I am reminded of B.J.Fogg's notion of triggers as one of three requisites for 
behavior. The other two are motivation and ability. 

http://www.behaviormodel.org/

This is probably old news on this list as he has been explaining his work for a 
long time now. Still, any initiative should be analyzed in his terms before 
launch.

Best regards -- Ward


On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them 
> for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good 
> idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
> 
> Pine
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account 
> creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
> "Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have 
> you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"
> 
> "Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've 
> earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"
> 
> Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully 
> first.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> 
> On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kerry,
> 
> Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more 
> than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. 
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.
> 
> I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and 
> Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which 
> I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system 
> can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the 
> impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the 
> precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education 
> Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR 
> (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) 
> It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling 
> motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that 
> are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and 
> offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated 
> by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which 
> might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if 
> they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from 
> being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other 
> individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. 
> We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.
> 
> Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" 
> for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new 
> roles? 
> 
> I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to 
> motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are 
> some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant 
> prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make 
> that journey.
> 
> Pine
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Pine,
> 
> It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.
> 
> One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. 
> The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for 
> specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever 
> initiatives you have in mind.
> 
> The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed 
> about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their 
> contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive 
> interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.
> 
> The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other 
> collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some 
> things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what 
> you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of 
> their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce 
> them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. 
> The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them 
> with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because 
> "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this 
> current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to 
> draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not 
> too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where 
> someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of 
> "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone 
> probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get 
> them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there 
> needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.
> 
> In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning 
> journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we 
> are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with 
> coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new 
> units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some 
> threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format 
> text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", 
> "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an 
> infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on 
> another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to 
> suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their 
> repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at 
> the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise 
> their skills in various ways.
> 
> Kerry
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Research-l,
>> 
>> A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human 
>> resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the 
>> skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list 
>> aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In 
>> particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert 
>> productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term 
>> community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive 
>> Wikimedians.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Pine
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to