Harryboyles (talk | contribs) m removing unsupported parameter 'importance'' in WikiProject banners Tag: AWB |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Tabbed header}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Tabbed header}}</noinclude> |
||
{{skiptotalk}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 36 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) |
||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:WER|WT:RETENTION|archive_age=20|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Editor Retention |
{{WikiProject Editor Retention}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/ |
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-22/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]| ||day =22|month=April|year=2013}} |
||
{{Press |
|||
{{archives |
|||
|subject = WikiProject |
|||
| image = File:Nuvola filesystems folder games.png |
|||
|author = Tom Simonite |
|||
| style = background-color: white; border-color: #aaa |
|||
|title = The Decline of Wikipedia |
|||
| index = |
|||
| |
|date = October 22, 2013 |
||
| |
|org = MIT Technology Review |
||
|url = https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |
|||
| age = 30 |
|||
|quote = In July 2012, some editors started a page called WikiProject Editor Retention with the idea of creating a place to brainstorm ideas about helping newcomers and fostering a friendlier atmosphere. Today the most vibrant parts of that project’s discussion page have gripes about “bullying done by administrators,” debates over whether “Wikipedia has become a bloody madhouse,” and disputes featuring accusations such as “You registered an account today just to have a go at me?” |
|||
| search = yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Notice |One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the idea of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. No one who discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is completely against our entire mission, and will neither be endorsed nor tolerated.}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
==Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them== |
|||
== [[User talk:71.239.82.39]] == |
|||
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 11:12, 27 May 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2000805138}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|||
[[File:Crowd retain.gif|thumb|right|400px|<div class="center">An un-opened gift from User:Penyulap</div>]] |
|||
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied. |
|||
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of places regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues." |
|||
Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) [[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso|talk]]) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:First contact]] |
|||
==Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network== |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions]] |
|||
We submitted a request for an IEG grant at [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/%22Wikimedia%27s_efforts_in_order_to_keep_Wikipedia_an_open_and_self-organizing_network.%22 Grants:IEG/"Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network."]. It concerns a systematic assessment of the (essential) formal policies to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network and of all informal practices of stakeholders to support or subvert this. Your thoughts and comments would be very much appreciated.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.115.180.33|130.115.180.33]] ([[User talk:130.115.180.33|talk]]) 13:28, 21 October 2014</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests]] |
|||
== Turkey master degree students == |
|||
== Research article: Emotions under Discussion == |
|||
I think issues like [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#How do we welcome new medical editors? | this]] may be of interest to participants of the editor retention project. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cite journal |last1=Iosub |first1=Daniela |last2=Laniado |first2=David |last3=Castillo |first3=Carlos |last4=Morell |first4=Mayo Fuster |last5=Kaltenbrunner |first5=Andreas |date=August 20, 2014 |title=Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration |url=http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0104880 |journal=PLoS ONE |publisher= |volume=9 |issue=8 |pages= |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0104880 |accessdate=}} |
|||
== Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Welcome-turnaround]] == |
|||
;Conclusions/Significance |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|30px|link=]][[Template:Welcome-turnaround]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for deletion]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Template:Welcome-turnaround|'''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''']].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> [[User:PleaseStand|''Please'''''Stand''']] ([[User talk:PleaseStand|talk]]) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Involve new editors to cite unsourced articles == |
|||
''Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.'' |
|||
I've just made a new proposal to [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Depreciating_new_unsourced_articles|depreciating new unsourced articles]] and I afraid that this might have a chilling effect to new editors who are looking to join Wikipedia, because this would set the standard for contributing Wikipedia even higher than it is now. How can we make sure that we would stop biting newcomers? Improved mentoring program for new editors? Ban generic/templated warnings asking people to cite sources? I don't know. Feel free to write about your wildest proposals for retaining new editors here, I'm all ears. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/72.223.98.118|72.223.98.118]] ([[User talk:72.223.98.118|talk]]) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:If I may ask... Who are/were you? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Courtesy ping: [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]], [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]]. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Thoughts on editor retention and women == |
|||
::Ooh, I've become courtesy ping worthy when it comes to brainstorming. :) You have no idea how excited this makes me. I'll probably have grander thoughts sometime later but the first thing that comes to mind is that we have a serious [[banner blindness]] problem when it comes to what people see when they actually click edit. This isn't really something the average wikipedian can control but I do remember seeing an interesting pilot project from someone involved with the WMF that would encourage people to cite sources when they added content. It had prompts that would exist while someone was actually editing. I remember seeing it and thinking it was a gamechanger, it was honestly really nice and something we should have had ages ago. I hope it's still in-the-works and that I can get to see it in action someday. :) |
|||
{{archive top|result=Sadly, this is just degrading to debating single words. WER is not the place to change civility policy. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
::To get a bit more on track though, given that new editors typically edit in draftspace until they're autoconfirmed and these articles rarely get moved to mainspace by experienced AfC reviewers if they're completely unsourced... I'm not sure this will actually raise the bar that much for contributing to Wikipedia. I think something to be more concerned about from that angle is how there tends to be a backlog of thousands of drafts and new editors with potential aren't nessecarily getting quick or personalized feedback. Like many areas, we have the problem of a few volunteers trying to do what they can to make sure that these processes get by. When we're just focusing on getting by, it makes it a lot harder to thrive and go that extra mile, because it's easy for people who are involved in these processes to become burnt out. If we had better editor retention, this would be less of an issue because the overall workload would be more sustainable... so I think this does becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 07:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Reposting here a revised version of what came to mind in the course of another discussion, in response to an example of promoting a "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere. |
|||
:::This this this! Editors on wikipedia loves to assume that new editors would have done [[WP:Tutorials]] and read everything on the banners, when in reality nobody cares about them. I think one of the ways we can improve is to simplify these banners, such as {{tl|AfC submission/draft}} and {{tl|AfC submission/declined}}. That banner is so long that I just feel sorry for any new editors who have to face with this banner... Maybe we should make a checklist of requirements that an article have to achieve before it will not be deleted under AfD? [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]] Ok, I have an idea. What if we create an operation for teaching newcomers to cite articles, as part of the mentorship program at [[Wikipedia:Growth Team features]]? Maybe we could establish a program under WikiProject Editor Retention, in a similar minimalistic style like [[WP:FEB24]], and encourage new editors to practice working on one aspect of editing Wikipedia. This month we might want to work on citing articles, the next month working on typo finding, etc. By doing so, we would merge all editor retention efforts to a single program, and new editor will have comrades to talk to and feel validated by experienced editors. What do you think about this? [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work. |
|||
:::::I think this echo the sentiments at [https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/vw9zb5/what_is_the_main_reason_more_people_dont_start/ What is the main reason more people don't start editing Wikipedia?]. People don't edit Wikipedia because it is a significant time investment. The more convenient we make for new editors to join in to our efforts, the better. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: It sounds like you're suggesting a "[[WP:Backlog|backlog of the month]]" idea, with a specific emphasis on welcoming newcomers to try these new things? I can see something like that being worth brainstorming as it can give people a sense of direction and guide people to areas where they can make a measurable difference to said backlogs. I remember when I was brand new, I was super excited to do things but it felt like everything was going into a void. It's part of the reason I like some of the new features that are being designed nowadays that show things like "your impact". But newbie me did come across the [[Wikipedia:Community portal]] and find people looking for help at [[Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss]]. There is also the [[Wikipedia:Task center]] which is a similar concept of "this is stuff you can do", but I wouldn't say it's that very well known. |
|||
:But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content and aggressive, sexualized interaction style is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder, or when you are seeking legitimate redress of grievances through [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=628396372#ANI_.22fuck.22_count_for_today.3B the community's established dispute resolution processes]. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Wikipedia! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out! |
|||
:::::: As for banner blindness, I think it is worth considering if the editor made templates and whatnot can be simplified and still get the crucial pieces of information that people need to know across, even if it's not quite what I was thinking about last night. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oh, something else! I created a "newbie central" section on my talk page after my experience teaching newcomers at a Wikipedia Day event. It was a bit different trying to explain these things in person to people, but something that ended up being a focus was different stub templates that might be within that editor's field of interest. I'm a bit curious on what you think about that. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
