Scott, That's why the rest of my email focussed on things that we could that would improve editor retention and which would be uncontentious, but also there is a third question, are people's assumptions re newbie behaviour true? This is where research would be useful. Where the problem lies in mutually contradictory assumptions about user behaviour then the best way to break the logjam is with research, now I'm confident that the research will support my assumptions, but if I am wrong then I'm prepared to back solutions that I have previously opposed.
Regards Jonathan Cardy > On 26 Sep 2014, at 09:56, Scott Hale <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM, WereSpielChequers >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Attn Luca and Scott >> >> There are some things best avoided as going against community expectations. >> I would be happy to see flagged revisions deployed on the English Wikipedia >> but I'm well aware that there is a significant lobby against that of people >> who believe that it is important that your edit goes live immediately. And >> with the community somewhat burned by bad experiences with recent software >> changes now would be a bad time to suggest such a controversial change. > > Yes. Completely agree, and that was the exact point of my first email: > >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Scott Hale <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> And that is the fundamental flaw with this whole email thread. The question >> needing to be answered isn't "what increases new user retention". The real >> question is "what increases new user retention and is acceptable to the most >> active/helpful existing users". The second question is much harder than the >> first. > _______________________________________________ > 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
