This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
9 (or more) things that cause the most "climate" damage
- Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.
- See Wikipedia talk:First contact#un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example.
- Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.
- One is a closing. The other, an opening.
- Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
- Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and, at times, it can get messy.
- Sarcasm.
- Sarcasm rarely works in RL. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.
- Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.
- Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.
- The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.
- The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20' pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.
- Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.
- The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands".
- Not enough praise for a new editors hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are "clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles."
- Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor)
Technical problems at Wikipedia - an issue for this WikiProject?
I have been running into several technical problems at Wikipedia which slow down my editing activities. This seems to be happening more and more often, at least for me. Are others also experiencing this? - If so, I believe this to be an issue for editor retention. In my case it is cause for frustration.
What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- My desk has a dent in the shape of my head from the same thing, and it is all too common. Not sure what the Project can do in it though, and will leave to others to tell me. Like most problems with the Foundation, money is likely the primary problem. I read that we have less than 700 servers, yet we are the 6th busiest website in the world. Our redundancy is redundant enough, it appears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just wondering if it can be tied to the ever increasing number of software changes? (Just speculating) Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think a pseudo-solution would be to include links to the various village pumps in the sidebar. If everyone knew that village pump (technical) existed, technical problems wouldn't be so big. Ryan Vesey 18:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's happening again (and again and again...ad infinitum) this morning:
- Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
- Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
- (Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.73)) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
- My experience is that technical errors and downtime of a site tend to create more of a community as users are very happy when the site returns plus they then have something in common(the fault or the downtime) and appreciate when things are working well. That being said, Wikipedia has a WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK which may prevent the sense of community that happens elsewhere. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- ..and again:
- "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.", SIGH... Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to continue my first posting under this heading: this morning I tried to add two new categories to Hurricane Sandy. The first one was added with no trouble, the second one, even though I got no error message has not been added after two tries. Who else here has had trouble that they were able to resolve? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
RfA
I get the feeling that some work regarding RfA is going to be passing through here soon. There is no question that the current problems with RfA are an editor retention concern, and certainly not just about the admin candidates, but how it looks to any observer: enough to actually drive editors away in frustration. We've also lost a great many editors after being butchered unfairly at an RfA as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whereas I have no doubt the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process is a factor for some editors, and I would welcome moves to make it a less confrontational process, I think the vast majority of editors remain happily ignorant of it, and so my guess is that most editors who stop editing are not influenced by how RfA works. (It is possible that changes to RfA could assist in increasing the overall collegiality of the site; just noting that for most editors, I don't think improvements to RfA would have a direct effect on retention. Of course, long term, failing to bring in new admin blood will have a detrimental effect.) isaacl (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ironically, RfA has not lost us enough editors - the ones who should be indeffed for their behaviour there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- RfA hasn't lost us the greatest number of editors, but it has lost us some of the most experienced and dedicated editors, and it has made many quality people not want to run for admin, which means a smaller pool of which to choose from, which adds to yet more problems. RfA reform isn't the central issue at WP:WER, of course. How the place is administrated at all levels (ArbCom, DRN, ANI, etc.) can be an issue of editor retention when it is dysfunctional. The type of editors that care enough to join WP:WER are exactly the kind of editor that should be concerned about we choose the guys with the block buttons. And as Kudpung points out, it has become a haven for those who simply oppose the concept of "admin" in any form, which is certainly problematic in other areas as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Part of the reason I worked so hard on WP:RFA2011 was that I believe it really did affect editor retention. I went on to confirm this with the data at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs, which the negative effect on candidates who did not pass RfA. I believed the reason for this is that an unsuccessful RfA left the candidate feeling that they did not have the confidence of the community and worked on trying to stop unsuitable candidates get that feeling. To that end, I discouraged SNOW and NOTNOW candidates with a page notice - probably discouraging good candidates at the same time. To counterbalance that discouragement, I created WP:REQUESTNOM, where editors can get a view of a more tactful wikipedian - who can explain their chances without denting their ego.