When I tell male editors in person about some of my experiences here, they wince uncomfortably, and say they're really sorry. Yet, no matter how nice people are in person, this uncivilized atmosphere keeps coming up again and again online. We might as well be honest about what it can be like to be a female volunteer on this website. Many women have had a much worse time of it here than I have; I'm not the only one who's gotten to the point where there are better things to do with my time than persist with this unpleasantness. The more I'm told to "just ignore it and go back to work", the less I feel like editing. -- [[User:Djembayz|Djembayz]] ([[User talk:Djembayz|talk]]) 23:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think most editors are quite familiar with banner blindness and how people don't like to read instructions. I think having more volunteer mentors as part of the growth team features initiative would be a good way to help more new editors to ramp up. But... the feedback I've seen is that there aren't many useful questions being asked of mentors, and little follow up. So at present it's not going to be a magic bullet to increase retention dramatically, though I see it as a needed base requirement to support other initiatives. |
|||
:Be stubborn & don't back down from anything, including 'bad' language. Never consider ''retirement'' an option. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think it's worthwhile trying to try to get people to work on specific tasks. Things to think about, though, is how to get people to know about the initiative, and how to attract them to participate. Banner blindness makes it tricky for projects to get attention. Talk page notices would likely work better, but current English Wikipedia culture means that delivering them by default is unlikely to get consensus, and getting a newcomer to signup for a newsletter may be hard. That being said, perhaps we could have a new editors newsletter that gets delivered monthly to those who do signup; it could have a brief tip of the month and pointers to editing ideas. That is something I might be interested in co-ordinating. On the encouraging participation front, I think it would be helpful to have one or more facilitators maintaining a page for each event, to be a hub for those participating, and perhaps maintaining an aggregated tally (I hesitate to have an explicit leaderboard, but there are pros and cons in favour of one). |
|||
::::For better or worse, editing an encyclopedia beyond typo fixing is a time-consuming activity. If I could get two concise points across to newcomers who already understand Wikipedia's mission, they would be the following: adding references to sources for any content you add will improve the likelihood of it being retained in the article, and every page has a corresponding talk page, which you should use to collaborate with other editors. (For those who don't understand Wikipedia's mission, the one key point would be that Wikipedia's content is determined by a consensus of everyone editing its pages, which may not correspond to what you think should be in Wikipedia.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't think the main problem with Wikipedia culture is necessarily one you can blame on gender. It's the toxic and confrontational atmosphere ''in general'' that's ruining this project for women, and it doesn't matter if the aggressive editor is male or female. This place can be overly contentious, and that's what drives ''most'' females away. The ones who stay either enjoy the drama or they find a way to avoid the drama; or perhaps they find a "healthy" balance of both, but make no mistake, until the vibe around here is more congenial, we won't see any significant improvement regarding the retention of female editors. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the pilot project you're referencing, Clovermoss, is Reference Check, which is being developed as part of the larger [[mw:Edit check]] project. I share the view that that has by far the best potential to help with this issue. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
::::Edit check does indeed seem to be what I was thinking of. Thanks for the links, Sdkb, it's appreciated. :) [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
*In my many years here, I've interacted a number of times with editors who found the occasional coarse language here to be intolerable. Much of the time, their gender wasn't obvious, but the times it was, it was overwhelmingly men who complained, not unlike the ratios of men to women that the Foundation claims exist here. This leads me to believe that the minority of editors who find fault in the "rough and tumble" atmosphere here do so not because of their gender, but because of their individual sensitivity, which may be because of religious beliefs, upbringing, or just their unique nature. I think we should not be declaring that women in general are less capable of tolerating the occasional swear word, as it is a stereotype that is unproven, unflattering and portrays women as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity. Instead we must accept that some ''humans'' are more sensitive than others, just as some ''humans'' are more prone to use those words. Making it about gender only perpetuates the type of stereotypes that women have been fighting for generations. It also assumes that if you are a male, your tolerance '''should be higher''', which is equally problematic. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::A wise response there Dennis. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::HiLo48, you and Dennis Brown keep misrepresenting the argument. Where has anyone said that "that swearing is a problem for women but not for men"? Dennis' response to your questions at first seems promising, but then crosses the line by suggesting that others are suggesting that you treat women editors "as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity." Did you read the last section, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention&diff=631383894&oldid=630671972 Research article: Emotions under Discussion]? Or any of the other articles that have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention&diff=629210317&oldid=629209900 presented here] ''and'' in related discussions? It's ''not'' that ''all'' men behave or communicate this way or that ''all'' women behave or communicate that way. (This is where Dennis' response seemed promising.) |
|||
:::It's simply that, ''generally speaking'', women and men have ''different'' styles of behaving and communicating, and the style that is endorsed as the acceptable, "normal" one here is the ''generally'' male style. (Probably because the editorial body is mostly male.) '''But who said that style is the norm? Or that to behave differently is weak or inferior?''' (This, IMO, is what some can't seem to grasp.) [[Special:Contributions/72.223.98.118|72.223.98.118]] ([[User talk:72.223.98.118|talk]]) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Would you PLEASE sign in? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No. But if by not doing so I am breaking some rule, please tell me, and I will stop participating. [[Special:Contributions/72.223.98.118|72.223.98.118]] ([[User talk:72.223.98.118|talk]]) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You're obviously [[WP:NOTHERE|not here]] to build Wikipedia, according to your edit history & are displaying an [[WP:SPA|SPA]] nature. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There are 10 items under that banner. Which one are you accusing me of? I actually think I fall under [[WP:NOTNOTHERE]] (Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines, or just Expressing unpopular (?) opinions). [[Special:Contributions/72.223.98.118|72.223.98.118]] ([[User talk:72.223.98.118|talk]]) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:(Further response to Djembayz) There's no such thing as a ''male'' editor or ''female'' editor. The sooner the community adopts that concept, the better. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Yep. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: Not so sure. Talking about editor retention, more men than women seem to be in the group of [[Wikipedia:QAI/missed users|actually leaving]], some more than once. Some courageous men and women made me stay by their [[User talk:Eric Corbett#Women with courage|oppose, Eric first]], - do you know a single women in the (much larger) support group? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I would be surprised if a site with somewhere between 85% and 92% males amongst the regulars didn't lose a lot more of the male editors than the female ones. The real question is whether gender has an influence on retention, especially after you take other factors such as age and marital status into account. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Rampant incivility will, in the long-term, decrease retention amongst editors of both genders. I think the issue here is really more about which genders are more likely to excuse and defend the use of derogatory terminology, such as: "twat", "cunt", "dick", "fuck", "idiot", and "moron". My guess is, few females will support the use of these epithets, even ''if'' they, in principle, support the editors who use them. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::My advantage is that, as not a native speaker of English, I knew only two of the terms ;) - I can't repeat enough that it's not words that constitute incivility but attitude, [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 170#DYK about early learning|remember]]? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Gerda, I agree with you; context is everything. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: That's not exactly what I meant. I spoke about the soil, meaning the basic attitude. How can someone request civility (or "enforce" it, - a contradiction in terms, imho) who thinks of other people as, - well let's not repeat it)? - Back to my little example: I can't speak for all of Wikipedia, just what I observe where I look. Math: in a certain minority group, we have 13% women. None of the four left the project. (I admit that I was tempted several times, never because of civility, always because of the loss of a user.) Of the 29 men, 10 left (some more than once), 2 of those are gone. [[User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2014#April 2014|We women have to do the work]] ;) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: ps: look at the last linked longish thread for "Without a hard heart, you can't survive here." --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: "It's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless." — L.R. Knost [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: I think you misunderstood me. What I found cruel was to loose people with whom I loved to work. I had to harden my heart (or grow a thicker skin) to still stay. - I don't know how I would react to coarse language because it has never been used to me. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: You don't have to be subject to cruel language to stand up for those who are, but from what I have seen you instead stand up for those who subject others to cruel language, which I do not understand. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree that rampant incivility will run people off, just as intolerance or overzealous policing of civility will. The solution is not and never will be the use of admin tools, it will only be by the use of serious and calm discussion. What I have found is that if we are overzealous in policing civility, the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident. If someone drags another to ANI because they said "Fuck" one time, I can promise you that the word "fuck" will be said 50 times in that discussion. I've counted it, I'm not exaggerating. Even the best intentions can have absurd results. And I'm not so sure that women would be less tolerant of the seven dirty words. My mom cussed 10x more than my dad, who seldom did. Anecdotal, but applicable. Our culture in the US is still lacking in the US, and likely elsewhere, when it comes to equality and women. Personally, I find Wikipedia to be rather liberating. You can be a woman, or a man, or neither. Gender can be as irrelevant as you choose it to be when you choose an account. Female, male, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, we all look alike when we type. While it isn't perfect, it is a little island where (on average) people are generally judged by the merits of their editing, not their gender or race. