I agree that we appreciate personal praise over automatically-generated praise. But I think the Twinkle approach is a good middle ground. I welcome new users and IPs all the time but use Twinkle to automate the task, but it still comes from me, a real user who has seen their contribution, and I do stand willing to help them as the automated message says. This is why I say to build the tools that let projects etc identify likely candidates but the message (automated or not) must come from a user genuinely willing to assist with bringing the new user into the group and its activities (onboarding).
Sent from my iPad > On 22 Feb 2017, at 10:40 am, 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
