Don't laugh, but I actually looked for the like button after reading this post (too much time on Twitter). I would like to see more of these initiatives, whatever form they might take. We have something that made a difference, let's build on that.
Ariel On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > I sympathize with your concern, Ori. I suspect, however, that it shows a > fundamental misunderstanding of why the Teahouse works when other processes > (several of which have included cute symbols) have been less effective. > > And the reason is: the Teahouse is explicitly designed for having > conversations. > > Teahouse "convenors" were initially selected for their demonstrated > communication skills and willingness to remain polite when dealing with > often frustrated people, and their ability to explain often complex > concepts in straightforward terms. As their ranks have evolved, they have > sought out and taught others those skills, and there's an element of > self-selection that discourages the more curmudgeonly amongst us from > participating. (There's not a lot of overlap between those who regularly > help out at the Teahouse and those who hang out on ANI, for example.) > We're talking about a relatively small group of people who really excel at > this type of communication, although it is certainly a skill that others > can develop if they have the willingness and inclination - but it really > comes down to being able to identify the right "level" at which to talk to > people, and then actually talking. > > The Teahouse works because it doesn't [obviously] use a lot of fancy > technology, because it doesn't use a lot of templates and automated > messaging, because it's made a lot of effort to avoid massive hyperlinking > to complex and inscrutable policies. It's people talking to people. It's > scaled remarkably well - I suspect because there are more "nice" > Wikipedians than people realize - where other processes have failed. > Several of those processes failed because we couldn't link up the right > people giving the right messages to new users (MoodBar was an example of > that - on top of the really problematic technical issues it raised), and > others failed because they were pretty much designed to deprecate direct > person-to-person communcation (AFT-5 would be in that category). > > Nonetheless, I think you've raised an important point. If we can develop > processes that can better link up new users with people who have the > interest and skill to communicate with those new users, we should keep > trying those technologies. But those technologies need to incorporate the > existing findings that the most effective way of attracting and retaining > new editors is direct, one-to-one communication. Not templates. Not cute > emojicons. Not canned text, and certainly not links to complicated > policies. It's people talking to people in a helpful way that makes the > difference. And that's a lot harder than meets the eye. > > And now, having written this, I'm going to spend some time trying to figure > out how to create a message to new users I encounter when I'm oversighting > their personal information...without templating or linking to complex > policies, but pointing them to the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure it's not going > to be very easy, but I'm going to try. > > Thank you for saying this, Ori. > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 2 April 2016 at 21:37, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Legoktm <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > It's well known that Wikipedia is facing threats from other social > > > networks and losing editors. While many of us spend time trying to make > > > Wikipedia different, we need to be cognizant that what other social > > > networks are doing is working. And if we can't beat them, we need to > > > join them. > > > > > > I've written a patch[1] that introduces a new feature to the Thanks > > > extension called "feelings". When hovering over a "thank" link, five > > > different emoji icons will pop up[2], representing five different > > > feelings: happy, love, surprise, anger, and fear. Editors can pick one > > > of those options instead of just a plain thanks, to indicate how they > > > really feel, which the recipient will see[3]. > > > > > > > Of the many initiatives to improve editor engagement and retention that > the > > Wikimedia Foundation has launched over the years, the only one that had a > > demonstrable and substantial impact (AFAIK) was the Teahouse. > > > > The goal of the Teahouse initiative was "learning whether a social > approach > > to new editor support could retain more new editors there"; its stated > > design goal was to create a space for new users which would feature "warm > > colors, inviting pictorial and thematic elements, simple mechanisms for > > communicating, and a warm welcome from real people."[0] > > > > Several studies were made of the Teahouse's impact on editors. One study, > > conducted by Jonathan Morgan and Aaron Halfaker, found that new editors > who > > were invited to participate in the Teahouse were 10% more likely to have > > met the thresholds for survival in the weeks and months after > > registration.[1] > > > > Another significant fact about the Teahouse is the substantial > > participation from women. Women make up 9% of the general editor > > population, but 29% percent of Teahouse participants.[2] > > > > When new editors who had been invited to the Teahouse were asked (in a > 2012 > > survey) to described what they liked about their experiences, many > > respondents spoke about the positive emotional environment, saying things > > like: "the fact that there is somebody 'out there', that there is a > sincere > > community, gives a professional and safe feeling about Wikipedia", and > "the > > editors are very friendly and patient, which is great when compared to > the > > rest of Wikipedia in how new editors are treated."[2] > > > > Why am I going on about this? I guess I'm a bit bummed out that the idea > of > > designing user interfaces that seek to improve the emotional environment > by > > making it easier to be warm and personal to one another is a joke. I > don't > > think any topic is sacrosanct, this topic included. But humor works best > > when it provides a counterpoint and a foil to "serious" discourse, and > > there just isn't very much serious discourse on this topic to go around. > I > > also worry that people in and around our community who feel a need for > more > > opportunities for positive emotional interactions will feel invalidated, > > ridiculous, ashamed, or at any rate less confident about ever speaking up > > about this topic in a serious way, and less hopeful about being heard. > > > > [0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse > > [1]: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse_long_term_new_editor_retention#Results > > [2]: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse/Phase_2_report/Metrics > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