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: {{!xt|the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident}}, only as long as the prevailing culture ignores [[WP:CIVILITY]]. We don't need a philosophical debate to enforce it; it's already a pillar. A warning followed by a short block followed by a longer block is not disruptive to the community. You do it all the time for other reasons. You also picked the least contentious of my examples, which is a self-serving cherry-pick. If I was a new editor who registered a few days ago, and I called you a cunt you would block me. If I came back several days later and called you a twat you would re-block me, and if I did it again you would indef me. I don't see why "popular" editors should get a pass, when loners do not. The current level of discourse regarding this subject is disappointingly low. Unless she is currently a Wikipedia editor, the anecdote about your Mom is irrelevant here, and it's also a logical fallacy. If you want to take up the anti-civility torch, you would do better to present sound arguments and compelling evidence, instead of personal anecdotes. E.g., my Mother ''never'' swore, but my father did when she wasn't around, so I guess we're even ... lol. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You don't know me very well :) I've been called the same more than a few times, never blocked or asked for a block. I'm not a good example, it doesn't bother me if a stranger does a drive by and calls me a name. In mediation, a goodly portion of times when I have been called a nazi or jackass or whatever, I've continued the discussion as if they didn't call me a name, and it got hammered out. This is typically with new users. And at the end, I would tell them "btw, you don't want to do that. most admin would have blocked you". In the end, I try (I'm not perfect) but I try to focus on the merits first, and cover civility later. Telling someone who is pissed off "Don't call me a jackass" is, well, going to be fruitless. It is better to tolerate ''single'' instances and deal with the merits, then say something later. What is unhelpful is when the discussion is changed from being one about content of the article, to "is ok to say jackass?", then everyone jumps in with their opinions, and none of that improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean it is ok to call someone a jackass (and if you make a habit of it, yes, I will block you), it means there are too many people who get obsessed with civility and hold it up higher than content. They are both important, but content is still why were are here. There is the perception that civility has "gone off the rails!!! OMG!" by some here. That isn't exactly the whole story. Drama due to incivility has gone off the rails, but that is due in part to rampant intolerance of anyone who disagrees with anyone. To me, the intolerance poses a greater risk than civility, but we should be addressing both at the same time. Any attempt to fix one without the other will fail. I started here back in 2006. The place is more civil now if you are measuring the instances of being told to "fuck off" and such. It was under the radar for the most part then. Now we worry about even the smallest infraction with a debate, the pendulum has swung too far. We need balance. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I see that as ''your'' personal style, but I'm not at all sure why this should be the accepted and applied standard for ''all'' Wikipedians, especially when one of the five pillars directly contradicts your position numerous times and in several different ways (please don't ask me to futilely quote [[WP:CIVILITY]] to prove the assertion. It's there for all to see.). If you want to throw away all expectations of civility, you should work in a transparent way to amend the relevant policy so that you aren't in absolute contradiction with it, but in the meantime you shouldn't try to mold this project to ''your'' liking, which is coincidentally exactly as you would make it, but not as it is currently formulated (read the policy nutshell, and then justify occasionally calling people idiots or cunts). [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. My style just shows there is more than one way to view the problem, more than one solution. I'm not trying to change our view of civility. I'm trying to open people's minds about how to manage it, how to get the maximum amount of it. The block tool doesn't make people civil, it just makes them go away for a short time. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. Sometimes, it actually helps. But it is folly to think we can block our way to a more civil Wikipedia. [[WP:BIAS]] is also worth a read. What may be innocent enough to you, might be very offensive to someone from India, or Iraq, or Niger. The big words are easy to define, but the ''real'' incivility doesn't use swear words, and is often saccharine sweet. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: {{!xt|I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style.}} You actively champion an especially relaxed standard of civility at several venues, but none of which are [[Wikipedia talk:Civility]], where this discussion should happen. Why are you the "go-to guy" when it comes to defending incivility but [https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=Wikipedia%3ACivility&max=100&server=enwiki you've never made a single edit to the Civility policy] or its corresponding [https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=Wikipedia+talk%3ACivility&max=100&server=enwiki talk page]? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Like I said above, I'm not interested in changing the ''wording'' of a policy, I'm interesting in making Wikipedia a more tolerant place and a more civil place. You seldom see me on policy pages, you often find me in the trenches. If you only notice my discussions on tolerance, then you aren't looking hard enough. If I'm championing anything, it is for us to take a balanced approach in enforcement. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::: Dennis, some of these terms constitute not just incivility, but legal harassment; e.g., from [http://www.employeerightspost.com/2010/01/articles/sexual-harassment/gender-based-profanity-constitutes-sexual-harassment/ ''Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.]'': "A raft of case law ... establishes that the use of sexually degrading, gender-specific epithets, such as 'slut,' 'cunt,' 'whore' and 'bitch,' .... have been consistently held to constitute harassment based upon sex ... If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted the offending conduct and its results, just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it." [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Are you making some kind of legal threat? [[User:Eric Corbett| <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:900; color:green;">Eric</span>]] [[User talk:Eric Corbett|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:500;color: green;">Corbett</span>]] |
|||
::::::::::::::: Nope. I'm merely pointing out that unchecked use of the c-word may put Wikipedia in jeopardy regarding discrimination against a protected group, namely women. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060600616.html In ''E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association''], "the 9th Circuit [court] ... [held] that Harvey's employees did not need to show that he was treating them so poorly because of their sex. Even though Harvey was arguably an 'equal opportunity harasser,' his conduct was still potentially illegal because it hurt women more than men, the court said." [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::And if someone calls you a bitch or a cunt, I would block them in a skippy minute. If they say "You're bitching about the source, but you missing the larger point", I'm going to completely ignore it. You might notice that one of the themes that I bring up a lot is "context". While a lot of the "sexual harassment" issues at the job apply just as common sense, Wikipedia is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. If you and I worked at ABC, Inc. and I called you a bitch, I would expect our boss would take action. If you and I were at the food court of the local mall and I said "Bitch, that is my seat", then you have no claim. That is the difficulty here. We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. For starters, it isn't a job. Second, there is no way to prove gender. I might be a woman for all you know, pretending to be a man. What we CAN do and should do (and sometimes fail to do) is enforce [[WP:NPA]]. If you call anyone a "bitch", you get warned, then blocked, etc. Gender isn't an issue. And frankly, it is rude to call anyone that name, male or female. That is the ultimate in equality: we treat everyone equal. And to be clear, WER's mission isn't political. We DO treat everyone equal here, and singling out special rules just for men or women, or supporting them as a group, that is completely counter to our charter. 100% equality for all races, religions, genders, with no special treatment for or against anyone. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::: {{!xt|Wikipedia is not a job and there is no legal recourse here.}} That's not true: [http://www.exemptmagazine.com/news-articles/volunteers-may-sue-nonprofits-for-harassment-under-title-vii/ "The Court has rejected the defense that compensation is required] to bring a worker within the employment discrimination protections of the [Civil Rights] Act. (Volling v. Antioch Rescue Squad, N.D. IL, No. 11 C 04920, 12/4/12.)" [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 22:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::: {{!xt|We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job.}} Says who?[http://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-volunteers-sue-discrimination "employers should be aware that Title VII may extend to cover volunteers] in the workforce and provide volunteers the opportunity to bring suit alleging harassment and discrimination." [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::: {{!xt|Gender isn't an issue.}} Again, says who? [http://www.employeerightspost.com/2010/01/articles/sexual-harassment/gender-based-profanity-constitutes-sexual-harassment/ "a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group], even if she herself is not individually singled out." In terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the protected group is women, so gender is certainly a factor. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::: {{!xt|Gender isn't an issue.}} [http://dozier-zahler.com/federal-court-issues-landmark-decision-in-sexual-harassment-case/ "At issue was whether the use of offensive 'gender specific' words such as 'bitch', 'cunt' and 'whore' in the workplace could support a sexual harassment lawsuit.] The court ruled that while not all profane or sexual language would be actionable, certain gender-specific words could be, even if they weren't used explicitly in reference to the plaintiff." Obviously, the courts resoundingly disagree with what you've stated above. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 23:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::::::::::::}}We should keep the legal beagle stuff out of this. It makes folks nervous. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*This is not a workplace, it's a website that anyone can join. There is no vetting process to join. If you want to debate if Wikipedia should be considered a "workplace" as a legal definition, you need to take that up with the legal department of the WMF, that is beyond the authority of the community. They own the place, we don't. No one want sexual harassment, but you haven't pointed to any. If your interest is to start yet another debate like the one that is wrapping up at Arb, you picked the wrong venue. You seem to be wanting to advance political ideas here, but WER is strictly non-political, without exception. If you know someone acting in a sexist way, [[WP:ANI]] is the place. If you want to change [[WP:CIVILITY]], the talk page there is the place. But no, we aren't going to start debating "the C word" here at WP:WER. It is disruptive, leads to arguments over minutia, and is unrelated to the mission of WP:WER If you want to debate gender politics, I suggest going to a page or project whose focus is solely that. Our focus is on unity, finding under recognized editors who are productive, finding editors who are at risk of leaving, and informing members of upcoming discussions and polls that affect retention, but we don't have, nor will be ever have, a singular agenda or position on any policy. And again, we are not going to duplicate the mistakes made by those in the current Arb case and get into battles over gender politics. It isn't going to happen, it isn't an option. