Gerard, I think that the work on Commons and WikiData is freaking awesome. If I could clone myself I'd be digging into it immediately. Right now, I'm working on measurement Wikipedias and large cross-wiki analyses. FWIW, I think that the wikidata games are some of the most exciting things to happen in Wikimedia wikis in a long time.
Rui, re. the survival graphs. Those are proportions. Multiply by 100 to get percentages. i.e. the line starts at about ~24% and declines to ~7%. I'd really like to revisit this work since we've standardized some of the measures I was using and the new, standard definitions will result in some differences. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor for the updated definition. I'll try to schedule some time to get an updated figure for ptwiki that goes back before 2006. -Aaron On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Aaron > > This is really a treasure trove of information. I am looking forward to > savouring it in detail. Many thanks. > > One question for now on Point 5: the 3rd graph with values <1 - are those > percentages? Is the decimal notation correct? > > Regards, > > Rui > > > 2014-05-30 1:52 GMT+02:00 Aaron Halfaker <ahalfa...@wikimedia.org>: > > > Hi Rui, > > > > You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help > address. > > I'm a research scientist working for the WMF. My research focuses on > the > > nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production > in > > Wikipedia. See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal > work > > on the subject. > > > > As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a > > substantial portion of the questions you've raised. See also my team's > > work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my > > work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5]. See [6] for an example of > a > > recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns. > Also, > > you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns > > about the speed of speedy deletions. > > > > A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way > done > > since it takes a long time build understanding about previously > > undocumented phenomena. The academic community, other researchers at the > > WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how > > open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have > > and how they can be best supported. > > > > While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, > production > > and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also > > working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on > > key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to > > challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us > toward > > our goals and which ones do not. See [8] and [9] for examples of such > > studies. > > > > I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do > > and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at > > wiki-research-l[10]. There are a lot more researchers on that list than > > wikimedia-l. FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely. > > > > 1. Summary: > > http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/ > > 2. Full paper: > > > > > http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf > > 3. > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs > > 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor > > 5. > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F > > 6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation > > 7. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions > > 8. > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout > > 9. > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results > > 10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks. > > > > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > > > > > Hi James > > > > > > > > Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the > > > > average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for > 6 > > > > months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all > > languages? > > > > > > > > New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in > > > > developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy > > to > > > > create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages > > by > > > > new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing > > more > > > > disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to > find > > > that > > > > someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or > nominates > > it > > > > for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the > seminal > > > > version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk > > > page. > > > > I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was > > wrong. > > > It > > > > should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can > > improve/ > > > > fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like > > > > WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a > > WP > > > > policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where > the > > > new > > > > editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit > > > > summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to > a > > > > whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a > > > blank > > > > edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select > an > > > > applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of > > the > > > > page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like > > > > splitting the field. > > > > > > > > No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. > > For > > > > reference, this section has some interesting facts, > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors. > > > > > > > > We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit > warring. > > > > There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of themes and issues and > > > these > > > > defend their turf. > > > > > > > > Pages that contain controversial details should display a specific > > > notice - > > > > not difficult to do, given the array of templates already in use. > Some > > > > pages are the result of a compromise reached after acrimonious > debate. > > An > > > > editor - old or new - who was not involved in discussions will not > know > > > > this and might make an edit that detonates the powder keg and starts > > the > > > > war all over again. It would be so easy to display a notice on the > EDIT > > > > PAGE saying something like "Hi, if you were planning to edit .....