HI Ziko, I agree. That sounds like a TL;DR of my research agenda. :D
- It started with http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ - So I tied to make assessing newcomers easier http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Snuggle/halfaker14snuggle-preprint.pdf - See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snuggle - And now I'm working on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service Feedback and collaboration welcome. -Aaron On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > The number one problem with Wikipedia seems to be the assessment of > newbies and the communication with them. We often don't have enough > information in order to see whether a contribution was made in good or > bad faith. We usually simply revert. > If the contribution was made in bad faith, that reaction is probably the > best. > If the contribution was made in good faith, the reaction should be > different, trying to pull the newbie into the boat. > WMF researchers once examined the "revert ratio" and found out that > many new editor contributions are simply reverted. The communication > with them consists only of prepared, general texts, if at all. The > researchers said: You community must communicate better and write > personal texts, that works better. > But why do the experienced community members don't like to communicate > personally with the newbies? Because they don't a response in 99% of > the cases. Communicating especially with bad faith contributors is a > waste of time. Also, for technical reasons the newbies usually don't > see feedback: they don't know the version history or the talk pages. > One way to solve the problem is to make it more likely that > communication takes place, and make it easier to asses newbies. > Kind regards > Ziko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-06-05 14:46 GMT+02:00 Juergen Fenn <[email protected]>: > > Hello Ziko, > > > > Am 05.06.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]>: > > > >> But I think that this is a good example for a quantitative research > >> that should later lead you to a qualitative look. And maybe it is > >> indeed an indicator for something. In systems theory, one might think > >> that the social system shows an internal differentiation so that > >> people go to more specialized lists. > > > > From the point of view of systems theory what matters is how system > Wikimedia draws the line between itself and its environment because that is > what constitutes Wikimedia. In other words, how open is Wikimedia still to > newbies, different-minded contributors, criticism from within, etc. > > > > What is it that leads to changes in this differentiation between inside > and outside the system? Is it due to moderation or to the subscribers > leaving, following their interest in certain subjects? > > > > Systems theory deals with an objective description of developments, > while the latter would be a matter for those interested in the individual > motives for any changes. > > > > Most important: There is no metrics for that, we definitely need a > qualitative approach for that. > > > >> Isnt't there literature about the traffic on mailing lists? > > > > Of course, there is. ;) Mailing lists have been there since 1972, IIRC. > E.g., a search for "mailing list" in First Monday yields 117 articles. > Mailing lists are the oldest type of all virtual communities. > > > > Best, > > Jürgen. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
