→Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...: Tweaked indentation per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors and added comment about edit conflict. |
→Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...: More tweaking per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors. Going to collapse these to make the thread easier to navigate. |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
This thread took place in the past 48 hours in the ''Teahouse'' and should serve as a case study on how and why editors are lost ... |
This thread took place in the past 48 hours in the ''Teahouse'' and should serve as a case study on how and why editors are lost ... |
||
{{cot|Wikipedia Teahouse thread}} |
|||
{{Talk quote block|text='''Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?''' |
{{Talk quote block|text='''Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?''' |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:::::Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... ''let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles''. Bye. [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype|talk]]) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
:::::Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... ''let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles''. Bye. [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype|talk]]) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
||
{{cob}} |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Architecttype|contribs]]) 14:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9 |
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Architecttype|contribs]]) 14:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9)</small> |
||
The following conversations took place simultaneously on the author's user talk page and article talk page |
The following conversations took place simultaneously on the author's user talk page and article talk page |
||
{{cot|Article talk page thread}} |
|||
{{talk quote block|text='''Image use''' |
{{talk quote block|text='''Image use''' |
||
Line 163: | Line 165: | ||
I have learned much today ... and have posted thoughts about it in a thread on my user talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype)Architecttype (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
I have learned much today ... and have posted thoughts about it in a thread on my user talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype)Architecttype (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{cot|User talk page thread}} |
|||
{{talk quote block|text='''Cardinal rule is be nice''' |
{{talk quote block|text='''Cardinal rule is be nice''' |
||
Line 182: | Line 184: | ||
::Amen. Architecttype (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
::Amen. Architecttype (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)}} |
||
{{cob}} |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Architecttype|contribs]]) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9 (UTC)</small> |
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Architecttype|contribs]]) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9 (UTC)</small> |
||
*Just pinging the other editors ({{ping|Nick Moyes|Edaham|David notMD|Bellezzasolo|Theroadislong|SovalValtos|Ariconte}}) whose comments/posts are being referenced above as a courtesy in case they wish to further clarify anything that was written. For reference, the links where most of the above took place, in addition to the Teahouse discussion, are [[:Talk:Guy Peterson#Image use]] and [[:User talk:Architecttype#Cardinal rule is be nice]]; there were. however, some posts at [[:User talk:SovalValtos#Guy Peterson]], and [[:User talk:Ariconte#Autobiographical ...]] which are also related. Just for future reference, it probably would've be better to just link to the relevant pages instead of copying and pasting entire threads onto this page so as to make it a little easier for others new to the discussion to follow. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
*Just pinging the other editors ({{ping|Nick Moyes|Edaham|David notMD|Bellezzasolo|Theroadislong|SovalValtos|Ariconte}}) whose comments/posts are being referenced above as a courtesy in case they wish to further clarify anything that was written. For reference, the links where most of the above took place, in addition to the Teahouse discussion, are [[:Talk:Guy Peterson#Image use]] and [[:User talk:Architecttype#Cardinal rule is be nice]]; there were. however, some posts at [[:User talk:SovalValtos#Guy Peterson]], and [[:User talk:Ariconte#Autobiographical ...]] which are also related. Just for future reference, it probably would've be better to just link to the relevant pages instead of copying and pasting entire threads onto this page so as to make it a little easier for others new to the discussion to follow. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:50, 30 December 2018
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
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 place 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
Signpost WikiProject Report
Hello, WikiProject Editor Retention! I'm ProgrammingGeek and I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost.
From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost
- –
- –
- –
- –
Going forward, each participant receives a wikilink to the interview workspace questions about the project's work, problems and achievements.
Please let me know if you're interested! Thanks so much. Kindest regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (I am watching this page)
Wishlist proposal on one-click inline cleanup tags
The best editor-retention idea I've seen is proposed in the current Wishlist Survey. It suggests making it as easy to tag (with "citation needed" etc.) as it is to rvv, using semi-automated tools. There is evidence[1][2] that being tagged rather than reverted will cause more new editors to stick around and improve their edits and skills. Having their edits tagged for cleanup actually makes editors more likely to stay than if their edits go untouched. It should also be faster to tag than to write custom comments in a good-faith revert, so semi-automated tool users will be motivated to tag more, especially if they then see new editors fixing their edits. Our editor numbers started declining when we introduced automated vandal-fighting tools (see research, and graph); adding new functionality to those tools could reverse that change, and give us record retention rates, faster editor training, and better content. Please consider voting on the wish. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
- Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
- I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
- If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
- Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...
