solution.


On 04/01/2013 06:27, Tim Starling wrote:
The solution for social problems is to have rules and a means to 
punish people who break them.



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Tim Starling]

On 11/01/13 03:58, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> 
>>> The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in
>>> all projects, and almost in all language versions of them:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look
>> at the German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the
>> German and Spanish are totally stable, with no decline at all
>> discernible around 2007, while editor numbers for the French
>> Wikipedia are actually growing:
>> 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm
> 
> I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive
> to non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course,
> it's easier to see in a graph than in a table.

IIRC, there was a large reduction in traffic growth rate in
approximatly 2007, presumably due to market saturation. You'd expect a
similar market saturation effect in editor population. A decline can't
be explained away in that way.

> It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then
> oscillation/stagnation:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm

"Stagnation" is another way to say "stability", except that it also
implies rot. I don't think we can take it for granted that a wiki will
rot if it has a stable editor population.

If the English Wikipedia could achieve a stable editor population, I
would be very happy.

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
>
> > Open these two pages:
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
> >
> > Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts.
> Focus
> > on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.
> >
> > Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
> > trend.
>
> They don't.
>


Are you willing to concede that they look *markedly* different from the
English ones, and don't show a clear downward trend starting in 2007, as
the English ones do? :))

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
> Open these two pages:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
>
> Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts. 
Focus

> on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.
>
> Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
> trend.

They don't.

Errata corrige:

Federico Leva (Nemo), 10/01/2013 17:58:

"New editors" is not reliable because one edit is enough, number of
edits or (new) articles have too much bot noise, database size/words is
often useful but even more often not available for WikiStats performance
limitations.


Ten edits, naturally, not one. One should also take into account when 
the "birth date" as new contributor is defined to be.[1]


Still on external factors, it's also fun to play with 
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ , "State of the Internet Data 
Visualization" per country.
For instance, several countries seem to have stagnated for years (since 
the beginning of the reports) as regards broadband adoption; Japan has a 
mysterious drop in 2011 which seems to have an identical drop in active 
ja.wiki editors, recovered at the same time in early 2012; Russia has an 
explosion which one could think caused TheSeptemberThatNeverEnded that 
we're still seeing; France has a big peak in the first half of 2012.

But again, this is just playing, we still know so little.

Actually, I don't even know if WMF is still focussing on (en.wiki) 
editor retention or rather on editor recruitment: does someone know?


Nemo

[1] I've added a note about it in the very useful new page on 
definitions: 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:34:46 +0530, Yann Forget wrote:

Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann



Welcome to the club. I retired from Russian Wikipedia about two years 
ago.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:59:28 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, 
though

it is not the most popular social medium.


Thanks for the information! The en.wiki articles are not super-clear
about it.
Are its competitors less able to (allegedly) convert the web
population in a mass of dumbs, or of otherwise draining all their
mental energies? :p

Nemo



In my view, the main competitor, Vkontakte 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vkontakte) is even better in conversion of 
their audience into a mass of dumbs. I do not have an account there 
though, (not that I use my facebook too much).


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 18:09:
>
>  Here are the French charts:
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
>> Here are the English ones:
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
>>
>> Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
>> more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
>> French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend.
>>
>
> Sorry, I've no idea what you're looking at: I don't see any continuous
> upward trend, as I said in the previous message. Sure, if you compare the
> last month of each wiki with the month of en.wiki's highest peak you can
> prove whatever you want.
>

Open these two pages:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm

Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts. Focus
on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.

Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
trend. The ones for English show a peak in 2007, and then a consistent
downward trend. That is the difference I was pointing out.

If we are talking about the purely statistical side of things, then
statistically these projects do not conform to the same trend as the
English Wikipedia.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
> quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
> there.
> Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
> surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
> the project.
>

I am quite sure the French and other Wikipedias have broadly similar social
problems to the English one (the German one certainly has a few), and I too
agree with Tim's earlier comments in that regard.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yann Forget]

Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.
Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
the project.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann

2013/1/4 Tim Starling :
> On 03/01/13 22:46, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>> Editor retention programmes have some data there. Check wp:wer on en.wiki.
>> how the data for the other projects match up I don't know.
>
> Yes, that page describes the problem in detail. But the suggestions
> they offer under "how you can help" are along the same lines as
> policies that have been in place on Wikipedia since 2002 or earlier.
> It's been tried, it didn't work.
>
> The problem is, some people want to feel powerful more than they want
> Wikipedia to grow. Or even if they want Wikipedia to grow on a
> cerebral level, exercising power over another user is immediately
> pleasurable, and they don't have sufficient impulse control to stop
> themselves from doing it.
>
> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>
> There is risk, because the editor population will probably be reduced
> in the short term, and it's hard to know if it will ever recover. I
> don't know if there is anyone with the power to save Wikipedia who
> also has the required courage.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 18:09:

Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm

Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend.


Sorry, I've no idea what you're looking at: I don't see any continuous 
upward trend, as I said in the previous message. Sure, if you compare 
the last month of each wiki with the month of en.wiki's highest peak you 
can prove whatever you want.


Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
>>>
>>>
>>> This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
>>> Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>
>>
>
> No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, though
> it is not the most popular social medium.

Thanks for the information! The en.wiki articles are not super-clear 
about it.
Are its competitors less able to (allegedly) convert the web population 
in a mass of dumbs, or of otherwise draining all their mental energies? :p


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
>month, as that is where the decline in the English Wikipedia has been most
>pronounced, from 4804 in March 2007 to 3137 in November 2012. It's when
>core editors leave in droves that you start to worry.

You would have to analyse those edits qualitatively though in order to
tell whether this decline is something to worry about. For example, if
authors no longer have to fix certain problems because bots are taking
care of them now, then fewer edits are nothing to worry about.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here are the French charts:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> Here are the English ones:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
>

I've fixed the link to the English charts: I accidentally gave the French
link twice in my earlier mail. My apologies for the inconvenience.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:


David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:


This has often made people wonder if the causes are external 
(Facebook?

Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).

Nemo





No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, though 
it is not the most popular social medium.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>>
>>  The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all
>>> projects,
>>> and almost in all language versions of them: [...]
>>>
>>
>> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
>> German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
>> are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
>> editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:
>>
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaFR.htm
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaDE.htm
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaES.htm
>>
>
> I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive to
> non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course, it's easier to
> see in a graph than in a table.
> I don't see French growing: except an outlier in November 2012 for active
> editors, which is not reflected in the very active editors count, in the
> last few months it's at the same level as in January-March 2008, 4800-5000
> active editors.
> It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then
> oscillation/stagnation: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**
> TablesWikipediaIT.htm
> Anecdotally in WMIT, we've been repeating "it.wiki has 500 very active
> editors" for a while, and we've stopped updating this figure a long time
> ago. :-)
>
> Of course I'm only playing the stats dilettante here.
>



Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm

Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend. In the
English charts, it has been falling since 2007.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Andreas/Nemo
>
> Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
> projects?
>


I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
month, as that is where the decline in the English Wikipedia has been most
pronounced, from 4804 in March 2007 to 3137 in November 2012. It's when
core editors leave in droves that you start to worry.

For comparison, the figures for March 2007 and November 2012 for the four
projects I mentioned are:

EN: 4804, 3137
FR: 676, 800
ES: 430, 486
DE: 1093, 1004

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:


The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
and almost in all language versions of them: [...]


Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm


I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive to 
non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course, it's easier 
to see in a graph than in a table.
I don't see French growing: except an outlier in November 2012 for 
active editors, which is not reflected in the very active editors count, 
in the last few months it's at the same level as in January-March 2008, 
4800-5000 active editors.
It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then 
oscillation/stagnation: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm
Anecdotally in WMIT, we've been repeating "it.wiki has 500 very active 
editors" for a while, and we've stopped updating this figure a long time 
ago. :-)


Of course I'm only playing the stats dilettante here.


Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.


You're using the "editor retention" term quite incorrectly by the way: 
those tables show only total active editors, old or new, not how many of 
the new editors are still active, nor how many "really new" editor we had.


Richard Symonds, 10/01/2013 17:37:
> Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
> projects?

I think I've replied already. :-)
"New editors" is not reliable because one edit is enough, number of 
edits or (new) articles have too much bot noise, database size/words is 
often useful but even more often not available for WikiStats performance 
limitations.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
>
> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
>


Rules may be strict, but in the things that matter they are ineffective.
For the past few days, the media have reported on the Bicholim Conflict
hoax – a "Good Article" on a war that never happened, and could never have
happened (one of the parties to it, the Maratha Empire, did not even exist
at the time).*

That hoax remained listed as a Good Article for more than five years. The
Good Article reviewing guideline says,

*Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and
sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the
sources; this ideal is not often attained.*
*
*
In the wake of the Bicholim conflict story, another contributor was blocked
the other day by George William Herbert, "upon review of outstanding claims
of fabrication of sources and quotes. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia
is not acceptable behavior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#False_references_and_BLP_misquotes:_block_user_as_hoaxer.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=531375810&oldid=531295145

That editor has written or co-written 95 Good Articles, and 7 Featured
Articles, mostly on entertainers like Madonna and Lady Gaga. That included
a Featured Article on Madonna, which was then demoted, with lots of
material removed, after sourcing concerns were raised about the editor's
work. Editors who looked into the concerns say the chap made up sources and
put words into Madonna's mouth, making her say things in Wikipedia which
she had never said, and still getting his articles approved for GA and FA.

The English Wikipedia needs a wake-up call. It offers a playground to
vandals and petty officials, has people arguing interminably about civility
and waffling about the need to assume good faith, while encyclopedic core
skills are lacking, even in what is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.

Andreas

*For a write-up and links, see
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/09/wikipedias-new-year-begins-with-a-hoax/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Richard Symonds]

Hi Andreas/Nemo

Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 10 January 2013 16:24, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  >wrote:
>
> > David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
> >
> >  On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> >>
> >>  I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
> >>> edit,
> >>> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for
> an
> >>> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
> >>> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> >>> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
> >> at all just an en:wp problem.
> >>
> >> How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
> >> the non-Wikipedias?
> >>
> >
> > The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all
> projects,
> > and almost in all language versions of them:
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> > *htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
> > htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> > *htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> > (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318<
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318>)
> > Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
> > language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception
> to
> > decline.
> > This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
> > Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
> >
> > Nemo
>
>
>
>
> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
> German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
> are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
> editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm
>
> Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
>
> These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
> they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.
>
> I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
> Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.
>
> Andreas
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
>
>  On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>>
>>  I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
>>> edit,
>>> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
>>> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
>>> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
>>> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
>> at all just an en:wp problem.
>>
>> How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
>> the non-Wikipedias?
>>
>
> The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
> and almost in all language versions of them:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> *htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
> htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> *htm
> (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318)
> Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
> language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception to
> decline.
> This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
> Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
>
> Nemo




Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm

Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.