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{!xt|unrelated to the mission of WP:WER}} I'll stop, but FTR, this thread is/was about retention as it pertains to women, and IMO the excessive use of profanity here, particularly the gender specific terms, is our biggest obstacle to retaining women, so I disagree that this does not pertain to WER. If you ban all topics that you deem political, you tie your hands regarding fixing ''any'' retention issues that relate to those topics, but I'll not waste my time here again, so your mission was accomplished, Dennis, well done once again! [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're welcome to talk about women and retention, we do it all the time. As for me, my record on equality for women, men, LGBT, race and religion is clear, I won't waste time proving it. What I can't allow is for discussion to degrade into political debates, whether it was about women or other topics that are known to cause disruption. Whether it is intentional or accidental doesn't matter. If the current Arb case has taught us anything, it has taught us that political activism has no place on Wikipedia, and certainly not in a Wikiproject on Editor Retention. And if you find an instance of sexual harassment or sexism, by all means, ping me on my talk page, or take it to ANI, or ping {{u|Bishonen}}, {{u|Drmies}} or any of the other admin who are known to be particularly intolerant of sexism. Regardless, WER isn't an admin board, not a project about political activism. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I realise this is closed, but Dennis is away for a while so add my name to the list of Admins you can contact. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It's not political activism to suggest that some abhorrent language might be negatively influencing editor retention in general, specifically regarding women. BTW, a virtual workplace is not exempt from the Civil Rights Act or any other employment law. For all practical purposes we are volunteers who telecommute to work, but as I said I won't go on about this here. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::With all this legal stuff being discussed I have to remind everyone that this is the encyclopaedia (note the spelling) that anyone can edit, even non-Americans. While American law may sometimes theoretically apply here, a lot of our editors will be quite unaware of such law. While American linguistic and other customs are the most common, editors from other parts of the world will have their own. They can be very different. Some absolute statements made here about what is ''never'' acceptable (in polite company, etc) are just plain wrong when one broadens one's view. If you cannot be sure how a particular piece of the English language is used and received in South Africa, or New Zealand, or Queensland, or Hong Kong, or Yorkshire, then don't make absolute statements about it. If everyone could move away from an absolute definitional position, we could all relax a lot more. As an Australian I sometimes feel part of a much smaller minority here than women. Let's all accept that we don't always know what everyone else thinks. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agree, all absolute statements are wrong. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: {{!xt|all absolute statements are wrong}} is itself an absolute statement, but how about "all discrimination is wrong"? Is that absolute also false? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes. In the US, we don't let 17 year olds buy beer, for example. You seem to be using the word in a way that dictionaries do not. "Discrimination" is simply recognizing a distinction. Using that distinction as an unfair means to disenfranchise a class of people, or an individual, is obviously wrong, but to say "Discrimination is wrong" as an absolute statement is completely absurd. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Discrimination is loosely defined as, "an action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice". Can you name an example where discrimination is ''not'' wrong without redefining the term? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'm a discriminating shopper. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: You changed the word: ''discriminating'' and ''discrimination'' have entirely different definitions. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Your central point was refuted, yet you just contradict, you are clearly aware of but unable to admit the word "discrimination" is used in multiple ways. The declaration lacks precision, it comes across sophomoric, like a Middle School paper on MLK. You've dug in here, your're not interested in discussion, but instead being perceived as "right". I'm not interested in this pointless exercise. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::: Dennis, you're the one who jumped in here to prove ''me'' wrong, asserting that "all absolute statements are wrong", which is a tautology, BTW. You're apparently the self-appointed retention guru, but you've called my ideas "absurd" and my approach "sophomoric". What have you done with this project page that ''tangibly'' improved retention, because all this looks like to me is a forum whereby you negate everyone else's ideas in an attempt to supplant them with your own? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::: RE: {{!xt|All absolute statements are wrong}}, what about: {{xt|The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.}}? Under what circumstances is this not absolute and correct? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::::::::}}''If'' administrators or arbitrators wish to ban usage of certain ''words'' & that ban strenghtens retention? Then I would accept such a censurship. PS: Note, that I practice such censurship on my own talkpage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: I think [[WP:CIVILITY]] ''already'' makes it clear that certain words, namely anything that constitutes name calling, are inappropriate if not outright banned. From the "nutshell": {{xt|"Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language ... at other users."}} From the policy: {{xt|"editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect ... editors should behave politely ... Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments ... Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor ... Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians ... The following behaviours can all contribute to an uncivil environment: (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions ... (d) belittling a fellow editor"}}, which is exactly what Dennis Brown has done to me here, BTW. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::WP:CIVIL, would need to make a ''banned words'' list, in order to clarify its stance. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: That's not a bad idea, but I think the stance against obviously offensive words is already quite explicit. Has anyone ever argued that "cunt" or "idiot" are not always offensive words when directed at someone in anger? [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::AFAIK, there's no consensus in the community or among administrators, as to how to enforce WP:CIVIL & arbitrators are reluctant to push such enforcement without community/administrators backing. The only thing that would cause a big push towards censurship of usage of certain words, would be if evidence was provided that ''donations'' to Wikipedia was in decline & the reason for the decline was continued usage of 'bad' words. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Calling someone a "sniveling dog" is more offensive than "an idiot" in some cultures. We aren't "Wikipedia USA" and all this cultural biased towards American usage is offensive to me, and I'm an American. If someone said "don't be an ass, Dennis" that would be less offensive than "you are an incompetent editor who has the literary skills of a chimp" which has no cursing. Context is everything, plus it is all subjective. Again, the place to debate what is and isn't civil is really WP:CIVILITY. WP:WER is about finding and keeping good editors, so bad word lists are off topic. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think a lot of our civility problems more or less are in a sense secondary to problems regarding quality and reliability of sources and notability. Very few people around here are going to call me a mindless, drooling, incompetent hack for producing a directly relevant quotation from the most recent ''Encyclopedia Britannica,'' for instance. And the few that do will be quickly recognized as trying to engage in evasion. The best way to reduce this sort of civility problem is to make it easier for editors on all sides to find at least decent recent reliable sources on topics. I'm right now working on developing the [[Bibliography of encyclopedias]] and related articles, and if and when I add everything from the various articles and books I've gathered together for those articles, I'm going to start developing some pages like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles]] for some of the topics which seem to have insufficient coverage relative to the leading reference books in the field. Several of the works in the American Library Association's online "Guide to Reference" directly relate to gender studies, including men's studies, women's studies, gender studies, homosexuality, and so on, and I think maybe one of the best ways to make it easier to develop good content in those fields without undue drama might be to get together lists like the one above from some of those reference sources and make them more quickly available to individuals looking to develop such content. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A lot of the "civility problems" that have been hitting ANI and Arb aren't even about articles, they are about things said at boards, on projects like this, which is frustrating as the problems center around things that, at best, are ancillary to building an encyclopedia. They are about the politics rather than content. Glad to see you working on those kinds of titles, those are core to using Wikipedia, although a bit out of my league as an old redneck. The Bibliography of encyclopedias is particularly interesting, in an era that seems to be hosting a decline in the number of encyclopedias. That will also serve as a rich host of redlinks to fill. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Speaking of absolutes, [[WP:NPA]] says, "some types of comments are ''never'' acceptable", including: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets." Well, "cunt" is an epithet, and is therefore "''never'' acceptable". [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver|talk]]) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Take it somewhere else WER doesn't exist to debate the civility of single words. You keep raising the issue, seemingly to pick a fight, and it has already been talked to death. I'm going to simply start reverting you if just want to do is argue and talk about the word "cunt". And that goes for everyone. Take it to the appropriate forum. WER isn't that forum. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===IP participation=== |
|||
Recommend we ''ignore'' IPs posts, until he/she ''signs in'' or discloses previous registered account. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Why? Shouldn't quality of the contribution determine whether one responds or not? <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::It's recommendation, based on the IP's contrib history. You're free to decide for yourself, of course :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Being that we aren't an admin board, we don't fret about IPs quite the same here. Sometimes there are good reasons to be an IP. If there isn't anything of value to to respnd to, it doesnt matter if they are old or new. That said, I expected some extra traffic due to the Arb case, so it isn't a shock to see "new" faces. I wouldn't let it worry you, or be quick to judge. '''[[User talk:Farmer Brown|Farmer Brown]]''' 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (Dennis) |
|||
::::In agreement :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Keep calm & carry on=== |
|||
I believe that ''any'' editor can have a pleasurable experience on Wikipedia, ''if'' that editor remembers that this is ''only'' a cyber world & not the real world. It's an approach that's much less stressful :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: What if it spills over into the real world? We have Commons admins stalking editors IRL and other admins defending their power to do it. We have the peanut gallery at Wikipediocracy who think it's OK to phone editor's place of work, and then WP admins who think that's OK because it's "off wiki" (in a WO thread full of active WP editors and even admins). [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== Symbolic change == |
|||
