To WSC's point about the difficulty of detecting such behavior or surveying
at a point in which it would still be salient, I'd add that in general we
have a large gap in our knowledge about why people choose to stop editing
because almost all of our survey mechanisms depend on existing logged-in
usage of the wikis. This is a challenge with many other websites too but
it's generally easier to find and survey who, for instance, has left
Facebook (example
<http://socialmedia.soc.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CHI2013-FBLL.pdf>)
by collecting a random sample of people than it is to find and survey
someone who was a former editor of Wikipedia. There were surveys that did
ask about major barriers to editing (which presumably contribute to
burnout) such as the 2012 survey:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Editor_Survey_2012_-_Wikipedia_editing_experience.pdf#page=17
(see the editor survey category
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Editor_surveys> if you're looking
for others)

Some things that come to mind though:

   - I suspect very few readers see vandalism in their daily browsing (as a
   very frequent, long-term reader of English Wikipedia, I have trouble
   recalling encountering any clear vandalism in the course of normal
   reading). That said, I do suspect that most people have seen plenty of
   stories of outlandish vandalism to Wikipedia -- some legitimate but many
   more about vandalism that literally lasted minutes -- that may lead to
   lower trust. Whether or not lower trust in Wikipedia leads to lower
   readership is a separate question though. Jonathan Morgan ran some recent
   surveys on reader trust and what factors affected it that might be
   relevant:
   
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_role_of_citations_in_how_readers_evaluate_Wikipedia_articles#Second_round_survey
   - Specifically in the context of harassment and gender equity:
      - Harassment as barrier:
      
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_equity_report_2018/Barriers_to_equity
      - Edit summaries in particular as harassment:
      https://www.elizabethwhittaker.net/wmf-internship (more details
      <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#July_2019>
      )
      - Annual Community Insights Reports often have a section on this --
      e.g.,
      
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/Community_Insights_2020_Report/Thriving_Movement#Safe_and_Secure_Spaces
      - 2015 Harassment Survey:
      https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015
   - The body of work around barriers to newcomers might have some good
   insights too -- e.g.,
   https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfaker/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/


On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 5:44 AM WereSpielChequers <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Amir,
>
> This is one of those areas of research where we really need the annual
> editor survey. I think it ran once after the 2009/10 Strategy process, and
> I don't know if the best questions got included.
>
> But the best  time to ask editors what prompted them to  start editing has
> to be fairly soon after they started as memories fade. I once went back to
> my early edits and the edit I remembered starting me editing barely made it
> into my first 50.
>
> There is a longstanding theory that a lot of new editors start or started
> to fix some vandalism that they saw, and that this group went into steep
> decline a decade ago with the rise of Cluebot and other antivandalism tools
> that work faster than a newbie could. But without an annual survey to ask
> editors what prompted them to edit you are going to struggle to research
> this. Of course you could look at the early logged in edits of
> active/prolific wikipedians, but if it is true that many/most Wikipedians
> start with some IP edits, the earliest edits of many Wikipedians won't be
> available.
>
> Abuse one assumes has a differential effect on the targets of abuse,
> disproportionately women, gays and ethnic minorities. But I'd be inclined
> to look at stuff targeted at their user and usertalkpages rather than
> talkpages and edit summaries, though an email survey of former editors
> would be useful.
>
> My suspicion is that when we revert, block and maybe even revdel or
> oversight abuse we assume that fixes the problem, and if we want to tackle
> abuse we need more edit filters to prevent such abuse from going live.
>
> WSC
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 15:16, Amir E. Aharoni <
> [email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any research about the effect of vandalism in wiki content pages
> > on readers, experienced editors, and new and potential editors?
> >
> > And of abuse in discussion pages and edit summaries on experienced
> editors
> > and new and potential editors?
> >
> > Intuitively and anecdotally one could think of the following:
> > 1. Vandalism in content pages (articles) wastes editors' and patrollers'
> > time. This (probably) doesn't require proof (or does it?). But some
> people
> > say it also causes some experienced editors to burn out and leave. Is
> there
> > any data about it, beyond intuition?
> >
> > 2. Does vandalism *measurably* affect the perception of the wikis'
> > reliability? (This may be wildly different in different languages and
> > wikis.)
> >
> > 3. Abusive language on discussion pages and edit summaries affects
> editors,
> > and may cause them to reduce their editing, to stop editing about certain
> > topics, or to leave the wiki entirely. Is this effect measurable? How
> does
> > it differ for various groups by gender, age, religion, country,
> > professional and educational background, seniority at the wiki, etc.?
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


-- 
Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Reply via email to