I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:
>>> Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
>>> is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?
>>
>> :-/  Back to the drawing board. That actually makes
>> the problem a lot harder!
>>
>> (does mean we know where to start looking though)
>
> I am not sure that Facebook is the problem.
> http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=wikipedia,facebook does show that
> Facebook overtook Wikipedia sometime in 2007, but that happened
> relatively slowly.
>
> Having said that, there have been suggestions to introduce social
> networking features in Wikipedia. WikiLove is a step in that direction.
> So, what could be the next step? Befriend users and see their edits and
> new articles? Like edits and articles?

We could have lists of friends. Although some would actually be enemies
lists. 172 continues to edit under several names. If I wanted to spend
all my time reversing his point of view edits a friends list with his
socks on it would be useful. This nicely illustrates the problem that
making the editing atmosphere better for some requires making it
punishing for others.

Fred



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:32:00 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:



Having said that, there have been suggestions to introduce social
networking features in Wikipedia. WikiLove is a step in that
direction. So, what could be the next step? Befriend users and see
their edits and new articles? Like edits and articles?

Actually, befriending users (in particular, IP) was proposed some time 
ago on English Wikipedia and received support, but no action was taken. 
This would be an excellent means to watch for vandal contributions from 
problematic IPs which only show up once in several months, vandalize an 
article and disappear.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:

Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?


:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually makes
the problem a lot harder!

(does mean we know where to start looking though)


I am not sure that Facebook is the problem. 
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=wikipedia,facebook does show that 
Facebook overtook Wikipedia sometime in 2007, but that happened 
relatively slowly.


Having said that, there have been suggestions to introduce social 
networking features in Wikipedia. WikiLove is a step in that direction. 
So, what could be the next step? Befriend users and see their edits and 
new articles? Like edits and articles?


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:50:39PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> > The correct solution to newbies being chased off is not "ban them upfront". 
> > The
> > correct solution is to deal with those chasing off the newbies ;-)
> 
> There is a tremendous difference between a clickthrough warning that
> one might be wading into a dangerous topic, and a ban of a type or
> class of users from articles or topic areas.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now! 

As a temp measure, it's better than nothing, I suppose,
though the underlying problem should also be dealt with,
possibly by use of  DRN or similar.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:
> Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
> is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?

:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually makes
the problem a lot harder!

(does mean we know where to start looking though)


sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Jan 9, 2013 1:07 AM, "Kim Bruning"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:42PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> > Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
> >
> > What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
> > instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
> >
> > Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
> > professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
> >
> > Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
> > than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
> >
> > Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
> > and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
> > one.
>
> You know, this is starting to sound like we're the 2001 wikipedia to
provide
> input to the nascent Nupedia? ;-)
>
> My proposal would be to replace AFC with an "unstable branch wikipedia".
> (And cherry-pick from there). This proposal has the upside that it uses
proven
> technology and processes ;-)
>
> sincerely,
> Kim bruning
>

So, how bold are you? Also: where is the sign up page? I think I'd feel
very much at home on a wiki that is a wiki.


> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 9 January 2013 06:41, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:

>> I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
>> at all just an en:wp problem.
>> How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
>> the non-Wikipedias?

> The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
> and almost in all language versions of them:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
> (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318 )
> Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same language.
> (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception to decline.
> This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
> Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).


Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Fred Bauder, 08/01/2013 19:41:




It's the worst kept secret in the world that you can hire people to
decode your captchas -- http://decaptcha.biz/ for example.  Better
captchas don't work because you are competing against people and if
people can't solve the captcha ...


Middle name of Jimmy Wales has worked well for me.

And middle name of Larry Sanger, and nickname of Jimmy Wales.


Yes, QuestyCaptcha is surely the best solution for small wikis.
MeatBall has been using it for ages, too. :-)

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:

On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:


I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.



I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
at all just an en:wp problem.

How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
the non-Wikipedias?


The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all 
projects, and almost in all language versions of them:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
(in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data, 
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318 )
Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same 
language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception 
to decline.
This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook? 
Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[WereSpielChequers]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:57PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> > I almost wonder if having a "warning flag" for highly sensitive or
> > contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
> > edits (500?  ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
> > article talk page first, rather than going directly to editing the
> > actual article...
>
>
> Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.
>
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
>  Maybe we need some sort of course/book "wiki-process
> design for
> dummies".
>
>
> Yes a blanket edit notice that simply tried to deter edits would most
likely simply deter some goodfaith edits, focussing it at newbies would
seem to me to be institutionalised newby biting. Targeted bespoke edit
notices however are I hope a different kettle of fish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editnotice It is also possible to
add a hidden comment that only editors see. For example "Please don't
change this person's religion unless you have evidence that they have
identified themselves as belonging to that particular religion - please see
the talkpage for past discussions about this person's alleged religion".

At their crudest such edit notices can bring people's attention to policies
that regularly get contravened on this page - "this article uses a
non-american version of English" or that this article is part of a
controversial area with special rules such as Israel/ Palestine. They can
also alert people that one aspect of an article is settled and unlikely to
change without debate whilst other aspects are subject to normal editing.
It would be good to see some research into the effectiveness of these edit
notices and comments, my limited experience of them is that they are very
useful and I believe a good way to alert people to very specific things
that are contentious. My suspicion is that some may be being misused by
those who WP:Own an article. Perhaps if someone wants to run an editor
engagement experiment they could revisit a bunch of these templates and add
a closing phrase such as  "You are very welcome to expand and improve other
aspects of this article in the same way that you may edit any normal
article on Wikipedia". Then see if the articles subsequently get edited
more frequently than under the previous notice.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Tim Starling]

On 08/01/13 20:30, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:
>> For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
>> developed countries would be less damaging.
> 
> I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
> users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).

Phone number verification would dramatically reduce the rate of new
user creation. It would especially discourage casual vandalism and
casual good-faith contributions (typo fixes, etc.). Combined with
disabling anonymous edits, and allowing phone number ranges to be
blocked, it should reduce the vandalism rate by at least an order of
magnitude.

The case for restricting the use of semi-automated anti-vandal tools
would then be much stronger. Since the rate of new user creation would
slow from a flood to a trickle, constructive and friendly engagement
with new users would seem both more feasible and more essential.

So editor retention would be improved, at the expense of editor
recruitment.

I don't know whether the net effect on the editor population would be
positive or negative. But my theory is that the people who are
discouraged by phone number verification would be less likely to hold
a grudge against Wikipedia than the people who have their
contributions reverted and nasty messages placed on their talk pages.
Thus, editor numbers will rebound after phone number verification is
disabled.

The editor retention problem is best solved by enforcing policies
which are aimed at ensuring new users feel welcomed. But if
enforcement is impossible, then a weaker alternative would be to
implement technical measures which will make those policies seem
attractive.

-- Tim Starling



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
>> >
>> > Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.
>
>> >
>> But we need to understand what's wrong with the current way of doing things 
>> as
>> part of the discussion.
>
>
> Consider a famous example in Japan: Several Japanese onsens had problems with
> Russian Sailors, so in the end they instituded a "no foreigners allowed" 
> policy.
> This solved the probnlem nicely.
>
> I've also heard a story about a lan party in texas, where they had had 
> repeated
> issues with people hurling slurs at girl gamers etc. so in the end they simply
> banned all female participants.
>
>
> The correct solution to newbies being chased off is not "ban them upfront". 
> The
> correct solution is to deal with those chasing off the newbies ;-)

There is a tremendous difference between a clickthrough warning that
one might be wading into a dangerous topic, and a ban of a type or
class of users from articles or topic areas.

Some users who we would, in a total picture and retrospect, not want
to edit those articles (and be subject to potential or actual nasty
responses) will be driven off that article.  That's the idea working.

Some of those would be discouraged from editing elsewhere on the wiki
and leaving entirely.  That would be the idea having unintended
consequences beyond the specific purpose, failing in a
counterproductive way.

Some people would ignore the warning and post anyways.

Some of those would get nasty responses and leave entirely.  This
would be the idea failing.

Some will get nasty responses, recall the warning, and go edit
elsewhere.  This would be a suboptimal but ultimately successful
version of the idea working.

Properly considered, we'd look at how many people the idea worked for
- warned them effectively, either redirecting them to less
controversial topics or helping them be forewarned about the
controversies.  We'd compare with the people it didn't work for, the
failures and the counterproductive failures.

Additionally, we'd compare it with doing nothing, with how many
editors we're driving away now when they walk unawares into hornets
nests.

Additionally, we could compare it to alternate solutions such as
discouraging nasty editors from driving newbies away.

In a net sense, if we drove away more people than we saved, it would
be a loss to include it.  If it worked better than the alternate
solution it would also be a better idea.

You're presuming we'd drive away more people than we saved.  I don't
reject the possibility that that's true, but it's worth examining.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:10:33PM +, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> 
> > With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> > Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> > and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> > options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> > that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> > compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> > recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> > ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> > to only flagged newbie helpers.
> 
> 
> How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
> shooting gallery?

Conspire with the Twinkle/Huggle writers to implement [[poka-yoke]]
(mistake-proofed) UI and workflow changes, so that that course of action
becomes difficult?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> >
> > Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.

> >
> But we need to understand what's wrong with the current way of doing things as
> part of the discussion.


Consider a famous example in Japan: Several Japanese onsens had problems with
Russian Sailors, so in the end they instituded a "no foreigners allowed" policy.
This solved the probnlem nicely. 

I've also heard a story about a lan party in texas, where they had had repeated
issues with people hurling slurs at girl gamers etc. so in the end they simply
banned all female participants. 


The correct solution to newbies being chased off is not "ban them upfront". The
correct solution is to deal with those chasing off the newbies ;-)


sincerely,
Kim

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> to only flagged newbie helpers.


Technically, you could get very close by just creating a separate wiki for new
users and new articles. (replacing the current AFC process).

