I did some work on the effects of public recognition on newcomer retention on Wikipedia (German-language edition) and found it had significant and long-lasting effects – partly also because of positive reinforcing feedback dynamics (e.g., others congratulating the newcomer): http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2540
Happy to discuss this (including possible extensions) at some point if of interest. Jana On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: > what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did > in my primary career. Not form notices, but individual public comments > that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of > automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects (and local meetups) is of > extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely. > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Gerard, >> >> I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long >> term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of >> contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be >> so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to >> mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I >> do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to >> pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and >> reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the >> quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously >> optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those >> volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in >> education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia. >> >> I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat >> common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from >> office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their >> jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the >> good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be >> taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia >> population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make >> small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term >> cumulative effect. >> >> Pine >> >> >> >> Pine >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too >>> often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of >>> view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources >>> even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they >>> see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also >>> find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know >>> arguments as what we do and not what we have. >>> >>> What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things >>> that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is >>> hardly healthy. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> >>> Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W <[email protected]> >>> >>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > _______________________________________________ > 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
