I looked at editors of all experience in earlier work, but found the strongest effects for new editors (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038585). My primary motivation was to understand the editor decline and other work that found out the decline represents the declining retention of new editors, not the experienced ones(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641322 ).
For anyone who is considering looking into the retention of experienced editors, I highly recommend looking into the RfA process and dropping a note to User:WereSpielChequers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers>. He has a lot of insight into the process and how some problems could have long term effects on the pool of administrators and the motivation/culture of the top 0.1% of editors. -Aaron On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks to all of you who replied to me on and off-list. This is indeed > the paper I was looking for!**** > > ** ** > > Aaron, your research looked at new editors. Have you thought about > undertaking a similar study about loss of seasoned editors (the > beyond-newbie phase)? I note that there are a number of hypotheses on this > topic**** > > ** ** > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reasons_editors_leave > **** > > ** ** > > but not much evidence to provide any guidance. There was a survey sent to > “formerly active” editors (can’t find the URL) which gathered some data > which indicated that, apart from personal reasons, seasoned editors > primarily left because of “community issues”, e.g. the behaviour of other > editors. So I was wondering if the use of edit logs, user contributions, > etc could be used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to provide insights > into patterns of behaviour (of the editor or others interacting with that > editor via contributions or talk pages etc) that might provide clues into > the departure of seasoned editors and/or early warning signs of someone > “about to walk”.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:36 PM > *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities > *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] looking for paper on the "new > editorexperience"**** > > ** ** > > I think you're talking about a paper that I just finished editing American > Behavioral Scientist: *The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration > Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its > decline***** > > ** ** > > Summary of findings (and free to download pre-print): > http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/**** > > ** ** > > Official listing: > http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/26/0002764212469365**** > > ** ** > > For quick reference, here's my *TL;DR: ***** > > ** ** > > To deal with the massive influx of new editors between 2004 and 2007, > Wikipedians built automated quality control tools and solidified their > rules of governance. These reasonable and effective strategies for > maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia have come at the cost of > decreased retention of desirable newcomers.**** > > 1. The decline represents a change in the rate of retention of > desirable, *good-faith* newcomers.**** > > > - The proportion of newcomers that edit in good-faith has not changed > since 2006.**** > - These desirable newcomers are more likely to have their work > rejected since 2007.**** > - This increased rejection predicts the observed decline in > retention.**** > > > 1. Semi-autonomous vandal fighting tools (like > Huggle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle>) > are partially at fault.**** > > > - An increasing proportion of desirable newcomers are having their > work rejected by automated tools.**** > - These automated reverts exacerbate the predicted negative effects > of rejection on retention.**** > - Users of Huggle tend to not engage in the best > practices<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD> for > discussing the reverts they perform.**** > > > 1. New users are being pushed out of policy articulation.**** > > > - The formalized process for vetting new policies and changes to > policies ensures that newcomers' edits do not survive.**** > - Both newcomers and experienced editors are moving increasingly > toward less formal spaces <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ESSAYS>.* > *** > > ** ** > > -Aaron**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > Hi, > > I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html > > I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" > for this mailing list archive > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l>. > > Tom**** > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think > was > > shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the > > paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could > > send me the paper or a link or whatever. > > > > > > > > IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the > retention > > of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some > > experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was > the > > finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their > > contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and > this > > was likely to be de-motivating for them. > > > > > > > > If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated. > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > > > > >**** > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > -- > Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) > "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more > useful than a life spent doing nothing." > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