Simplest thing that could possibly work. + we have a precedent
(nupedia->wikipedia)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:57PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
>> I almost wonder if having a "warning flag" for highly sensitive or
>> contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
>> edits (500?  ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
>> article talk page first, rather than going directly to editing the
>> actual article...
>
>
> Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.
>
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
>  Maybe we need some sort of course/book "wiki-process design 
> for
> dummies".

The converse of that is new user wades in unaware, is beaten up by
experienced editors who have long-standing biases and positions on the
article, concludes WP is full of opinionated asshats who want no
changes whatsoever, and leaves.

That never happens...

Every choice - including choices we are aware of, but chose not to
take - has an impact.  We're talking about these because we are aware
of negative impacts of the way we do things now.

That is not to say that adding process or technology helps.  But we
need to understand what's wrong with the current way of doing things
as part of the discussion.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:57PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> I almost wonder if having a "warning flag" for highly sensitive or
> contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
> edits (500?  ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
> article talk page first, rather than going directly to editing the
> actual article...


Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.


sincerely,
Kim Bruning

 Maybe we need some sort of course/book "wiki-process design for
dummies".


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:42PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
> 
> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
> instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
> 
> Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
> professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
> 
> Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
> than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
> 
> Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
> and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
> one.

You know, this is starting to sound like we're the 2001 wikipedia to provide
input to the nascent Nupedia? ;-)

My proposal would be to replace AFC with an "unstable branch wikipedia".
(And cherry-pick from there). This proposal has the upside that it uses proven
technology and processes ;-)

sincerely,
Kim bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 09:02:18AM -0500, Nathan wrote:
> Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by anarchy?
> If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most
> decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
> is left.

Consensus != Anarchy. And we've actually had [[WP:CONSENSUS]] nailed down pretty
hard, with process diagrams and everything. People keep disbelieving the hard
definitions and watering things down though. 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning 

(IMO anyway. I've always been a hardcore IAR/BOLD person... and for good
procedural reasons. And no, that is also not a recipe for "anarchy" or anomie.)



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:48:46AM -0500, Risker wrote:
> all.  New editors don't know what BRD means (Bold, Revert, Discuss).


some "older"editors typically don't either. They often read it to mean the 
opposite
of what it actually means. 

WP Consensus works by switching between 2 different feedback cycles.
(For more on similar feedback cycles, see PDCA (corporate) or OODA (military) )

The first is simple Bold edit->watch->noagree?->edit[[Wikipedia:Consensus]]
The second is Bold->Revert->Discuss->Bold   mentioned at [[WP:BRD]], but
that page  does not cover this 
fully.

The mistake a lot of editors make is that they think it's linear
(bold->-revert->discuss_forever)

In reality, the objective is to get back to bold editing, because you're on a 
wiki, and that's what wikis are for.

If you disagree that discussions are getting stuck, why can't we outright edit
policies anymore when they no longer fit? Why is there a report that says
wikipedia's structure is ossified?

If you disagrees that the primary objective is and should be to get back to
editing (and thus remain flexible and responsive at all times): How do you
propose that wikipedia adapt to the changing world around it, if many policies
and other pages are now effectively locked down?

I've worked at some very old companies. The reason they're still around is
because they accept input from the outside world, listen to people, and they
stay flexible by having processes in place to change the processes, as needed.

Finally, I don't think the WP structure is nescessarily bad. It's just that
people currently aren't learning how to use it like they did before.

Look at procedures used for elections in Iraqs system: first they taught
everyone how democracy worked, *then* they held an election. If they'd just held
elections without ever teaching anyone what that means, they'd have gotten a(n
even bigger) mess. :-P

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.


I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
at all just an en:wp problem.

How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
the non-Wikipedias?


- .

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Kim Bruning]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:02:57PM -0800, Erik Moeller wrote:
> More disruptive technical solutions could include:
> 
> * safer alternative work/collaboration spaces that don't suffer from
> the contention issues of the main article space (sandboxes on
> steroids)



> * easier ways for new users to re-do an edit that has been reverted
> (cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Improve_your_edit )
> * real-time mechanisms for coaching, collaboration (chat, real-time
> collaborative editing) and mentor matchmaking
> 
> More disruptive policy-level changes would include rethinking some of
> the more problematic quality-related policies, especially notability.


I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).

Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia. 

But we already have a known solution to the nupedia problem: to wit:
start a (new) wiki.:-P

Many mature open source projects (such as eg. the linux kernel) are
split into 2 or more  branches: typically called "stable" on the one
hand, and "unstable", "experimental", "testing", or similar on the
other.

The stable branch aims to be reliable, while the unstable branch
provides space to try out new ideas. When things are tested out
sufficiently, they are ported to "stable"

Many of the roles that en.wikipedia has become bad at (creation of new stubs,
training new users, exploring areas of knowledge in a more general way) are
actually roles that an open wiki is i(supposed to be) EXCELLENT at.

The very best thing a wiki is good at is to take texts from stubs and
data-dumps to decent articles, collaboratively. But everyone on
en.wikipedia is now encouraged to create articles in their own
userspace and/or use a strapped-on new article creation process.. So
the section of the process where a wiki develops the most "torque" has
effectively been sealed. 

So perhaps we'd like to have a "stable" and "unstable" branch of
wikipedia. The stable branch continues with current rules (or perhaps
might use sanitized nupedia rules) concentrating on the encyclopedic
trifecta NOR, RS, V.  The unstable branch concentrates more on the
wiki trifecta NPOV/DICK/IAR(+BOLD).

When articles on unstable are deemed good enough, they can be transferred to
nupedi...pardon... wikipedia stable.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

>
> It's the worst kept secret in the world that you can hire people to
> decode your captchas -- http://decaptcha.biz/ for example.  Better
> captchas don't work because you are competing against people and if
> people can't solve the captcha ...

Middle name of Jimmy Wales has worked well for me.

And middle name of Larry Sanger, and nickname of Jimmy Wales.

Fred


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Leslie Carr]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 13:10:
>
>>> In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
>>> spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less
>>
>>
>> Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by
>> software or by humans)? How come other websites don't have this problem?
>
>
> Are you kidding? All MediaWiki websites suffer from the uselessness of its
> captchas.
> For additional information please refer to the discussions linked from
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/CAPTCHA and others on
> wikitech-l.

It's the worst kept secret in the world that you can hire people to
decode your captchas -- http://decaptcha.biz/ for example.  Better
captchas don't work because you are competing against people and if
people can't solve the captcha ...

In my experience, some sort of easy captchas do prevent the
lowest/stupidest level of spammer (you have to have enough knowledge
to integrate an api into your spamming program)

Also for major spammers, it's so easy to get a large block of phone
numbers in the US (a DID) - but again that does raise the bar a second
time for spammers.  In my opinion a phone auth may also be raising the
bar too high for some users, and you have to balance that risk.

I think that technical solutions may be a better call for this (some
sort of spam ranking system)

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



-- 
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 13:10:

In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less


Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by
software or by humans)? How come other websites don't have this problem?


Are you kidding? All MediaWiki websites suffer from the uselessness of 
its captchas.
For additional information please refer to the discussions linked from 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/CAPTCHA and others 
on wikitech-l.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 8 January 2013 12:10, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:
> On 08/01/13 11:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

>> In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
>> spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less

> Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by
> software or by humans)? How come other websites don't have this problem?


They do. rationalwiki.org has floods of spam accounts created,
apparently getting through the MediaWiki captcha just fine.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 08/01/13 11:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 10:30:

On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.


I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).


Not to say that it would be a good idea, but Google does it already and
phone verification is probably less painful than our CAPTCHAs are to
non-English users (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5309 ).


It's not that it's painful, it's that I don't want various organizations 
to know my phone number.



In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less


Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by 
software or by humans)? How come other websites don't have this problem?


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 8 January 2013 10:35, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping spammers
> at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less motivated and
> experienced) users.


Yes, MediaWiki captchas are, presently, literally worse than useless.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 10:30:

On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.


I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).


Not to say that it would be a good idea, but Google does it already and 
phone verification is probably less painful than our CAPTCHAs are to 
non-English users (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5309 ).
In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping 
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less 
motivated and experienced) users.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.


I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new 
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 03:11:03 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker  wrote:


The lack of flagged revisions is a key contributor to this state of
affairs. The English Wikipedia is ridiculously vulnerable to 
vandalism. Is
it surprising that that vulnerability attracts large numbers of 
vandals and

vandal fighters?

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


Not really. Russian Wikipedia has flagged revisions for almost five 
years now, and the situation with conflict resolution there is 
dramatically worse than in English Wikipedia, with assuming bad faith 
basically being the only means to move forward.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker  wrote:

> We have been, to some extent, the victims of our own success.  We grew
> exponentially and not organically, and given the roots of our community,
> the usual group structural forms were eschewed. There was also practically
> no money for anything for a very long time (our fundraisers now raise as
> much in a day as they did in the entire year when I first joined up), and
> very few employees who kept the operation together with shoestrings and
> sealing wax, while everything else was left to the editorial communities
> (and the volunteer developer communities) to keep things going. This
> "flattened hierarchy" of leadership worked reasonably well with a smaller
> editorial community that had barely scratched the surface of content
> creation, but quickly showed itself to be impractical when editors joined
> in droves - many of them focusing on hand-to-hand combat with vandals.
> Those who loathed wasting their time cleaning up after vandals were glad to
> have this newer cadre join them; however, there was a palpable difference
> in their reason for becoming part of the community, and when the number of
> highly active contributors more than doubled over a short period of time,
> it was impossible to provide an effective process to help them learn the
> technical, policy, and cultural expectations. Efforts to try to remedy some
> of these issues have been largely unsuccessful, with an overwhelming
> proliferation of often-conflicting policies that are nearly
> incomprehensible to the uninitiated, an overabundance of badly written and
> poorly descriptive templates, and a dependence on automated tools for
> social interaction.
>


The lack of flagged revisions is a key contributor to this state of
affairs. The English Wikipedia is ridiculously vulnerable to vandalism. Is
it surprising that that vulnerability attracts large numbers of vandals and
vandal fighters?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Jan 5, 2013 1:03 AM, "George Herbert"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
>  wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, "George Herbert" 
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard 
wrote:
> >> > On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close
personal
> > or
> >> >> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own
> > research,
> >> >> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or
that
> > you're
> >> >> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
> > strongly
> >> >> about, the history of your own family, etc.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
> >> > fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
> >> > realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
> >> > instructions pretty much won't be read.
> >>
> >> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
> >>
> >> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
> >> instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
> >>
> >> Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
> >> professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
> >>
> >> Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
> >> than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
> >>
> >> Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
> >> and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
> >> one.
> >> .
> >>
> >
> > Please resubmit this suggestion after three hours of AfC work
>
> You think I haven't done hours (days, weeks, at one point a month)
> worth of AfC work?
>
> I thought AfC was a great place to ramp up my WP skills when I was
> getting in sync.  Pick something I knew about but not enough to write
> an article, go research it, zap.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
>

George, sorry about implying you didn't. Ill follow up with a smarter
response later.