[ x > > > > detail] ... please read (link) the discussion and resolution on > this. I > > > am > > > > pretty convinced it would work far better than having thousands of > > pages > > > > locked ([semi-]protected). Some pages just require a simple message > on > > > the > > > > EDIT PAGE such as (example) "In the English Wikipedia we use the > > spelling > > > > *Braganza* and not *Bragança* when referring to the House of > Braganza. > > > > Please do not change this.". There are 1,300 pages where Braganza is > > > > mentioned, imagine how many headaches we could spare ourselves. > > > > > > > > Some editors seem to derive pleasure from the constant reverting/ > > > > protecting - you soon get to know who the 'group' is and can read on > > > their > > > > talk pages comments and jokes about a "here we go again" scenario. It > > is > > > as > > > > if they actually lie in wait for the next unwary editor to come along > > and > > > > make a change. > > > > > > > > At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that do > not > > > meet > > > > 20% of the quality criteria and nobody does anything to remedy them. > > Yet, > > > > do something like move the page, change the infobox and immediately > the > > > > 'owners' come out of the woodwork to revert. > > > > > > > > Someone cited Ukranian in this thread and I would like to pick up on > > > that. > > > > There is a tendency at the higher levels to equate Wikipedia with the > > > > English Wikipedia and all else are something else. This includes the > > > level > > > > of involvement by the Foundation etc in the non-English Wikipedias, > > often > > > > with the justification (excuse?) that each is independent. And of > > course > > > > each language WP will use this independence to its advantage when > > > > convenient, as a reason why this or that is being done differently. > In > > > the > > > > same breath, content that is specifically marked as referring to the > > > En-WP > > > > is then regurgitated as if it reflects the whole WP, as here, in the > > > > Portuguese WP: > > > > > > > > > > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiabilidade_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Avalia.C3.A7.C3.B5es > > > > > > > > Independence is well and good, but not when for example the > Portuguese > > WP > > > > votes/ debates/ discusses/ relaxing sourcing policies. If WP is to be > > > > judged on its reliability then on a number of key elements it must be > > > held > > > > to one standard with criteria that apply across the board. We can't > > have > > > > different standards on reliability of sources, notibality, etc. > > > > > > > > To shrug it off as an issue of the Portuguese WP is to bury our heads > > in > > > > the sand, to shirk responsibility, because such issues are > symptomatic > > of > > > > the problems facing the WP as a whole and contributing to the reasons > > > that > > > > make editors pack up and go. > > > > > > > > Also from Portuguese WP, it is embarassing that since 2009 there have > > > been > > > > all kinds of processes to arrive at a solution for what to call pages > > on > > > > animals and plants - eg: cattle/ bull/ ox/ cow/ bos ... By the looks > of > > > it, > > > > [[Cattle]] in the English WP has been locked for years for the same > > > reason. > > > > This kind of thing snowballs and then other aspects come into play, > > > > overflow and contaminate other areas of the WP as if by contagion. > > > > > > > > James, from the link you provided, I see a reference to bias. We all > > have > > > > our 'usual beats' but we all also edit anywhere where we might happen > > to > > > > find something wrong. In doing that, you soon find out that just > about > > > each > > > > page has 'owners', usually 3 or 4 and these work as a team to > preserve > > > > their way of seeing it. Very worrying is that a lot of this happens > on > > > > pages on big corporations, which raises the spectre of the > possibility > > > > (already proven) of 'editors' working for money. Equally nefarious, I > > > have > > > > noted a group of editos (5 or 6, plus socks [some exposed, others > > > > suspected] and countless IP accounts) who are active on a few hundred > > > pages > > > > deleting/ sanitising negative references to CIA/ US (and 'allies') > > > > involvement in right-wing coups all over the world and generally > > anything > > > > unsavoury about the US in all pages on conflicts in which the US has > > > taken > > > > part. > > > > > > > > In my experience, resolution mechanims for situations such as any > that > > > fit > > > > any of the cases above tend to favour the status quo. I have > > investigates > > > > some of these cases and it is quite apparent that in many cases the > > > 'admin' > > > > taking a decision is also part of group that is trying to defend a > > > certain > > > > point of view. > > > > > > > > Finally, I think it is time to think seriously and hard about > anonymous > > > > (IP) editing. We can all be anonymous, so with a username you are not > > > less > > > > so. I do believe that IPs who make a few edits here and there, often > > > > unconstructive, would stop if they were not serious and do not want > to > > > > bother registering. Conversely, one you register, it is as if you > > become > > > > officially a member. It is unlikely that one would bother registering > > and > > > > then engage in vandalism and unconstructive editing. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Rui > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 > _______________ > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
