Editor since 2007 is instantly understandable to everyone, I would say it is at least as easily understood as editcount
I've never had to explain what a clean blocklog was, and I don't recall having to explain barnstars. Toolserver access, yes I have explained to people, but even our most untechnical editors have no problem grasping the concept that there are people who can do various levels of programming. But your question was about "a core part of defining identity in the projects" if you want "a core part of defining editors wiki skills outside of the projects" then you need a completely different focus. When it comes to newbies and near newbies then I would suggest a more targeted personalised approach is better. Goodfaith editors don't need to be told bout the blocking process until they have an encounter with someone who merits a block, likewise FAC is rather more relevant to some editors than others. For non-wikimedians then I think you need to consider the relevant skillsets that the wikimedian needs to display. I know one editor who answered the PC literacy question in a job interview by saying he was an admin on EN wiki. We have lots of editors each year who apply for university, I know at least one who has done so with a letter of commendation from an academic they have collaborated with on Wiki; This is probably an area we could greatly expand - though you'd need to do some more identifications to the office. In the future I suspect Academia will embrace the digital revolution and get used to the idea of marking candidates for the quality of their update to an earlier work rather than for rewriting stuff from scratch. Once that happens it will be much easier to explain wiki experience in ways that professors understand. Where the two could overlap is in my old hobby horse of Computer Based Training. I'd love to see the scout movement awarding vandalfighter and Wikipedia editor badges to scouts who've done the training and then demonstrated their new skill. WereSpielChequers On 1 October 2011 20:03, Steven Walling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, WereSpielChequers < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Re the suggestion that edit count is the only universal metric for > success. > > Editcount is a very long way from being the only universal metric for > > success. > > > > Length of Tenure and cleanliness of block record are just as universal. > > > > Adminship and other userights, are also universal, though I'd concede > that > > adminship on some projects is seen as easier to get than on others, but > > then > > automated and semiautomated edits are perceived as less worthy than > manual > > ones. > > > > Featured content is at least Wikipedia wide, though I confess I don't > know > > wiktionary or Wikisource well enough to know if they have an FA style > > system. > > > > I'm pretty sure that Barnstars are universal, though maybe someone could > do > > a survey of the wikis to check that. > > > > Linguistic skills. Babel boxes are another thing that matter in all our > > multingual wikis. > > > > Wikiness is a new one on me - > > http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/xcontribs.php?user=WereSpielChequers > > I've just come across it in the Stewards elections, so it is both > somewhat > > specialised and at the same time something that editors from many > different > > wikis can appreciate and clearly many are judging each other by. You > could > > argue that it is a function of editcount and linguistic skills, but I > think > > it more than that as I probably outscore some editors who are far from > > monolingual. > > > > Toolserver access and the ability to code are universally valued. As I > > believe are various other editing skills. > > > > If you want more I'd suggest creating some modules of Computer based > > training, with of course appropriate userboxen for those who complete > them > > with a high enough score. It would be great to have one for Newpage > > patrollers to guide them through the minefield that is speedy deletion > > tagging, and there are several other areas where a shift from learning on > > the job to learning via a gamelike training modules would raise quality, > > reduce angst and I believe greatly reduce levels of newby biting. If we > > invested in some for new admins we might even address the two most common > > reasons for block histories amongst our most active editors. > > > > WereSpielChequers > > > The point is not that there aren't other things worth valuing or that some > set of very, very experienced people in the community value. It's that > there > are ways we could make things other than edit count a core part of defining > identity in the projects. Because they're not right now. > > Toolserver access? Clean block log? Barnstars? > > How many times have you had to take time and explain what those even are? > Most people who've ever edited don't even really understand the concepts > much less think of them as metrics for success. Ask 100 random Wikipedians > -- especially those with an edit count lower than 1,000 or who aren't in a > big project like English or German -- about any of those things, and I bet > you they won't know what half of them even are. > > It is not universal if it's only visible and understandable to people who > are already extremely active in Wikipedia. > > > > > > > I absolutely agree. We keep running into this problem (edit count as > the > > > only universal metric for success) all over the place. > > > You mentioned the Wikimedia Labs project (i.e. the Toolserver > > equivalent), > > > but I think one thing we could do now would be to go take a look at the > > > mockup currently built for GlobalProfiles and let engineering staff > know > > > what stats/info you think could/should be included in order to mitigate > > the > > > "editcountitis" issue. Note that it's just a proposed design doc, so if > > you > > > agree that we need better indicators of the work people do for the > > > encyclopedia now's the time to speak up. > > > > > > > > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/wiki/GlobalProfile/design > > > > > > Steven > > > _______________________________________________ > > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