___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:56:52 -0600, Mark wrote:

On 1/4/13 9:57 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:



I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no 
solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, 
but

nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.



Certainly, it will not. For the very same reason you mention: less 
not covered topics, more complexity, higher editing standards.


Yes, this is the main problem I've run into trying to recruit new
Wikipedia editors: less low-hanging fruit, at least on en.wiki 
(things

are different on smaller wikis). Fewer topics of widespread general
interest are completely article-less compared to a few years ago, so
there's less scope to e.g. write a 1-paragraph stub about [[Mahmoud
Abbas]] and feel you've contributed significantly. *And* you can no
longer do so just by jotting down a few things you remember off the
top of your head, since the standards for verifiability have gone up
considerably.



Concerning the low-hanging fruit, I am ambivalent on this point, and I 
was arguing both ways on this list in the past.


On one side, I personally had no problems finding my topics in English 
Wikipedia. Just several examples:
1. The bulk of my contribution are the topics related to human 
geography and history of Russia. The sources for these topics are 
predominantly in Russian, this is why most of these articles are 
one-line stubs or do not exist. As a Russian speaker, having access to 
Russian sources, I am able to source these articles.
2. Sometimes I write articles about NRHP listings, often to be able to 
use my own photographs. This is not particularly difficult, since some 
of them have the nomination forms online, and others usually have enough 
info. It just requires some time to search for the sources and to digest 
them.
3. I have a number of books on art and artists at home, in all possible 
languages, and sometimes I use them to write or expand existing 
articles.
4. I tried my own field, which is nanophysics, and it did not go very 
well. Once I had an incident on Wikiproject:Physics, trying to argue 
that some stuff is textbook material, but was overruled by majority. 
Then I just unwatched the project and never came back. Occasionally, I 
edit the articles in my field, and I have several in my watchlist, but 
ths is certainly not my main activity.


The conclusion is that I never had problems to finding topics (and I 
have more interests and more special sources, even if these get filled 
up at some point), but on the other hand I am not exactly a typical 
person from the street - I speak several languages, have extensive 
academic experience, including writing books and review articles, and I 
have a broad range of interests. Whereas this is kind of our picture of 
a Wikipedian, the reality is much more broad. An American teenager 
speaking only English and only interested in computer games may feel it 
differently.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Aaron Halfaker, 04/01/2013 23:57:

Forgive me, but:


 1) we already know that users who joined in 2005/2006 are still

disproportionately active in most community processes like deletion
discussions and so on,

How disproportionately active *are* the 2005/2006ers and is the problem
solving itself or getting worse?


I've no idea of course, I'm not able to produce updates for papers I 
read (and embarassingly enough, not even to quickly find the paper in 
question on my hard drive). :-)





 2) everybody knows that to influence how the wiki is run it's more

effective to change a single word in an important policy than to
establish ten new policies.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement.  It certainly depends on the
importance of the single word and the potential ten new policies.  Do
you know how the influence of policy works and can you prove it?


I don't see why the burden of proof should be on me: you are the one 
claiming that non-multiplication of policies is a problem, a very novel 
concept to my mind.
I suppose that some useful research could be done on the "verifiability, 
not truth" motto, which in the end was killed: a big example of 
NoRespectForHistory I'd say; maybe a nice achievement for the recent 
editors you'd think.





As Oliver stated, there's a big difference between just knowing
something and having a good reason to know it.  In this paper, we
explored quite a few intuitive explanations for the decline and reduced
them dramatically.  A lot of "known"s became known to be wrong in the
process of our analysis (e.g. that the decline was caused by the
declining quality of newcomers).

I'd go farther than Oliver though to start we all gain a lot by using
data to beat back assumptions that were wrong and supporting those that
are right.  It's not just academics that are empowered by knowledge
based on big data analysis.  Both the community and the foundation need
to know the scale and trajectory of certain problems in order to
prioritize and act effectively.  The intuition of individuals is
invaluable, no doubt, but it is no substitute for data on important
patterns that are difficult to observe.


Again, I never said the contrary.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Tim Starling]

On 04/01/13 18:02, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
> topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
> But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the "editor
> retention problem" as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
> to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
> which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
> deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain. The
> new editor experience is characterized more by templating and assembly
> line style enforcement of existing policies than it is by incivility,
> topic warring, article ownership and incivility.
> 
> I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
> decline" paper resonate with you:
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

Yes, they do resonate with me. The paper says that established users
who use Huggle and similar tools do not follow best practices when
they revert the edits of new users. This leads to poor editor
retention. I am saying that an expanded arbcom and its delegated
officers should reprimand those Huggle users.

I am not saying that the editor retention problem is the kind of thing
that the arbcom currently deals with. I think the arbcom is limited in
the kinds of problems it can deal with because its mandate and
resources are limited.

> Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
> well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
> discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
> explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
> contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
> control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
> which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
> increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
> / page creation.

We need ways to deal with bad faith edits that don't require
destruction of the project to achieve their purpose.

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.

When a Huggle user drives away a new good faith user, that new user
might not return for decades. You can't reverse it no matter what new
policies you introduce, you just have to wait for another person to be
born and grow up. It would be less damaging to tell them "sorry, we
can't accept any new users from Comcast this year, try again next year!"

Note that the total edit rate has declined from 4.5M in January 2007
to 3.5M per month in October 2012. As a metric of the workload that
places on very active users, consider that figure divided by the
number of users with more than 100 edits per month: it works out to
950 per very active user per month in January 2007, up to 1078 per
very active user per month in October 2012.

So it is hard for me to believe that the total review workload has
increased over that period to such an extent that our only option is
now to revert both good and bad edits on sight, with no discussion.
Presumably the proportion of bad edits has increased, but it should be
quicker to deal with simple vandalism than to review a good faith edit
and engage with the editor.

But we can always do new user phone number verification if enforcing
the revert policy turns out to be too hard, right?

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Mark  wrote:
> On 1/4/13 5:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:
>>>
 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal
 or
 emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
 your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that
 you're
 involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
 strongly
 about, the history of your own family, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
>>> fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
>>> realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
>>> instructions pretty much won't be read.
>>
>> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
>>
>> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
>> instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
>
>
> Hmm, I should've worded that more narrowly. I don't disagree with people
> writing on subjects they know (quite the opposite!). I have more in mind to
> avoid things that people have an unusually close personal/emotional
> connection to, which makes it more likely their editing will result in
> POV-pushing.
>
> For example, I'm Greek, and know a bit about Greek culture, history, etc.,
> and these are fine areas for someone to start editing in. On the other hand,
> a Greek choosing [[Macedonia naming dispute]] or [[Cyprus dispute]] as the
> first article one edits (e.g. to "correct misinformation") is less
> advisable, imo. It's certainly possible to edit reasonably in those areas,
> but I think it's a poor starting point, and requires some more experience
> with how to write neutral articles in contentious areas, and how to reach a
> consensus over what that even means.

I almost wonder if having a "warning flag" for highly sensitive or
contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
edits (500?  ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
article talk page first, rather than going directly to editing the
actual article...

Don't make it impossible for them to edit the actual article by any
means, but give them an intermediate popup warning them that they
might want to think about it and ask about it first...  Click through
to edit the article, or click over here to ask on the talk page.

If they edit anyways and push hot buttons, we deal with it, but at
least they were warned.  If they ask on talk page and figure it out,
great.

> Same in my area of expertise: editing AI articles is a great place for an AI
> researcher to start editing, but editing an article on one's own research
> lab, self, department, algorithm, etc. is not a great place. Unfortunately I
> often find academics primarily interested in the latter: the would-be-editor
> question I most often get is along the lines of, "how do I create a
> Wikipedia article on [my own thing]"? I do try to redirect this into
> suggesting they edit more generally in their area of expertise but not
> *specifically* their approach/self/lab they're trying to promote, e.g. think
> about what exists in a good textbook or survey article that's not yet
> covered well in Wikipedia, and work there. But I'd say that's usually not
> successful.


Most experts haven't written or contemplated writing general purpose
overviews or survey texts in their field, so they're not actually
experienced in that aspect of it.  Many of them may have escaped
having to teach the undergrad intro to the field course, even 8-)

It's not easy.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Mark]

On 1/4/13 5:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:


1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that you're
involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel strongly
about, the history of your own family, etc.


This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
instructions pretty much won't be read.

Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...

What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...


Hmm, I should've worded that more narrowly. I don't disagree with people 
writing on subjects they know (quite the opposite!). I have more in mind 
to avoid things that people have an unusually close personal/emotional 
connection to, which makes it more likely their editing will result in 
POV-pushing.


For example, I'm Greek, and know a bit about Greek culture, history, 
etc., and these are fine areas for someone to start editing in. On the 
other hand, a Greek choosing [[Macedonia naming dispute]] or [[Cyprus 
dispute]] as the first article one edits (e.g. to "correct 
misinformation") is less advisable, imo. It's certainly possible to edit 
reasonably in those areas, but I think it's a poor starting point, and 
requires some more experience with how to write neutral articles in 
contentious areas, and how to reach a consensus over what that even means.


Same in my area of expertise: editing AI articles is a great place for 
an AI researcher to start editing, but editing an article on one's own 
research lab, self, department, algorithm, etc. is not a great place. 
Unfortunately I often find academics primarily interested in the latter: 
the would-be-editor question I most often get is along the lines of, 
"how do I create a Wikipedia article on [my own thing]"? I do try to 
redirect this into suggesting they edit more generally in their area of 
expertise but not *specifically* their approach/self/lab they're trying 
to promote, e.g. think about what exists in a good textbook or survey 
article that's not yet covered well in Wikipedia, and work there. But 
I'd say that's usually not successful.