- Originally from WP:Teahouse#Perceived_Flyspecking_Editors_..._Is_This_Normal?, I've just re-pasted the wikitext version, to preserve the formatting Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread took place in the past 48 hours in the Teahouse and should serve as a case study on how and why editors are lost ...
Wikipedia Teahouse thread
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9)
The following conversations took place simultaneously on the author's user talk page and article talk page
Article talk page thread
|
---|
|
User talk page thread
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9 (UTC)
- Just pinging the other editors (@Nick Moyes, Edaham, David notMD, Bellezzasolo, Theroadislong, SovalValtos, and Ariconte:) whose comments/posts are being referenced above as a courtesy in case they wish to further clarify anything that was written. For reference, the links where most of the above took place, in addition to the Teahouse discussion, are Talk:Guy Peterson#Image use and User talk:Architecttype#Cardinal rule is be nice; there were. however, some posts at User talk:SovalValtos#Guy Peterson, and User talk:Ariconte#Autobiographical ... which are also related. Just for future reference, it probably would've be better to just link to the relevant pages instead of copying and pasting entire threads onto this page so as to make it a little easier for others new to the discussion to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do have a comment actually. User:Architecttype To new editors in general who have information in a specialist field to contribute: if you were contributing information to any other literary body, it would be a job, with submission guidelines and a review process. An author probably wouldn’t have the final say in what got printed if they were writing copy for a dictionary or text book. It would be edited by different departments with different concerns in mind. Because parts of Wikipedia somewhat resemble social media and you don’t have to face a job interview to get on board, lots of people have the idea that it’s going to be easy to contribute or that they have a free right to see their efforts go to print.
- you don’t have a right to see your work in print. That’s not why we contribute. We don’t write articles to see them stand as a memorial of our effort. We get to be a part of an editorial process. That’s the reward.
- it’s not easy. Nor would any similar job be expected to be easy. If you jump straight into article writing, get used to the bold-revert-discuss cycle pretty quickly or bang your head on the table trying, if you believe that standing guard over your work is the way to keep it template free and unedited.
- Wikipedia is the least dystopian and most inclusive body of staff in the world. It takes a good run at it to get yourself pushed out of the project. For the most part editors who would be out on their heel if this were a company are allowed to continue to contribute freely. Wikipedia is easy to fix not difficult to break, and for this reason it can afford to accommodate the odd muppet or two. This also means that policies have to cover non-standard contributions and new editors often find that their writing doesn’t quite fit the guidelines to start off with.
- lastly: policy across Wikipedia CANNOT be consistently applied. We are volunteers trying to do our best for the most part. We are lucky if a group of concerned editors take it upon themselves to standardize and apply policy and manuals of style across a select category, but you can surely see the fact that an open project of this nature and scale is vast, flexible and evolving at different speeds in different areas. It’s unreasonable to make a complaint that because one article looks more poorly written, that an article you created, or to which you contributed ought to be left alone. It’s both a necessity and a compliment that, having written an article, editors want to get involved with your contributions and work with you. Again, that’s the reward and the merit of contributing to this project!
- having said that it looks like You have got off to a flying start. In this respect, trust me you are having one of the better experiences a new editor can have if you have passed that many articles through AfC. Well done there. Please try to adjust to the idea of being part of a process, and embrace BRD. The editors who come at your work from different perspectives are not irrelevant. They all have experience in some facet of policy and aim to improve the articles you are creating. Thanks for your contributions this far. I’m in architecture myself. I enjoyed reading your articles but can also understand some of the criticisms you’ve encountered. Edaham (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- After several edit conflicts and loss of input. There might be more than one editor, the ostensible subject of this thread, being lost. Which editor is the intended subject at risk?SovalValtos (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Apologize if I caused the edit conflict. I was trying to sort out the formatting to make the thread somewhat easier to read without as I believe it was originally intended. The multiple signatures copied and pasted also might have confused those new to the discussion as to who actually starting the thread. It would've really been better to simply add links to these discussion threads than copying and pasting them all onto this page. Anyway, hopefully I didn't make things worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)