I named {{u|Mark Miller}}, {{u|Buster7}}, {{u|John Carter}}, {{u|Go Phightins!}}, {{u|Doctree}}, {{u|Adjwilley}} as "coordinators", which is symbolic title as we all have equal say. I choose these because I know them, they are regulars here, half are not admin, and I trust their judgement. While being a coordinator is a ceremonial title in most respects, it does mean that if they agree on something, odds are good I would agree and likely the community as a whole here would as well. I made a note in the members roster. The same would be if they choose anyone else to include, I would consider that person the same. This is to make creating, deleting, modifying or moderating any content here easier. We have some old content that needs archiving from the front page, for example. If you aren't on that list, don't take it personal, I was fairly random in my selection, and it wasn't based on anything other than the names of those whom I know to be familiar enough with the place to make technical decisions. I did this as I expect to be around less in the future, and this just makes things simpler on the maintenance front. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Even if it is only symbolic - not one woman? [[Special:Contributions/72.223.98.118|72.223.98.118]] ([[User talk:72.223.98.118|talk]]) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::A situation that is easily resolved. Do you have someone in mind? The members list is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members|here]]. Maybe someone will see this and volunteer?```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I name {{u|Anne Delong}}, {{u|Anna Frodesiak}} and {{u|SlimVirgin}} as coordinators from the above permissions. All excellent editors.--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::The only problem I see is being all admin. They aren't very active here, but I would trust the judgement of any or all. I even nominated Anna for admin, and supported Anne in hers early on. Slim has been around longer than me but I hope she knows I trust her. We can't just declare, so if most of the others agree, then its fine. That assumes these want it. Really, it has no power (he says after Mark makes a declaration....), it is more about willingness to rally the troops around an idea, or make technical decisions '''with''' the others, not solo. I really didn't think about gender when selecting, I just picked familiar names that are already involved. Slim is probably less likely to get involved, she has other projects like the Gender Gap that she founded, but Anne and Anna....I would love to see them more involved here. Not because they are female, but because I think a great deal of both of them, and they are new to being admin, with a fresh memory of how it feels to NOT have the tools. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks, [[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] and [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]], for your confidence. It's true that I haven't been very active in the project since signing up; I've been sidetracked into the G13 rescues, which is more about retaining content than new editors, but has to be done right away. I hope to be more active in the future. I do try to follow the discussions and have occasionally put in my opinion. I will happily help out in any way that I can, and it would be useful to know more about the inner workings of a WikiProject, but at this point it would likely be quicker for the more active members to make changes themselves than to explain to me how to do them. —[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi {{U|Mark Miller|Mark}}, {{U|Dennis Brown|Dennis}} and {{U|Buster7|Buster}}, thanks for thinking of me. I'd be happy to help out with Anne and Anna. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Excellent. I'm sure the others will approve as well, you have a lot of experience in helping others, as well as the tech stuff and the bit, so that works out swimmingly. I really thought you would have had too much on your plate or I would listed you to begin with. In an unrelated email, Anna told me she is looking at devoting time in other areas and probably couldn't help out. There really isn't much to do, but it still helps to have experienced people offering guidance when it's needed. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If nothing else, the ladies might know of some people who they think are deserving of EotW recognition who haven't been recognized yet. And, maybe, we can try to find a way to maybe try to find some ways to build strongly "collaborative" efforts here or in other WF entities which if "publicized" (like editathons) might help bring in some more ladies. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Coordinators? cool. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Welcome aboard, SV. Your guidance and wisdom will be a blessing. As John mentions, nominations are always needed. Maybe we can find a way to publicize it more. (BTW, both Anna and Anne are past Editors of the Week). ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 03:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{like}}--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Many thanks, everyone. I look forward to helping. I'll keep an eye on the page at first to get a feel for what others are doing. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 23:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::As there are no objections, I have added SlimVirgin's name to the list. Others can be added to the list in the future if needed, or removed, but it is my opinion that this is best done with a majority of active coordinators agreeing. The little things can probably done with less formality. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Where a helping hand might come in handy=== |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations]] Where an editor gets nominated. We like to have a total of at least 6 editors somewhere in the nominating process (nominated and waiting for a second or in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations|The Q]]). |
|||
*[[ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations]] A discussion page about the nominated editor. Also, nominations wait here for at least two weeks to acquire a second. Co-ordinators and other interested editors might consider watchlisting this page to comment and/or second. |
|||
*{{u|Go Phightins!}} and I do most of the other daily maintenance EotW stuff with occasional technical help from isaacl. ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Why have you linked [[User:Isaacl|Isaacl]] to the letter [[U]]? -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Either because today's show is brought to you by the letter U ;-), or it's just a typo; I'm guessing Buster7 meant to use the {{tl|u}} template. I've removed the link. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Goodday. isaacl is correct. I used the wrong brackets. ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Just a reminder == |
|||
that [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians]] still exists. Got to thinking about it today, was wondering when or if {{u|MistyMorn}} was coming back. We only crossed paths on a few occassions, but I always found her to be so agreeable and positive in attitude. Not sure exactly why she left. The same with {{u|Bmusician}} who hasn't edited in quite some time. I crossed paths him several times and he seemed rather dedicated and hard working. So many names. I might need to do an email run and just say hi to some old familiar names. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Yep, I know of a few editors who've disappeared aswell. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed with Dennis. Anecdotally, I can say that I might have been away much longer had it not been for a kind e-mail from {{u|Go Phightins!}} back in 2013. I might not have been "missing" per se, but it's nice to have fellow editors check-in. [[User:I JethroBT|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></font>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 22:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Excellent example, and shows how the most important work we do in Editor Retention isn't what we say on this page, it is what we do when no one is looking. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC == |
|||
Interested users are invited to comment at [[Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board]]. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for Admin == |
|||
Not looking for any action, and doing anything this soon is probably a bad idea, but we have [[User talk:Thomas.W]], who failed at RFA. It would be easy to say "Pfft, so what, he got mad, took his toys and went home", which is what many will say, but it is a lot more complicated than that. His RFA is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W]]. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, it's too close to the event. I supported him, but we didn't hang in the same areas, so it was a run of the mill support. I do think it is worth looking at, as we have a well established editor, who volunteers to serve more, and feels dashed against the rocks. Losing editors after RFA is all too common, which sadly, makes RFA (as it is currently structured) an Editor Retention liability. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:RFAs can be rough. Can you imagine what my RFA would be like? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I do know that an RfA can be very ugly, and you can still pass, but instances like that are very rare. My RfA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dennis_Brown] was like that, and I expected it to fail half the time, so that does give me a bit of empathy. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: But do we want to create an environment where opposes are attacked and cursed at? [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is already part of the problem. Opposers are more likely to get jumped on now, but that doesn't stop things from spiraling down, as others jump in to defend them. I don't have the answers. A few ideas, but that is more for the talk page there. My goal would be to get people discussing it there to consider the Editor Retention perspective. RFA can not only run off candidates, but opposers and supporters as well. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::: The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse), so I don't think there will be much concern about driving off those who oppose at RfA. RfA is just a symptom, not the problem. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Don't think it's really moving that way, it has been that way for a while. Ask Eric. Keep in mind, it is pretty difficult be disruptive in a support vote, easy to in an oppose (if we look only at the initial votes) so it isn't shocking that this is where most the problems might be found, if we are honest. But what I see is an arguably "bad" oppose vote that should simply be ignored, and instead support people pile on the guy, giving it more credibility than it deserves. Yes, the vote is stupid, but so what. The Crats aren't. This is one of the reasons I wondered if getting rid of threaded debate in the poling section and forcing it into a bottom discussion session would be better (again, not a debate for here), but its another example of how the reaction to an event is often 10x more disruptive than the event itself. A stupid "I don't like him" vote explodes into a bar brawl with stools flying out the window, when it made no difference to begin with. I don't know how to fix that, really, but it is quite common. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: When an admin refers to oppose voters as "fucking morons" there's clearly a problem. But again, I think you've got the wrong focus. RfA is a symptom of the overall problem, not the problem itself. In editor retention terms, RfA or any process that grants higher tool access will always be an issue. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That is very true, and all my efforts to learn from this experience may be for naught. Without judging any individual, it is still something you hate to see, so you feel compelled to say "why?" and "is there something I can do to make this better?". And you always hope someone has a great idea you haven't thought of, or at least a new perspective. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I've asked Thomas.W to return to the 'pedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::It will probably be a month or so before I email him. A scar that builds over a week won't heal in a day. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I for one will be looking much more closely at who is doing the nominating from now on. Pushing average quality candidates forward on the back of a high profile Admin. nomination isn't going to be less convincing when we actually see an average candidate have their technical - and worse behavioural - qualities examined and found wanting as in this case. There are some Admins who should, frankly, step away from the limelight rather than pushing their latest protege forward. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Leaky, we aren't here to debate quality of candidate or nominating admin, just the ideas about how the process costs us editors. This isn't an admin board, it is a project specifically focused on editor retention only. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Don't nominate inadequate, fragile candidates as if they are they latest bright young Admin. nugget just discovered. Do better research before presenting candidates with skeletons waiting to rattle. Then they will not leave when rejected by the wider community. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Again, not really the place for it nor really helpful. You are making generalized comments about a class of editors (nominators), but that audience is at WT:RFA, not here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No doubt people will follow your view and ignore mine, we all know how things swing here. But if you nominate someone who turns out to be a dud candidate and then leaves, please don't deny culpability, because you nominated them without doing more background. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The point is, this isn't the place to decide who is a dud and who isn't. As for your general concept, "dud" is in the eye of the beholder. If a candidate fails miserably with 67% of the vote, that still means that a supermajority of users thought they would be a good admin, so lets put this in perspective. I don't know that any US President has gotten 67% of the vote, ever. So I refuse to call someone a "dud" when more than half of the people want them to be admin. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] |