-Mark

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
 wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, "George Herbert"  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> > On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal
> or
>> >> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own
> research,
>> >> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that
> you're
>> >> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
> strongly
>> >> about, the history of your own family, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
>> > fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
>> > realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
>> > instructions pretty much won't be read.
>>
>> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
>>
>> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
>> instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
>>
>> Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
>> professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
>>
>> Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
>> than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
>>
>> Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
>> and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
>> one.
>> .
>>
>
> Please resubmit this suggestion after three hours of AfC work

You think I haven't done hours (days, weeks, at one point a month)
worth of AfC work?

I thought AfC was a great place to ramp up my WP skills when I was
getting in sync.  Pick something I knew about but not enough to write
an article, go research it, zap.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, "George Herbert"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> > On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:
> >
> >> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal
or
> >> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own
research,
> >> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that
you're
> >> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
strongly
> >> about, the history of your own family, etc.
> >
> >
> > This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
> > fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
> > realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
> > instructions pretty much won't be read.
>
> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
>
> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
> instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
>
> Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
> professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
>
> Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
> than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
>
> Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
> and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
> one.
> .
>

Please resubmit this suggestion after three hours of AfC work

>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:
>
>> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
>> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
>> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that you're
>> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel strongly
>> about, the history of your own family, etc.
>
>
> This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
> fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
> realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
> instructions pretty much won't be read.

Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...

What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...

Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.

Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.

Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
one.
.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Steven Walling]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Martijn Hoekstra  wrote:

> This is pretty cool cool. How hard would it be to hack together something
> like the curation tool for which I have much love, but for recent changes
> by newbies instead?
>

Not radically more difficult than Special:NewPagesFeed, would be my guess.
I would think you could actually adapt the Curation Toolbar it uses for
this purpose as well.

If anyone's interested in working on it, I'm happy to help; a specialized
welcoming interface is something in the E3 backlog of ideas, but which we
haven't focused on yet.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Steven Walling wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>
> > With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> > Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> > and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> > options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> > that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> > compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> > recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> > ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> > to only flagged newbie helpers.
> >
>
> These aren't power tools like what vandalfighters have in Huggle or
> Twinkle, but I would check out the two following feeds of new editor
> activity, if you want to give this kind of task a try:
>
> --
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&contribs=newbie
> shows newbie edits of all sorts
>

This is pretty cool cool. How hard would it be to hack together something
like the curation tool for which I have much love, but for recent changes
by newbies instead?


> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard which shows the
> positive, negative, and just plain confused comments by new editors who
> have at least clicked the edit button once. This one in particular needs
> attention from thoughtful, experienced contributors.
>
> Steven
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Steven Walling]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> to only flagged newbie helpers.
>

These aren't power tools like what vandalfighters have in Huggle or
Twinkle, but I would check out the two following feeds of new editor
activity, if you want to give this kind of task a try:

-- 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&contribs=newbiewhich
shows newbie edits of all sorts
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard which shows the
positive, negative, and just plain confused comments by new editors who
have at least clicked the edit button once. This one in particular needs
attention from thoughtful, experienced contributors.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Steven Walling]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sage Ross wrote:

> There is some neat tech that the E3 team has plans to use, which would
> also be a good framework for this kind of interactive training:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Guided_tours
>

Yes, this is getting close to being ready for deployment, and is an idea
that has been floating around for a while.[1] There are quite a few good
open source libraries that do this kind of tooltip-based instructional
tour, so we worked off of one Terry Chay adapted for us.

In addition to tours packaged with the extension, it makes room for the
community to create tours, sort of like gadgets. Used sparingly (these are
popups, and can suffer from the Clippy effect if misused [2]) and with
careful attention to the workflow, we hope this will be a big help. When we
run remote user tests with average Web users, they quickly get confused and
overwhelmed by wiki page documentation with reams of instruction.

Steven

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Feature_map
2.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1991915_1991909_1991755,00.html
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Sage Ross]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Peter Coombe  wrote:

>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
> which is a project very much along these lines. I'm not sure what the
> current status of that is, but it definitely seems like a good
> approach for at least some groups of newbies.
>

There is some neat tech that the E3 team has plans to use, which would
also be a good framework for this kind of interactive training:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Guided_tours

On a less interactive level, we've also got some trainings tailored to
different groups of people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Training

We've never really tried systematically pointing newbies to a
structured orientation (as opposed to giving them 10 or 20 links to
explore without guidance).

-Sage

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark  wrote:

> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that you're
> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel strongly
> about, the history of your own family, etc.


This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
instructions pretty much won't be read.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Peter Coombe]

On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
> The MUD I reference has both a MUD school where a presumably new user
> goes through the basic game moves and is instructed in them and, much
> more interesting and engaging, a complex Newbie zone where the new player
> faces an increasing complex series of challenges which successfully
> accomplish learning by doing. The coding on the particular MUD generously
> rewards every "right" move with "experience", "money", and other goodies.
> This is all very nanny and I doubt the average highly educated user who
> is a university professor or professional could accept being put to
> school in this manner in a compulsory way before being allowed to edit,
> but it could be available as an option. We could even have a "practice"
> wiki which was set up in this way as an option. Probably no one would use
> it though, I suppose, so whatever is done would probably have to be on
> the main site. It would be a sandbox, but a more active and monitored
> one, actually a set of practice articles in sandboxes.
>

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
which is a project very much along these lines. I'm not sure what the
current status of that is, but it definitely seems like a good
approach for at least some groups of newbies.

Pete / the wub

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Mark]

On 1/4/13 9:57 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:



I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, but
nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.



Certainly, it will not. For the very same reason you mention: less not 
covered topics, more complexity, higher editing standards.


Yes, this is the main problem I've run into trying to recruit new 
Wikipedia editors: less low-hanging fruit, at least on en.wiki (things 
are different on smaller wikis). Fewer topics of widespread general 
interest are completely article-less compared to a few years ago, so 
there's less scope to e.g. write a 1-paragraph stub about [[Mahmoud 
Abbas]] and feel you've contributed significantly. *And* you can no 
longer do so just by jotting down a few things you remember off the top 
of your head, since the standards for verifiability have gone up 
considerably.


So the first problem I run into is that many people feel Wikipedia is 
"done", or at least done enough that the remaining work is too advanced 
for a casual layperson to do. And the second problem is that not many 
people want to go to a library, look up books, and do proper research 
with cited sources, if it isn't a school assignment or part of their 
job. I suspect that part hasn't even really changed—we have fewer 
editors now than in 2005, but I would guess if you look at the number of 
*souce-citing* editors in 2005 versus today, there hasn't been much of a 
decline (I could be wrong on that!).


The most successful approach I've found to getting new people interested 
and non-frustrated is to suggest they follow an approach roughly like this:


---

1. Start with a source, not a topic. Pick a high-quality book that 
covers subjects that could have Wikipedia articles. For example, I 
recently picked up a book on archaeology of northern Greece. Browse in a 
library for inspiration!


1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal 
or emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own 
research, your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours 
or that you're involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject 
you feel strongly about, the history of your own family, etc.


2. Scan through the book for topics that could be discrete Wikipedia 
articles. For example, the book may describe specific historical 
figures, or archaeological sites. Identify some that have enough 
material on them in the book to put together at least a short article. 
See if a Wikipedia article already exists (try several name variations, 
and search for mentions in other articles).


3. Add information from the book to an existing article, or start a new 
one. After each paragraph (or occasionally after specific important 
sentences) add a citation to where you got the information, by adding a 
citation tag: A. Author (1999). Book, pp. 22-23 . You can 
format the citation with whatever style you want, as long as it's 
sufficient to identify the source. (Wikipedia does have official 
citation templates, but there's need to trouble yourself with them when 
starting out... a bot or person will re-format your citations later if 
necessary).


4. If it's a new article, add at the end of the article a reference section:
==References==
{{reflist}}

This will automatically generate a bibliography of everything you put in 
 tags.


5. Optionally, add categories to the article, by adding something like 
this at the end of the article text, after the references:


[[Category:Castles in Greece]]
[[Category:13th-century architecture]]

---

I haven't had much success convincing people to do that, though. Not 
lack of success as in people try and then fail: run into deletionism or 
incivility, or just aren't able to figure it out. But lack of success in 
convincing people to go to the library, find a book, and write a cited 
article based on it. Most people, ime so far at least, just aren't 
interested in doing that. Not sure how to change that, short of paying 
editors.


-Mark


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nathan]

I'm sure there are vast amounts of topics local to India that are poorly
covered, and pointing out that X, Y and Z still have holes is the standard
response to any statement about "low-hanging fruit." But it's standard
because it's easy, not because it meaningfully responds to the original
point - which is that the English Wikipedia's pool of able and interested
contributors is shrinking quite independently of any environmental
problems.


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 4 January 2013 15:29, Nathan  wrote:
>
> >  Most topics that are popular or
> > significant to large groups of English-writing people are already well
> > covered, narrowing the opportunities for those folks (who, let's recall,
> > generally don't have advanced expertise of the type amenable to Wikipedia
> > articles) to contribute.
>
>
> So I hear this may not be at all the case, and that editors writing
> about Indian topics complain of excessive trouble getting past US
> editors' notability detectors. This is of course anecdote not numbers,
> but I would suggest not ignoring it.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:



I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, but
nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.



Certainly, it will not. For the very same reason you mention: less not 
covered topics, more complexity, higher editing standards.


We just have to live with that. I personally found a niche (or rather 
several niches) which I am covering. If nobody else gets interested 
(which seems to be the case), I have enough to do for the next ten years 
or so.


This is not bad and not good. This is a fact.

The question of editor retention I believe is not to return to 
Wikipedia as of ten or five years ago (this is largely impossible - 
remember the first day on Wikidata! This is why everybody went there for 
just a day). The problem is how to create an atmosphere in which those 
who are interested in writing encyclopedic articles could write them and 
not be afraid that tomorrow one idiot would take and article for speedy 
deletion when you are still sleeping, and another idiot with 
administrator tools would delete it because they do not understand the 
language of the references. And those who came here not primarily to 
write articles or at least to maintain the place clean, but to solve 
their personal problems, should be shown the door. And this is a real 
problem, because those who came to solve their personal problems for 
obvious reasons are more persistent and more aggressive.


As I said in one of the previous posts, I do not know how this could be 
solved. But before solving the problem one needs to formulate it. Just 
saying "edirot retention" or "creative atmosphere" is just pronouncing 
buzzwords. Retention of which editors? Of all editors? On what 
conditions? Are we ready to sacrifice the civility a bit? And there are 
many questions like this which were not even been put on the agenda.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 4 January 2013 15:41, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:

> Editing an article was easy. All I needed to know was simple and intuitive
> syntax for headings, bold, italic and links. It was easy to see article text
> through this syntax.


I spent idle time in the holiday week working on [[:en:OpenOffice]].
Wikitext is just awful these days, particularly in an article like
that where every assertion needs and has a cite. Anyone who thinks
wikitext is just fine for the job, I urge you to click "edit" and
contemplate fixing the guacamole you see before you. Sure hope the
visual editor makes managing references on an article like that
easier.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 4 January 2013 15:29, Nathan  wrote:

>  Most topics that are popular or
> significant to large groups of English-writing people are already well
> covered, narrowing the opportunities for those folks (who, let's recall,
> generally don't have advanced expertise of the type amenable to Wikipedia
> articles) to contribute.


So I hear this may not be at all the case, and that editors writing
about Indian topics complain of excessive trouble getting past US
editors' notability detectors. This is of course anecdote not numbers,
but I would suggest not ignoring it.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 04/01/13 16:29, Nathan wrote:

So any complete statement of the problem, which ought to be the starting
point for any efforts to solve it, should account for the awkward new
editor experience, the difficulties facing long-term contributors, *and*
the natural and inevitably growing attrition rate that we should reasonably
expect to see.


I don't know if it might help to offer my personal insight.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I was a student. I had a lot of free 
time. I would spend several hours on Wikipedia every day.


My typical day on Wikipedia would involve writing an article, posting it 
to Wikipedia, editing a few articles on various topics that interested 
me, going over every article on my watchlist, overseeing every edit and 
fixing vandalism, if there was any. I would add to my watchlist any 
article I have created, significantly edited, or just found interesting.


Editing an article was easy. All I needed to know was simple and 
intuitive syntax for headings, bold, italic and links. It was easy to 
see article text through this syntax.


I always preferred making a new article to editing an existing ones. 
Making an article was easy - as easy as typing the definition. One 
sentence article was perfectly fine. There were no categories. There 
were no references. There were no infoboxes. There were no stub templates.


Choosing a topic to write about was easy. I wrote on topics that I 
personally found interesting. I got to write articles on important 
historical figures that felt like an honor to write.


I liked it when I got a new message on my talk page and have talked with 
some really interesting people. I believe I have improved my English 
just from watching how people were correcting my articles.


Fast forward ten years.

Today, I am employed. I can devote to Wikipedia several hours every week.

My watchlist has grown to 2722 entries and has became completely 
impossible to watch. I have no time to carefully oversee every edit - I 
often simply revert a sub-par edit that could have been salvaged just 
because I have no time to fix it.


Editing articles became much more difficult. Just seeing reference 
templates throughout the text makes me cringe. Editing around them is a 
pain. (Don't take this as a stab against the templates; it is much 
easier to insert a template than to copy/paste them as we used to; but 
because of this ease they are used much more.)


One sentence articles are deleted on sight. Stubs stand a grand chance 
of being deleted too. Creating an article became bothersome just because 
of the need to fill all the required details properly. Even uploading an 
image to Commons became bothersome for me because of this.


A newbie can't write a new article because all the generally-known 
topics already have articles, and lesser-known topics the newbie might 
know about he doesn't know to reference properly. (References weren't 
necessary when most topics were generally known but are now necessary 
because of the topic's obscurity.)


I still have interesting topics I could write about. But they are all 
very obscure (for example, after the article on Serbian folk astronomy I 
am considering writing one on Serbian folk cosmology), and writing on 
obscure topics is not fun, because no one else edits the articles 
because no one else knows about the topic.


I fear to open my talk page since more often than not it's a deletion 
notice or somesuch.


I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no solution. I 
could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, but 
nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nathan]

Tim and Erik's views aren't at all incompatible or mutually exclusive;
they're just looking at opposite ends of the same problem, which stated
fully is that experienced editors leave and the pace of new editors turning
into experienced editors is too low to maintain a steady community size.
Erik's list of possible solutions, and Tim's suggestion, are both quite
reasonable methods for solving the complete problem. No large scale effort
to improve editor retention should ignore half the problem, though, so the
true bottom line goal ought to be both encouraging new people and making
life easier for the folks that are already here.

Meanwhile, the project needs to adjust to its new realities. Even if some
suite of solutions manages to improve the retention problem, it won't go
away - fundamentally, the success of the project and its longevity are
likely just as important factors as the editing environment. It doesn't
come up a lot on this list, but Wikipedia's enormous success in
accumulating content means that a much smaller potential group of people
might be both willing and able to add more. Most topics that are popular or
significant to large groups of English-writing people are already well
covered, narrowing the opportunities for those folks (who, let's recall,
generally don't have advanced expertise of the type amenable to Wikipedia
articles) to contribute.

For years this higher bar for the able and interested was offset by the
influx of people dedicated to preserving what was already there, but
technological improvements (AbuseFilter, anti-vandal bots, bots with admin
buttons, human-driven but highly efficient tools like Huggle) has reduced
opportunities in that arena as well. Which is all to say, it's totally
expected that the population of both content contributors and vandal
whackers will decline over time.

So any complete statement of the problem, which ought to be the starting
point for any efforts to solve it, should account for the awkward new
editor experience, the difficulties facing long-term contributors, *and*
the natural and inevitably growing attrition rate that we should reasonably
expect to see.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

http://www.freep.com/article/20130104/FEATURES01/130104028/Wikipedia-is-driving-away-newcomers-report-says?odyssey=nav|head

A news report on the study that newbies are dropping out very early
indeed - being driven out by preremptory and mechanical treatment,
well before they can be driven out by more personal obnoxiousness.
Presumably there's room for a study on that.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

In practice oligarchy is crude dim wits in charge. Examples are legion.

That a carefully selected elite can do things well is not at issue. But
an "elected" oligarchy is not that.

We have defined and used consensus but have mixed results. Making needed
policy changes is an extremely difficult exercise in practical politics.
And application of "consensus" to content of an article with a couple of
editors with an interest to advance is nearly hopeless. We probably need
to get a lot better at it than we are if we are going to use it.

Fred

> Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by
> anarchy?
> If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most
> decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
> is left.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling > >wrote:
>>
>> > It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
>> > arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
>> > funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a
>> long
>> > way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
>> > their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin
>> access),
>> > others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>> >
>>
>> Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is
>> oligarchy.
>>
>> Steven
>> ___
>> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> David Gerard, 04/01/2013 14:10:
>> On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>>
>>> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
>>> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by
>>> new
>>> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
>>> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100
>>> edits
>>> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
>>> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such
>>> a
>>> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used
>>> in
>>> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be
>>> limited
>>> to only flagged newbie helpers.
>>
>>
>> How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
>> shooting gallery?
>
> [[special:contributions/newbies]] has existed for a while now.
> Of course it's just newbies in the very technical sense of
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Newly_registered_user , which by default
> (but not en.wiki) is only a temporary condition almost nobody is in, for
> the sake of throttling vandals.
>
> Nemo

Following up two edits at random resulted in a link to spam posted on de
in 2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Istandil and an attempt to
promote a product used by women to pee standing up
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_urination_device&diff=prev&oldid=531268827

This is not easy; lot of these edits are not good or to be encouraged.
It's hard to avoid taking the role of first person shooter.

The coding could be improved though, or an additional option added
including edits by users with less than say 100 edits.

Fred



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Nathan]

Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by anarchy?
If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most
decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
is left.


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling  >wrote:
>
> > It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
> > arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
> > funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
> > way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
> > their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
> > others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
> >
>
> Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is oligarchy.
>
> Steven
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Gerard, 04/01/2013 14:10:

On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:


With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
to only flagged newbie helpers.



How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
shooting gallery?


[[special:contributions/newbies]] has existed for a while now.
Of course it's just newbies in the very technical sense of 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Newly_registered_user , which by default 
(but not en.wiki) is only a temporary condition almost nobody is in, for 
the sake of throttling vandals.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> On 4 January 2013 13:39, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid the shooting gallery is already coded into Twinkle/Huggle.
>> It
>> is the use of that coding that is at issue. It could be used to
>> encourage, reward and advise as well as to enforce.
>
>
> This is currently implemented by templating, which is how human
> editors can fail the Turing test.
>
> Unfortunately, just banning Twinkle/Huggle/similar
> first-person-shooter games is unlikely to fly.
>
>
> - d.
>
Such applications are useful, even vital. The problem is sorting out
good-faith new users for attention. Perhaps they could flag themselves as
a "new user needing help getting started".

Fred



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 4 January 2013 13:39, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid the shooting gallery is already coded into Twinkle/Huggle. It
> > is the use of that coding that is at issue. It could be used to
> > encourage, reward and advise as well as to enforce.
>
>
> This is currently implemented by templating, which is how human
> editors can fail the Turing test.
>
> Unfortunately, just banning Twinkle/Huggle/similar
> first-person-shooter games is unlikely to fly.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
The fact that it can be used as a first-person-shooter is not the problem.
The problem is people using it as such. Making mistakes is possible, but
the users should know that making that mistake is worse than any single
instance of vandalism, and their good edits don't excuse that.


> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

It would probably be easier to code and use "Wikipedia the Game" which
had ingame commands such as view, edit, upload, discuss, search, etc
which called http pages on Wikipedia than to add game features to wiki
software. One could start with any mud coding with an appropriate
license.