|||
::::::Indeed, there should be a way to screen RFA candidates ''before'' they are nominated. This would avoid frustration & retirement in that area. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I have my own way, documented at [[User:Dennis Brown/RfA]]. Nominating someone isn't something I take lightly, particularly if I'm at the top. And I document it so I can learn from lessons along the way. Things like this aren't common, nor mandatory. If you look down, most candidates get a full blown review page which includes all the same templates from RFA, plus itemized points, critique and coaching. And if they aren't ready, I tell them there. If they are, I try to prepare them for what to expect, give guidance on what to do (since most aren't RFA regular voters) and such. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, but I sincerely doubt that most nominators are willing to go through as much effort. The problem is, it is easy to just stick two paragraphs of flattery on top of a page, and if they become admin, you have one in the "win" column, if they don't, you can walk away from carnage relatively unscathed. I've had 6 pass, 4 fail and 2 pending. I'm not afraid to take risk in nominations (such as Carrite) but I do at least prepare them off and on wiki, to the best of my abilities. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::While not going with the tone of the above remarks, it does seem relevant to editor retention to suggest that nominators consider the likelihood that their candidate might react this way if the RfA goes off the rails[[User:Noyster|: <font color="seagreen">'''Noyster'''</font>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<font color="seagreen"> (talk)</font>, ]] 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It is, which is why we are steering it away from individuals and onto general concepts. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In agreement with Polls/Surveys being seperate from related discussions. I believe it would lower the temperature at RFAs & other places, thus ''maybe'' cutting down on resulting retirements. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:As we [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 229#Per Votes|discussed previously on the Requests for adminship talk page]], I suggest the process would benefit from being moderated. In an initial phase, the moderator would consolidate people's feedback and build up a summary of advantages and disadvantages, rewording as required to preserve the points being made while removing personal animus. This should trim down redundant conversation, making it easier for the entire thread to be followed and encouraging more participation, since the summary provides a convenient manner to catch up on the discussion. A final phase could allow contributors to provide their views on whether or not, based on the overall summary, Wikipedia would benefit from the candidate receiving administrative privileges. The bureaucrats can then judge the outcome of the conversation, determining if in the end, a consensus of commenters supports the candidacy. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Didn't read Thomas' RFA. I hope he didn't get ''borked''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*:Without respect to Thomas, I will just say that the success rate of an RFA is more attuned to someone else's ability to dig up dirt than it is your abilities, as anyone that has been here long enough to arguably have the experience to do the job, has skeletons or bad diffs. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*{{U|Isaacl}}, as I have explained to you several times recently, the idea of RfA 'moderating' or 'clerking' has been rejected several times. The vast majority of RfA voters are one-offs, leaving only a very small group of serious, competent, regular voters. It's that pool of thousands of one-off pile-oners who need to get the message that their trolling will not be tolerated. There is another group who occasionally use RfA for tactical voting against all things admin. They know who they are, and they claim that as prolific content providers they have a right to disrupt RfA and be uncivil anywhere else. Some have been T-banned already but we can only hope that given time they will learn to treat Wikipedia as a serious project and not as an Internet playground where they can hide behind the anonymity that has become an Internet tradition. In Rl at board meetings or union meetings, people who can't express themselves reasonably and in context are rapidly shown the door. This page is about editor retention, but to be quite honest, there are some editors who I would gladly see the back of, because their attitude towards admins and other users completely negates any 'good' work they are doing. |
|||
:For anyone to suggest that the sheer act of ''politely and reasonably'' opposing an RfA is considered disruptive, is absolute nonsense. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 05:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Moderation would be quite effective in addressing these issues—managing trolls, pile-on voters, and disruptive comments—just as it is in real life, so here's hoping consensus views will change. I'm not sure who you're replying to regarding politely and reasonably opposing a candidate; I agree that considered, constructive comments are not disruptive. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Someone further up the page said: ''The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse)''. I think that is either a totally short sighted observation, or just plain POV in an attempt to stir things up. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I tend to think that your denial of the culture is either short-sighted or an example of OWN of policy. You're too vested in the process to look at it any other way, which is fine, but that doesn't automatically mean that you're right about it. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Having suffered the "slings and arrows" of an unsuccessful attempt at adminship, I can speak from experience that the aftermath is an emotional low. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't make it, but that doesn't lessen the pain of rejection by your peers. ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Continuing the efforts of others == |
|||
Much to my personal disgust and despite the opposition of a number of people, it seems to be a realistic possibility that [[User:Eric Corbett]] may lose his rights to edit here. Although I and others have seen some issues with the individual in the past, there is at least in my opinion no sound basis for such a decision, and it would very possibly serve as a serious detriment to the project, both in terms of article development and in terms of helping newer editors of the type Eric has fairly regularly collaborated with. |
|||
It would be a shame if we were to have no one around to help take up the idea of collaborating and/or "showing the ropes" to newer editors. |
|||
Perhaps, on a limited basis, there might be a way of selecting either a newer editor and/or group of editors for some collaborative efforts, or maybe some sort of invitation to newer editors to join with a group of older hands on an article or topic or two which would allow the more experienced editors to offer what assistance they could to the newer editors in a directly productive way. Thoughts? [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't wish to see ''anyone'' banned, who hasn't committed vandalism, socking, evading. In the end, it's Arbcom's choice. I only hope that the parties will respect that choice, whatever it is. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:This is tough. Obviously, I have an opinion in the matter, and I've expressed it at Arb and other places. At the same time, I don't want to see the whole issue debated here, so we have to respect those that disagree with you and I, John. So I'm going to punt on all things Eric in this statement, and focus purely on the idea of adopting and mentoring. {{u|Worm That Turned}} used to have a really rock solid adoption program, he is a WER member and is retiring from Arb in a few weeks, to live off that fat retirement check, we can assume ;) He would be the right person to be involved or at least a consultant, as he is extremely familiar with these kinds of programs, and has done it before. Even without this case, our mentoring/adoption efforts are lagging, on the whole. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe something like a regular specifically "New Editor Collaboration of the (week, month, millenium)" effort might be best. Adoption is very useful, but is maybe a bit more time-intensive than a lot of us are ready for. But there are a lot of underdeveloped, and, in some cases, non-existent fairly important articles which might be both interesting enough for newer editors to maybe want to spend some time on them and maybe learn some of the ropes of editing and developing content in the process. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe some of the tangential things that could be done in the process would be to develop wikisource content from older encyclopedias which could be imported here with attribution, give some pointers on how to use the internet and subscription databanks for finding content, helping newer editors pinpoint desired subscription databanks information that they don't have direct access to, that sort of thing. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that, in principle, this is a good idea ... I remember a while ago I was considering proposing a "newbie FA collaboration", in which essentially experienced editors working on bringing an article to FA (or GA) would list the article on a coordination page and what they would like help with (e.g., finding sources, copyediting, expansion of a section, etc.), and a newer editor interested in learning about that subject could make contact and work to bring an article to GA or FA, which would have the effect of making those processes less intimidating, and getting new editors involved in content right away. '''[[User:Go Phightins!|<font color="blue">Go</font>]] [[User talk:Go Phightins!|<font color="#E90004">''Phightins''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Go Phightins!|<font color="#008504">!</font>]]''' 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but this is exactly how I got my first two GAs, an FA, and a TFA. All thanks to Eric. I wasn't new, but new to writing "real" articles instead of gnoming. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Eric was also instrumental in introducing me to {{u|Dr. Blofeld}} and motivating me to get [[Keith Moon]] and [[The Who]] in the state they are now. The great thing about Eric is he won't let you sit back and do the "heavy lifting" for you, but he will guide you in the direction of writing content so you learn a lot more. That's the sort of mentor that would make a real difference around here. The problem is that learning that Eric is a good editor takes time and effort, knowing that telling another editor to fuck off is not exactly civil, er, isn't [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Eric's strength I think lies in copyediting. I'm yet to see a better general copyeditor on here.