Fred

>
> I've been playing on a MUD lately, http://www.alteraeon.com/ that has put
> considerable effort into getting new users started. MUDs, at least
> text-based ones, also suffer from failure to attract and engage new
> users.
>
> The first thing about a MUD that is simply not on a wiki is channels. On
> a MUD there will be a Newbie channel that experienced users monitor.
> Experienced users are expected to be helpful, offering encouragement and
> practical help to new users. A channel on a MUD is more or less an IRC
> channel incorporated into the software. It's real time. Another thing is
> that a user is logged on, and presumably engaged in the game. There is no
> need for that on a wiki. Anyway, a post on the newbie channel is seen by
> all others who are logged in and have activated that channel. This
> happens on a telnet terminal with a command line for input or a
> functional equivalent, called a client, a mud client. So something like
> an in-wiki IRC channel that new users would automatically be logged into
> along with experienced users might be helpful.
>
> The MUD I reference has both a MUD school where a presumably new user
> goes through the basic game moves and is instructed in them and, much
> more interesting and engaging, a complex Newbie zone where the new player
> faces an increasing complex series of challenges which successfully
> accomplish learning by doing. The coding on the particular MUD generously
> rewards every "right" move with "experience", "money", and other goodies.
> This is all very nanny and I doubt the average highly educated user who
> is a university professor or professional could accept being put to
> school in this manner in a compulsory way before being allowed to edit,
> but it could be available as an option. We could even have a "practice"
> wiki which was set up in this way as an option. Probably no one would use
> it though, I suppose, so whatever is done would probably have to be on
> the main site. It would be a sandbox, but a more active and monitored
> one, actually a set of practice articles in sandboxes.
>
> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> to only flagged newbie helpers.
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 4 January 2013 13:39, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> I'm afraid the shooting gallery is already coded into Twinkle/Huggle. It
> is the use of that coding that is at issue. It could be used to
> encourage, reward and advise as well as to enforce.


This is currently implemented by templating, which is how human
editors can fail the Turing test.

Unfortunately, just banning Twinkle/Huggle/similar
first-person-shooter games is unlikely to fly.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
>> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
>> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
>> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100
>> edits
>> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
>> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such
>> a
>> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used
>> in
>> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be
>> limited
>> to only flagged newbie helpers.
>
>
> How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
> shooting gallery?
>
>
> - d.
>

That is covered above under "Obviously access to such a recent changes
option by those looking for trouble could also be used in ways that would
discourage the new user." Access to that option would probably have to be
limited to administrators or a new class of "newbie helpers".

I'm afraid the shooting gallery is already coded into Twinkle/Huggle. It
is the use of that coding that is at issue. It could be used to
encourage, reward and advise as well as to enforce.

Fred



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Oliver Keyes, 04/01/2013 10:11:

Well, I'd argue "we knew" is not the same as "we can prove"* ;*p. I
"know" lots of things - that's distinct from being able to prove them to
academia. In my mind, anything which academically substantiates an
internally-held assumption is A Good Thing: maybe not directly for us, but
indirectly, in the sense that it communicates to intelligent people who get
quantitative data the need to help out and work with us.


I wasn't speaking of internally-held assumptions but of previous research.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
> > With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> > Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> > and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> > options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> > that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> > compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> > recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> > ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> > to only flagged newbie helpers.
>
>
> How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
> shooting gallery?


By blocking the hell out of anyone who thinks that is a good idea. We as
editors are not idiots. The trench mentality which is understandable but
inexcusable has been condoned for too long. Anyone who - in good faith,
understandably by the mind-numbing idiocy poured out in our recent changes
by various forms of bad faith and incompetence - fucks up by scaring off
our good faith new editors that need help rather than templating (which is
not help in any recognisable form) needs to stop doing what they are doing.
If our vandalism fighters can't be held to those standards, they shouldn't
do it.


>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[David Gerard]

On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
> Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
> and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
> options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
> that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
> compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
> recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
> ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
> to only flagged newbie helpers.


How would we stop Twinkle/Huggle users from using such a feed as a
shooting gallery?


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling 
> wrote:
>
>> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
>> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
>> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
>> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
>> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
>> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>
> I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
> topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
> But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the "editor
> retention problem" as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
> to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
> which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
> deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain.

Correct. Nasty editorial disputes and use of incivility to enforce point
of view comes later, as does finding out that sometimes nothing can or
will be done about it.

> The answer, then, is to find ways to make the new user experience more
> encouraging and pleasurable, such as:

[Improving editor clipped]

> * making it easy to find things to do that are relatively low-risk
> (something the E3 team is experimenting with right now) so that new
> editors can have a more ladder-like experience of becoming good
> contributors;
> * guiding the new user in a clear and instructive manner, and pointing
> them to places where they can get help from another human being (cf.
> Teahouse)
>
[clipped for now > More disruptive technical solutions could include:]

> All best,
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation


I've been playing on a MUD lately, http://www.alteraeon.com/ that has put
considerable effort into getting new users started. MUDs, at least
text-based ones, also suffer from failure to attract and engage new
users.

The first thing about a MUD that is simply not on a wiki is channels. On
a MUD there will be a Newbie channel that experienced users monitor.
Experienced users are expected to be helpful, offering encouragement and
practical help to new users. A channel on a MUD is more or less an IRC
channel incorporated into the software. It's real time. Another thing is
that a user is logged on, and presumably engaged in the game. There is no
need for that on a wiki. Anyway, a post on the newbie channel is seen by
all others who are logged in and have activated that channel. This
happens on a telnet terminal with a command line for input or a
functional equivalent, called a client, a mud client. So something like
an in-wiki IRC channel that new users would automatically be logged into
along with experienced users might be helpful.

The MUD I reference has both a MUD school where a presumably new user
goes through the basic game moves and is instructed in them and, much
more interesting and engaging, a complex Newbie zone where the new player
faces an increasing complex series of challenges which successfully
accomplish learning by doing. The coding on the particular MUD generously
rewards every "right" move with "experience", "money", and other goodies.
This is all very nanny and I doubt the average highly educated user who
is a university professor or professional could accept being put to
school in this manner in a compulsory way before being allowed to edit,
but it could be available as an option. We could even have a "practice"
wiki which was set up in this way as an option. Probably no one would use
it though, I suppose, so whatever is done would probably have to be on
the main site. It would be a sandbox, but a more active and monitored
one, actually a set of practice articles in sandboxes.

With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
to only flagged newbie helpers.

Fred Bauder


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 11:57:23 +0100, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
This thread may have started weird, but it seems to be going in a 
very good
direction: we're all very concerned about editor retention, we all 
see
problem areas we agree on, and we are all grasping at new ideas that 
seem
more or less like straws. This is bad news, but it has to remain on 
the
agenda, and we have to keep thinking about it or the project runs the 
risk
of actually failing - the very thing we all laughed away for a long 
time

seeing wikipedia's success.


This is a very interesting thread, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, 
and, in particular, I was most impressed by posts of Risker and of 
Martijn. May be one think is that so fas has been out of focus and which 
should be added to their arguments is governance. All decisions are made 
by consensus (we are not talking now about office actions). Fine. But we 
see that it is more and more difficult to take any important strategic 
decision by consensus. Even passing an RfA became a problem to such 
extent that sane users fully capable of having admin tools refuse to go 
there, and, indeed, if they go often they fail to clear the barrier. 
Another example was a recent pending changes debate - which was twice 
talked out, and for the third time the decision was finally taken, but 
only because the closers agreed to take it (and note that PC was no big 
deal at all - I check several times per day if there are unreviewed 
changes pending, and the last time I was able to locate any was smth 
like Dec 25). More complex strategic decisions like introducing a new 
user group seem to have absolutely no chance to pass by consensus - 
which is understandable given that consensus is at least 66%, and no 
elections in developing countries give such high percentage for the 
winner. We just became more mature, and this basically impeded the 
governance. I am not sure what should be done in the current situation, 
but if nothing is done, we are dead in five years.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Martijn Hoekstra]

This thread may have started weird, but it seems to be going in a very good
direction: we're all very concerned about editor retention, we all see
problem areas we agree on, and we are all grasping at new ideas that seem
more or less like straws. This is bad news, but it has to remain on the
agenda, and we have to keep thinking about it or the project runs the risk
of actually failing - the very thing we all laughed away for a long time
seeing wikipedia's success.

When I look back on my wiki time, I see a transition much as Erik
described. I joined in 2005 with the great influx that was going on, or
just coming to an end at the time. The editors who were there, who learned
me the ropes, still very strongly believed in WP:IAR, and the 'it's just a
guideline' principle. What I believe happened is that a new generation of
editors - roughly new editors since the time I joined - who didn't create
the rules had more distance from the rules, and in some ways more respect
for them. These are the vandalism fighters and the new page patrollers
Risker mentions were - and are - very needed. If they are not here, we
might well collapse under the load of bad faith edits. Everyone obviously
believes that their view of what wikipedia is is right, but I believe they
don't grok wikipedia. They don't grok the meaning of a wiki, and neither do
they grok IAR. And yet we need them desperately. As a community we started
revering the rules over the project, and that's very very wrong.

I'm going to go ahead and postulate that the greatest problem with editor
retention is that it is really really hard to do something good for
wikipedia - too hard for many people - and far harder still to grok
wikipedia. This is a two sided problem. The first side is the problem for
new editors: We have set up rules to justify fixing the good faith errors
they have made which are enforced quite strictly. To grok wikipedia you
need experience. As a rule of thumb, I would say about 1000 edits which are
not anti-vandalism edits, and you could grok it. I am willing to go
further, and say that none or very few of those 1000 edits will actually be
very good. But we don't have the manpower in experience to guide all those
1000 edits, kindly explain what's wrong with them, and that it's absolutely
fine that the edits aren't very good. Before that moment has arrived, we
will have had a good meaning good faith vandal fighter strongly
discouraging this user. It's a miracle people even make it this far.

So what can we do? Well, first off, we could stop bothering new editors
about the rules. There are far too many anyway, and while they are a fun
mental exercise for the experienced wikipedian, a new wikipedian only needs
to know a few things: Don't act like a dick, be bold, content should be
verifiable, and you are here for the project - not personal gain. An editor
writes the most horrific sucky article ever, but passes those above rules?
Cool! Thanks! Carry on! Feedback can come later, he already took the hurdle
of writing something that passes the basic rules. (note this is not how
[[WP:AfC]] works). An editor breaks one of the above rules? Take ownership
and responsibility for the rule. If you agree to the rule, you don't need
the blue link to tell him what they did wrong. "Hey, you wrote this and
that article, and you didn't name your sources. Without them our readers
will rightfully question the truthfullness - to them, it's just some guy on
the internet who wrote that. Could you fix that?" No need to bother them
with the finer points of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. They're just policy pages
- a pretty nifty summary of consensus.