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Co-op]] was looking for volunteer mentors to participate in a pilot program starting in January 2015. It's not quite clear to me what it entails—perhaps Go Phightins! can expand on this?—but the group has been looking at ways to improve the effectiveness of mentorship/adoption. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I was about to say the same, and call [[User:I JethroBT]] over to give a rundown on it. I chatted to him about WP:CO-OP at Wikimania, and thought it was a great idea. We've also got WP:ADOPT, which I haven't looked at for a while... and the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a pretty good resource for connecting old users with new. I do hope to get more involved in all 3 projects come January. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 07:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks Worm. I already have one foot out the door here, suitcase in hand, with no map. I can't say when I'll be back. While WER isn't solving all the problems, it is asking the right questions, and unquestionably, has some of the finest people doing the asking. For that, I am grateful. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{replyto|Worm That Turned|isaacl|Dennis Brown}} Sorry, that ping didn't get to me for whatever reason. But yes, we are definitely looking for people who are interested in doing some one-on-one mentorship with newer editors at [[WP:Co-op|the Co-op]]. I'll be making a more official and substantive post about this here today or tomorrow, but if folks are interested and want to offer their time to mentor even just one person for our pilot in January, [[Wikipedia_talk:Co-op#Mentors_for_the_Co-op_Pilot_.28Jan._2015_-_Feb._2015.29|I'd encourage them to sign up here]]. We'll be starting to open up discussions with mentors soon about the ins-and-outs of the space. [[User:I JethroBT|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></font>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== real-life retired people who are active or potential wikipedians == |
|||
Hi. I just read this article [http://phys.org/news/2013-09-king-wikipedia-editors.html] and my sense is that real-life retired people might be a strong group of active or potential wikipedians -- worth special targeting for attraction and retention? Thanks for your thoughts. [[User:Fgnievinski|Fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 15:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:They already are a rather strong group of active wikipedians, but I agree that they could be stronger, particularly perhaps for what might be called content of a somewhat local nature, like people from an area where they live, the history or significant features of the local area, etc. If anyone could figure out a way to try to directly reach such individuals, I would like to hear it. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I wasn't quite retired when I did [[Malvern, Worcestershire|this]] and the rest of the suite of related articles including creating the [[WP:WORCS|parent project]], but I am drawing my pension now. If any real-life retired people want to do an article about their area, I'd be happy to guide them. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:These places have information about recruiting retirees and invalids. |
|||
:*[[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Recruiting retirees and invalids]] (March 2012) |
|||
:*[[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 100#Recruiting Retirees and Invalids]] (March 2012) |
|||
:*[[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126#Wikipedia short on volunteer editors]] (February 2013) |
|||
:*[[User talk:Buster7/Sandbox-A Recruiting Project]] (March 2012) |
|||
:*[[User talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/March#Recruiting retirees and invalids]] |
|||
:*[[User talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/May#Recruiting retirees and invalids]] |
|||
:—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Wavelength}} Thanks for these resources. I got a little lost among too many of them though. Could you please single out one of them for us to pick up? Thanks! [[User:Fgnievinski|Fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::It looks like there's funded project dealing with a similar topic! Let's centralize discussions there, shall we: [[:meta:Grants talk:IEG/Senior Citizens Write Wikipedia#Retirement-age Wikipedians]]. Thanks. [[User:Fgnievinski|Fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am singling out the fourth item listed. |
|||
:::—[[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]] ([[User talk:Wavelength|talk]]) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Logo Senior Citizens Write Wikipedia.svg|thumb|100px|Czech initiative]] |
|||
::::Several people here and elsewhere have said that our content regarding what might be called "historical" matters (both "History of" articles and articles about historical events and individuals) is among the least well developed we have. I would think that maybe at least some retirees might be among the more interested and willing to develop content of that type, and, honestly, for bios of mayors of Belfast or York from centuries ago, for instance, they might be among the easier content to develop, because in many if not most of those cases there won't be a lot of new developments in the topic in the past centuries or decades. For stuff like that, maybe finding ways to also get some old useful PD texts at commons and elsewhere might help a lot too. I know at wikisource, proofreading is generally achievable even by people without advanced degrees, and a lot of broadly historical material is easily available and in some cases ripe for being proofread and added to articles here. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 20:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Our [[:Cs:Wikipedie:Senioři píší Wikipedii|2014 project]] (see [[:meta:Grants:IEG/Senior Citizens Write Wikipedia/Midpoint|report]]) has already had quite a success with senior citizens. Half of the work is the PR of course - make the senior citizens know about you - but we think we are pretty good in that. We now have >40 senior citizens on our courses in Prague, Czech Republic. Some of them, if not most, continue editing after they finished with the course. --[[User:Vojtěch Dostál|Vojtěch Dostál]] ([[User talk:Vojtěch Dostál|talk]]) 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
I'm pretty sure that the next time we do an editor survey we will confirm the theory of the "greying of the pedia" with silver surfers being our fastest growing part of the community and the community collectively ageing by more than a year a year. We are certainly seeing this at UK meetups with more older editors getting involved and the same youngest editor for the last four years. We are also talking to a potential partner who would help us work with that demographic in the UK. My experience of other organisations is that retired people are hugely important in most voluntary organisations and so in one sense we are becoming more "normal". One area that they may be more likely to work on is the popular culture and major events of the second half of the twentieth century, but otherwise their editing interests are likely to be as broad and varied as the younger editors. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 09:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
About a year ago I attended a workshop for people interested in giving courses at the University of the Third Age in Canberra. My proposal to give a course on editing WP was enthusiastically welcomed. Unfortunately I could not follow through for health reasons. I have thought for a while that well educated retirees would make ideal editors. I am in that category myself. --[[User:Jack Greenmaven|Greenmaven]] ([[User talk:Jack Greenmaven|talk]]) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
An encyclopaedia is a repository of knowledge. In traditional societies the elders were the repositories of knowledge and wisdom. I hope we see more done to encourage the recruitment of older editors. Women live longer; it could help with the gender imbalance too. Not to mention civility... [[User:Jack Greenmaven|Greenmaven]] ([[User talk:Jack Greenmaven|talk]]) 23:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Become a mentor for the pilot of [[WP:Co-op|the Co-op]]! == |
|||
[[File:Ambidextrie.svg||right|150px]] |
|||
Hey folks. I've posted about this a few times here in relevant discussions, but it's about time I make a more official announcement. |
|||
A small team of editors and I have been developing a space called [[WP:Co-op|the Co-op]] with the aim of 1) semi-automatically matching editors who want to learn how to contribute (learners) with mentoring editors with the experience to help them (mentors), and 2) to ensure that mentorships are focused on a specific task (e.g working on a single article) or skill (e.g. uploading an image) so that they are well-defined and do not result in indefinite learning and burnout (of course, if both parties are interested in broader learning/teaching, that's great). Mentors will also have flexibility about what kind topics they will be matched on. For instance, you would not be expected to teach about copyright and image policy if it's not something you're familiar with or are otherwise not interested in teaching it. |
|||
Our team has been posting [[Wikipedia_talk:Co-op#News|updates on our progress here]]. There is no interface yet, but we are getting there; our design/development team has just started drafting some initial designs. Until then, I'd invite editors interested in mentoring to come help test our pilot, to participate in discussions on how the space will work technically, and consider how we should maintain and run the space together. I ask that you be willing to mentor one or two editors (more is also OK) during a roughly one-month period from mid- to late-January 2015 to late-February 2015. '''If you are interested in mentoring [[Wikipedia_talk:Co-op#Mentors_for_the_Co-op_Pilot_.28Jan._2015_-_Feb._2015.29|please sign up here]]'''. We have 13 mentors so far, but it would be fantastic to see more of you who I know are enthusiastic about showing folks why contributing to Wikipedia and working with other editors is both important and rewarding. Questions about the project are also welcome here or [[Wikipedia talk:Co-op|on our talk page]], and I will answer them to the best of my ability. With gratitude, [[User:I JethroBT|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></font>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 01:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Admin back-up regarding some issues of sexual harassment or sexism for the currently away Dennis == |
|||
Just making sure everyone sees this clearly, in Dennis' temporary absence Dougweller has agreed to having his name added as admin to contact in any issues of sexual harassment or sexism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention&diff=636777309&oldid=636384179 here]. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==WER/Editors of the Week for 2015== |
|||
''Editor of the Week'' is a weekly recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed. Currently, we have enough nominees to finish out the year but none for next year. Is there someone in your circle of editors that has one or more of the following characteristics? |
|||
* Writes or significantly expands articles on a regular basis, |
|||
* cleans up articles by adding sources, expanding citations with the necessary information, aligning prose with the [[WP:MOS|manual of style]], or improving the quality of the prose through copy-editing, |
|||
* serves as notable voice of reason in discussions with other editors, |
|||
* performs behind-the-scenes work, not normally seen by the general community. |
|||
While there are many well-known editors who meet these criteria, the basic intent has been to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. WER has awarded over 100 editors. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins. To nominate an editor for Editor of the Week, add your nomination to the [[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations|nominations page]]. Thank you, ```[[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 06:30, 11 May 2024
![]() | Editor Retention | |||
|
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Crowd_retain.gif)
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of places regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."
- Wikipedia:First contact
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests
Turkey master degree students
I think issues like this may be of interest to participants of the editor retention project. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome-turnaround
Template:Welcome-turnaround has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PleaseStand (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Involve new editors to cite unsourced articles
I've just made a new proposal to depreciating new unsourced articles and I afraid that this might have a chilling effect to new editors who are looking to join Wikipedia, because this would set the standard for contributing Wikipedia even higher than it is now. How can we make sure that we would stop biting newcomers? Improved mentoring program for new editors? Ban generic/templated warnings asking people to cite sources? I don't know. Feel free to write about your wildest proposals for retaining new editors here, I'm all ears. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: Sdkb, Clovermoss. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh, I've become courtesy ping worthy when it comes to brainstorming. :) You have no idea how excited this makes me. I'll probably have grander thoughts sometime later but the first thing that comes to mind is that we have a serious banner blindness problem when it comes to what people see when they actually click edit. This isn't really something the average wikipedian can control but I do remember seeing an interesting pilot project from someone involved with the WMF that would encourage people to cite sources when they added content. It had prompts that would exist while someone was actually editing. I remember seeing it and thinking it was a gamechanger, it was honestly really nice and something we should have had ages ago. I hope it's still in-the-works and that I can get to see it in action someday. :)
- To get a bit more on track though, given that new editors typically edit in draftspace until they're autoconfirmed and these articles rarely get moved to mainspace by experienced AfC reviewers if they're completely unsourced... I'm not sure this will actually raise the bar that much for contributing to Wikipedia. I think something to be more concerned about from that angle is how there tends to be a backlog of thousands of drafts and new editors with potential aren't nessecarily getting quick or personalized feedback. Like many areas, we have the problem of a few volunteers trying to do what they can to make sure that these processes get by. When we're just focusing on getting by, it makes it a lot harder to thrive and go that extra mile, because it's easy for people who are involved in these processes to become burnt out. If we had better editor retention, this would be less of an issue because the overall workload would be more sustainable... so I think this does becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- This this this! Editors on wikipedia loves to assume that new editors would have done WP:Tutorials and read everything on the banners, when in reality nobody cares about them. I think one of the ways we can improve is to simplify these banners, such as {{AfC submission/draft}} and {{AfC submission/declined}}. That banner is so long that I just feel sorry for any new editors who have to face with this banner... Maybe we should make a checklist of requirements that an article have to achieve before it will not be deleted under AfD? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss Ok, I have an idea. What if we create an operation for teaching newcomers to cite articles, as part of the mentorship program at Wikipedia:Growth Team features? Maybe we could establish a program under WikiProject Editor Retention, in a similar minimalistic style like WP:FEB24, and encourage new editors to practice working on one aspect of editing Wikipedia. This month we might want to work on citing articles, the next month working on typo finding, etc. By doing so, we would merge all editor retention efforts to a single program, and new editor will have comrades to talk to and feel validated by experienced editors. What do you think about this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this echo the sentiments at What is the main reason more people don't start editing Wikipedia?. People don't edit Wikipedia because it is a significant time investment. The more convenient we make for new editors to join in to our efforts, the better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're suggesting a "backlog of the month" idea, with a specific emphasis on welcoming newcomers to try these new things? I can see something like that being worth brainstorming as it can give people a sense of direction and guide people to areas where they can make a measurable difference to said backlogs. I remember when I was brand new, I was super excited to do things but it felt like everything was going into a void. It's part of the reason I like some of the new features that are being designed nowadays that show things like "your impact". But newbie me did come across the Wikipedia:Community portal and find people looking for help at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. There is also the Wikipedia:Task center which is a similar concept of "this is stuff you can do", but I wouldn't say it's that very well known.
- As for banner blindness, I think it is worth considering if the editor made templates and whatnot can be simplified and still get the crucial pieces of information that people need to know across, even if it's not quite what I was thinking about last night. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, something else! I created a "newbie central" section on my talk page after my experience teaching newcomers at a Wikipedia Day event. It was a bit different trying to explain these things in person to people, but something that ended up being a focus was different stub templates that might be within that editor's field of interest. I'm a bit curious on what you think about that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this echo the sentiments at What is the main reason more people don't start editing Wikipedia?. People don't edit Wikipedia because it is a significant time investment. The more convenient we make for new editors to join in to our efforts, the better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think most editors are quite familiar with banner blindness and how people don't like to read instructions. I think having more volunteer mentors as part of the growth team features initiative would be a good way to help more new editors to ramp up. But... the feedback I've seen is that there aren't many useful questions being asked of mentors, and little follow up. So at present it's not going to be a magic bullet to increase retention dramatically, though I see it as a needed base requirement to support other initiatives.
- I think it's worthwhile trying to try to get people to work on specific tasks. Things to think about, though, is how to get people to know about the initiative, and how to attract them to participate. Banner blindness makes it tricky for projects to get attention. Talk page notices would likely work better, but current English Wikipedia culture means that delivering them by default is unlikely to get consensus, and getting a newcomer to signup for a newsletter may be hard. That being said, perhaps we could have a new editors newsletter that gets delivered monthly to those who do signup; it could have a brief tip of the month and pointers to editing ideas. That is something I might be interested in co-ordinating. On the encouraging participation front, I think it would be helpful to have one or more facilitators maintaining a page for each event, to be a hub for those participating, and perhaps maintaining an aggregated tally (I hesitate to have an explicit leaderboard, but there are pros and cons in favour of one).
- For better or worse, editing an encyclopedia beyond typo fixing is a time-consuming activity. If I could get two concise points across to newcomers who already understand Wikipedia's mission, they would be the following: adding references to sources for any content you add will improve the likelihood of it being retained in the article, and every page has a corresponding talk page, which you should use to collaborate with other editors. (For those who don't understand Wikipedia's mission, the one key point would be that Wikipedia's content is determined by a consensus of everyone editing its pages, which may not correspond to what you think should be in Wikipedia.) isaacl (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss Ok, I have an idea. What if we create an operation for teaching newcomers to cite articles, as part of the mentorship program at Wikipedia:Growth Team features? Maybe we could establish a program under WikiProject Editor Retention, in a similar minimalistic style like WP:FEB24, and encourage new editors to practice working on one aspect of editing Wikipedia. This month we might want to work on citing articles, the next month working on typo finding, etc. By doing so, we would merge all editor retention efforts to a single program, and new editor will have comrades to talk to and feel validated by experienced editors. What do you think about this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the pilot project you're referencing, Clovermoss, is Reference Check, which is being developed as part of the larger mw:Edit check project. I share the view that that has by far the best potential to help with this issue. Cheers, Sdkb talk 16:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Edit check does indeed seem to be what I was thinking of. Thanks for the links, Sdkb, it's appreciated. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- This this this! Editors on wikipedia loves to assume that new editors would have done WP:Tutorials and read everything on the banners, when in reality nobody cares about them. I think one of the ways we can improve is to simplify these banners, such as {{AfC submission/draft}} and {{AfC submission/declined}}. That banner is so long that I just feel sorry for any new editors who have to face with this banner... Maybe we should make a checklist of requirements that an article have to achieve before it will not be deleted under AfD? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)