Now that might be a little awkward and getting used to for our editing
community, but there is another painful truth out there. The people who
have the ability to properly understand wikipedia are spread far to thin to
give this personal attention to newcomers, attention they very much need to
come to be grown up wikipedians, and still be productive in their own
right. We need a cure for that. We tried the cure of dedicated vandal
fighters, and it didn't work, it landed us in the situation where we are
now. We need something else, and whatever that something else will be, it
will be very very painful, and will go against everything our wikispirit
stands for, and we will hate it, but it will be needed. Possibly flagged
revisions on all pages. Possibly a far simpler blocking policy (I for one
strongly support abolishing any form of time-expiring block which are
punitive almost by definition. You are blocked indefinitely, and you are
unblocked if you ask for it, and give a good reason why the problematic
behaviour won't be recurring. There is never a reason to unblock because
three days have passed) If some administrator has the strong feeling that
they are not here to build an encyclopedia, begone. Is that fair? No. There
is a large factor of arbitarity there, mistakes will be made, and it
requires far more responsibility from our ad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Oliver Keyes]

On 4 January 2013 08:18, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> Erik Moeller, 04/01/2013 08:02:
>
>  I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
>> decline" paper resonate with you:
>> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~**halfak/publications/The_Rise_**
>> and_Decline/
>>
>> Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
>> well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
>> discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
>> explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
>> contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
>> control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
>> which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
>> increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
>> / page creation.
>>
>
> The paper does contain good news though:
> 
> To explore Hypothesis: Norm formalization & calcification, we first looked
> for changes in the rate
> of new policy creation following the introduction of a structured proposal
> process in 2005.
> Figure 8 shows that growth of policies and guidelines began to slow in
> 2006, just as Forte
> (2009) reports. The results from our analysis of new policy/guideline
> proposals show that the
> number of new policy proposals accepted via this process peaked in 2005 at
> 27 out of 217 (12%
> acceptance). 2006 saw an even higher number of proposed policies, but
> lower acceptance
> with 24 out of 348 proposals accepted (7% acceptance). From 2007 forward,
> the rate at which
> policies are proposed decreases monotonically down to a mere 16 in 2011
> while the acceptance
> rate stays steady at about 7.5%.
> 
> In other words, it would seem that en.wiki, contrary to popular belief,
> has developed a good immune system against bureaucracy norms expansion. :-)
>
> The paper is actually of little use in this part IMHO, because:
> 1) we already know that users who joined in 2005/2006 are still
> disproportionately active in most community processes like deletion
> discussions and so on,
> 2) everybody knows that to influence how the wiki is run it's more
> effective to change a single word in an important policy than to establish
> ten new policies.
>
> As for (1), I doubt the Wikipedia thought police is keeping newcomers out
> of discussions, but one can make them look so hard that newbies won't
> participate. However, it.wiki recently switched from the established
> vote-system for deletion to a discussion system as en.wiki's, and a year of
> data for the "new" system seems to prove that it increased the words spent
> and drove away old/unexperienced editors (with 3+ years or 51-5000 edits),
> while newcomers resisted, presumably to defend their own articles.
> https://toolserver.org/~**mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv
>  generati_offline/Richieste/**Archivio/2011#Lavoro_per_le_**PdC
> >
>
> Nemo
>
> Well, I'd argue "we knew" is not the same as "we can prove"* ;*p. I
"know" lots of things - that's distinct from being able to prove them to
academia. In my mind, anything which academically substantiates an
internally-held assumption is A Good Thing: maybe not directly for us, but
indirectly, in the sense that it communicates to intelligent people who get
quantitative data the need to help out and work with us.

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



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Erik Moeller, 04/01/2013 08:02:

I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
decline" paper resonate with you:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
/ page creation.


The paper does contain good news though:

To explore Hypothesis: Norm formalization & calcification, we first 
looked for changes in the rate
of new policy creation following the introduction of a structured 
proposal process in 2005.
Figure 8 shows that growth of policies and guidelines began to slow in 
2006, just as Forte
(2009) reports. The results from our analysis of new policy/guideline 
proposals show that the
number of new policy proposals accepted via this process peaked in 2005 
at 27 out of 217 (12%
acceptance). 2006 saw an even higher number of proposed policies, but 
lower acceptance
with 24 out of 348 proposals accepted (7% acceptance). From 2007 
forward, the rate at which
policies are proposed decreases monotonically down to a mere 16 in 2011 
while the acceptance

rate stays steady at about 7.5%.

In other words, it would seem that en.wiki, contrary to popular belief, 
has developed a good immune system against bureaucracy norms expansion. :-)


The paper is actually of little use in this part IMHO, because:
1) we already know that users who joined in 2005/2006 are still 
disproportionately active in most community processes like deletion 
discussions and so on,
2) everybody knows that to influence how the wiki is run it's more 
effective to change a single word in an important policy than to 
establish ten new policies.


As for (1), I doubt the Wikipedia thought police is keeping newcomers 
out of discussions, but one can make them look so hard that newbies 
won't participate. However, it.wiki recently switched from the 
established vote-system for deletion to a discussion system as 
en.wiki's, and a year of data for the "new" system seems to prove that 
it increased the words spent and drove away old/unexperienced editors 
(with 3+ years or 51-5000 edits), while newcomers resisted, presumably 
to defend their own articles.

https://toolserver.org/~mauro742/liste/pdc_stats.csv


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling 
> wrote:
>
> > It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
> > arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
> > funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
> > way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
> > their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
> > others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>
> I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
> topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
> But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the "editor
> retention problem" as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
> to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
> which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
> deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain. The
> new editor experience is characterized more by templating and assembly
> line style enforcement of existing policies than it is by incivility,
> topic warring, article ownership and incivility.
>
> I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
> decline" paper resonate with you:
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
>
> Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
> well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
> discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
> explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
> contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
> control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
> which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
> increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
> / page creation.
>
> In an environment where most folks who show up want to help, it's easy
> to be welcoming and supportive of new contributors. As Wikipedia had
> to deal with more and more spammers, crackpots and assholes, while
> simultaneously being more and more scrutinized in terms of quality and
> reliability, new users have increasingly been seen as "guilty until
> proven innocent" and are dealt not so much in a deliberately uncivil,
> but more in an assembly line robotic fashion that's highly
> discouraging. Templating with standard messages, no matter how
> friendly, is much more common than explicit incivility toward a new
> user and lack of any form of personal encouragement or gratitude.
>
> If that is correct, then the answer -- at least for very new users --
> isn't first and foremost a more "disciplined" enforcement of existing
> policies. Rather, new editors are simply treated in a manner that's
> discouraging more than it is encouraging, without that treatment being
> in violation of any policy -- indeed, with various policies in fact
> calling for precisely such discouraging actions to be taken in order
> to preserve quality, to enforce notability and sourcing policies, etc.
>
> The answer, then, is to find ways to make the new user experience more
> encouraging and pleasurable, such as:
>
> * simplifying the interface so that we can at least get rid of
> technical reasons that lead to early edits being unsuccessful and
> reverted (Visual Editor, talk page replacement, notifications, etc.);
> * making it easy to find things to do that are relatively low-risk
> (something the E3 team is experimenting with right now) so that new
> editors can have a more ladder-like experience of becoming good
> contributors;
> * guiding the new user in a clear and instructive manner, and pointing
> them to places where they can get help from another human being (cf.
> Teahouse)
>
> More disruptive technical solutions could include:
>
> * safer alternative work/collaboration spaces that don't suffer from
> the contention issues of the main article space (sandboxes on
> steroids)
> * easier ways for new users to re-do an edit that has been reverted
> (cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Improve_your_edit )
> * real-time mechanisms for coaching, collaboration (chat, real-time
> collaborative editing) and mentor matchmaking
>
> More disruptive policy-level changes would include rethinking some of
> the more problematic quality-related policies, especially notability.
>
> That's not to say that we should ignore the deeper social issues that
> arise in maintaining a universal encyclopedia in a radically open
> manner (and indeed, the community has learned, evolved and continually
> improved its ways of dealing with those issues). But most new users
> give up well before encountering those issues. When new editors
> complain about Wikipedia being mean, they complain more often about
> reverts, templating, deletion nominations, etc. -- none of which are
> in fact inherently "uncivil

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling  wrote:

> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.

I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the "editor
retention problem" as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain. The
new editor experience is characterized more by templating and assembly
line style enforcement of existing policies than it is by incivility,
topic warring, article ownership and incivility.

I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent "rise and
decline" paper resonate with you:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
/ page creation.

In an environment where most folks who show up want to help, it's easy
to be welcoming and supportive of new contributors. As Wikipedia had
to deal with more and more spammers, crackpots and assholes, while
simultaneously being more and more scrutinized in terms of quality and
reliability, new users have increasingly been seen as "guilty until
proven innocent" and are dealt not so much in a deliberately uncivil,
but more in an assembly line robotic fashion that's highly
discouraging. Templating with standard messages, no matter how
friendly, is much more common than explicit incivility toward a new
user and lack of any form of personal encouragement or gratitude.

If that is correct, then the answer -- at least for very new users --
isn't first and foremost a more "disciplined" enforcement of existing
policies. Rather, new editors are simply treated in a manner that's
discouraging more than it is encouraging, without that treatment being
in violation of any policy -- indeed, with various policies in fact
calling for precisely such discouraging actions to be taken in order
to preserve quality, to enforce notability and sourcing policies, etc.

The answer, then, is to find ways to make the new user experience more
encouraging and pleasurable, such as:

* simplifying the interface so that we can at least get rid of
technical reasons that lead to early edits being unsuccessful and
reverted (Visual Editor, talk page replacement, notifications, etc.);
* making it easy to find things to do that are relatively low-risk
(something the E3 team is experimenting with right now) so that new
editors can have a more ladder-like experience of becoming good
contributors;
* guiding the new user in a clear and instructive manner, and pointing
them to places where they can get help from another human being (cf.
Teahouse)

More disruptive technical solutions could include:

* safer alternative work/collaboration spaces that don't suffer from
the contention issues of the main article space (sandboxes on
steroids)
* easier ways for new users to re-do an edit that has been reverted
(cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Improve_your_edit )
* real-time mechanisms for coaching, collaboration (chat, real-time
collaborative editing) and mentor matchmaking

More disruptive policy-level changes would include rethinking some of
the more problematic quality-related policies, especially notability.

That's not to say that we should ignore the deeper social issues that
arise in maintaining a universal encyclopedia in a radically open
manner (and indeed, the community has learned, evolved and continually
improved its ways of dealing with those issues). But most new users
give up well before encountering those issues. When new editors
complain about Wikipedia being mean, they complain more often about
reverts, templating, deletion nominations, etc. -- none of which are
in fact inherently "uncivil" according to Wikipedia's own policies,
but rather part of its overzealous immune system. In other words,
rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.

All best,
Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development,