- By the way, I've been trying to follow the backlash of the recent RfA - and well, I'm saddened by the reactions. The problems I saw were all things that could have been nipped in the bud, but because they weren't they escalated. Complaining about one side or the other is never going to help, but a friendly word in the right place would have. I sincerely regret not being around for the RfA, and won't be nominating in the future if I do not think I can be available to put that friendly word in. WormTT(talk) 16:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum, I wholly disagree that anyone's behaviour at that RfA warranted an indef block - and if I saw any patterns of behaviour that warranted it I would have raised it. I do not agree with that assessment at all. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here thinks that any behavior at the RfA deserves an indef block by itself. I certainly don't. I do think the problems should have been more forcefully addressed and one of the reasons they weren't is because the candidate rapidly fell out of favor. This is why I'm putting my energy into fixing the problem, starting with the very project you worked on previously, and trying to help build on those ideas and turn them into a concrete RfC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Limit the main RfA page to !votes only, with discussion on the talk page. There may be concern about drive-by !votes (either support or oppose...I don't think it's limited to just one type), but I think I'd rather take that chance if it eliminates sniping on the main page. Forcing people to justify their votes can be seen as part of the atmosphere that causes sniping and such. IMO, anyhow. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was my initial reaction as well, although someone is busy trying to talk me out of that. I'm open minded, and going to spend less time editing and more time reading for a while, and try to study all the various studies and research that have been done. I have discovered an amazing amount of hard data has already been compiled on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Limit the main RfA page to !votes only, with discussion on the talk page. There may be concern about drive-by !votes (either support or oppose...I don't think it's limited to just one type), but I think I'd rather take that chance if it eliminates sniping on the main page. Forcing people to justify their votes can be seen as part of the atmosphere that causes sniping and such. IMO, anyhow. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here thinks that any behavior at the RfA deserves an indef block by itself. I certainly don't. I do think the problems should have been more forcefully addressed and one of the reasons they weren't is because the candidate rapidly fell out of favor. This is why I'm putting my energy into fixing the problem, starting with the very project you worked on previously, and trying to help build on those ideas and turn them into a concrete RfC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Naturally, it affects those who go through the Requests for Adminship process, and can affect those involved in it. All I'm saying is I believe the percentage of editors, even of experienced editors with a lot of content-related editing, who follow RfA is relatively small; it's often easy to get blinkered and assume the problems one sees regularly are the ones most people encounter. I do agree with working on improving the RfA process, and the long term problem of ensuring there are new admins entering the pool is an important one. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I won't name most names, but I could name several people who weren't candidates and who have left, or almost never come around because of the hassles at RfA. Some of them were simply voting, and other people harassed them for their vote to the point that they stopped editing. I've known nominators who had the same experience and seldom or never come around. Again, it is a bit larger than it might look at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum, I wholly disagree that anyone's behaviour at that RfA warranted an indef block - and if I saw any patterns of behaviour that warranted it I would have raised it. I do not agree with that assessment at all. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view, RfA looks like a frathouse hazing exercise that I haven't got the time or the stamnia to stomach. I can do a lot of good work for WP without going anywhere near the bit, so it doesn't seem worth the hassle. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly the problem. Oh, I don't blame you in the least, but we need to make it so a regular editor isn't afraid to go in and voice an opinion if they have one. The system breaks down when normal people treat RfA like a bad neighborhood to be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what–if anything–can be done at this point, but I am very concerned about this. I can only hope it's temporary, but the last edit makes me nervous. I keep getting the nagging feeling that one of our most prolific editors just underwent character assassination in a very public venue. I haven't been around RfA for very long, but from what Worm linked above, it doesn't look like this is an isolated occurrence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Every time I do something that another user disagrees with or has slightly raised tempers, like today when I got annoyed at an IP on ANI, or a few days ago when I had a heated argument about the copyright status of an image, I think "no point going for RfA for a year. People will pull up things like that and rip it to pieces." Perhaps I'm not "man" enough for RfA, but so what? It's supposed to be responsible tools, not a dick-waving contest. (And now, if I go for RfA in a year, people will pull me up about that). It's not like there's much I honestly want to do with the bit anyway - maybe the odd AfD closure. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Being in heated arguments won't kill your chance at RfA if you handle them calmly. I worked the MMA disputes for a month before, plus ANI daily for months before mine (I still do) and even worked it during my RfA. It exploded into my RfA when one editor got mad about what I said. I still passed because I never stooped to ad hominem or unsubstantiated claims. Literally 80% of my edits before RfA were in contentious areas, and that is likely what got me the bit, since everyone had plenty of opportunity to see how I would react under pressure. I prefer admin candidate that have experience in pressure cooker areas, and can show they will stay calm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I feel that RFA should be an almost automatic process done with a selection panel that have a criteria list and the only discussion between none panel editors would be what goes into the criteria - a none personalized discussion. This would remove a whole level of conflict and remove the distraction to RFA for almost everyone. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just in case you have not seen this, the Signpost published an article about this topic and interesting discussion is taking place, including from Wikipedians who don't contribute here. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Sexist comments made against Wikipedians in a national publication (WSJ)
Look here for an interesting discussion that relates to editor retention. User:Tvoz says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames "an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Insignificant. All the ladies need to do is show more interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per Tvoz's request, "this discussion ought to be happening all over the project", this is also being discussed at Jimbo's page. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- We do have a significant problem with the majority of editors being male. I've actually looked into it, and go way out of my way to adopt new female editors specifically for that reason. Part of the issue is the natural difference in the genders, as men tend to be competitive and women tend to be cooperative, and the environment here is often more aggressive than many women feel comfortable with. There isn't a single "fix" for this, but the single largest improvement we could have in quality at Wikipedia is to have gender parity here. We are missing out on some amazing talent. There is no easy or simple fix, however, and it all boils down to improving the culture here in general to being more cooperative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be much more productive and healthier for Wikipedia long-term if we framed the conversation in terms of reducing abusive and hostile behaviours while developing encouragment and enthusiasm. Neither gender has a monopoly on these things. The more we divide editors into sub-groups the less succsessful we will be in this endeavour. It matters not to me if you are male or female, if you come into a thread and tell me to "shut the f----up", I will consider that an uncivil and inappropriate interaction. Blaming an increase in disputes and arguments on testosterone is plainly sexist, and "putting it out there" "to make people think" is not a pragmatic solution based approach, it's a simple complaint and basic playground namecalling. If Wikipedia is 90% male, then would it be accurate to say that men built one of the most visited websites online? Why are these men now the key factor in destroying what they had apparently helped create? Dennis, do you know if/or how these percentages have shifted over time? Was there ever a time when Wikipedia was nearly 50/50 men and woman, and have you identified any gender correlation with dispute frequency? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- We do have a significant problem with the majority of editors being male. I've actually looked into it, and go way out of my way to adopt new female editors specifically for that reason. Part of the issue is the natural difference in the genders, as men tend to be competitive and women tend to be cooperative, and the environment here is often more aggressive than many women feel comfortable with. There isn't a single "fix" for this, but the single largest improvement we could have in quality at Wikipedia is to have gender parity here. We are missing out on some amazing talent. There is no easy or simple fix, however, and it all boils down to improving the culture here in general to being more cooperative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per Tvoz's request, "this discussion ought to be happening all over the project", this is also being discussed at Jimbo's page. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just can't get on board with that point of view at all. The fundamental problem is that "abusive and hostile behaviours", to borrow GabeMc's phrase, are neither recognised nor dealt with here; all far too many focus on is naughty words and never-ending vendettas. It's more like the Mafia than it is a collaborative working environment, and I see no reason why men would be more prepared to tolerate that than women. I would hazard a guess that in the eyes of many editors I'm the poster child for "abusive and hostile behaviours", yet a good proportion of those I collaborate with are women, which leads me to doubt that the number of female editors is as low as it's claimed to be. I also find that women don't tend to swoon so much as they perhaps once did at the sight of a naughty word, but are actually quite tough when they need to be. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well said Malleus Fatuorum, I tend to agree. The "abusive and hostile behaviours" are a symptom of a disease of culture, that is certainly not solely caused by testosterone. I also unfortunately agree that interactions on Wikipedia can at times seem Mafia-esque, with cliques and groups coming to each other's aide in complete defiance of guidelines or morality. Also, the movie Serpico comes to mind, and once you "cross" an established user, especially an admin, be prepared for the wrath of anyone they are friendly with, as you will certainly face some ice-out if not straight-up repercusions. I noticed you received a one-week block recently for a slightly snarky comment made to an admin, while not long ago another editor also received a one-week block for three racial taunts intended to harrass an Asian user. Parity? I digress, but perhaps Miss Chadhuri may find these things interesting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Did I? You're probably right, but after a while one block merges into another in the memory. I imagine the blocking admin in my case used the old chestnut "well, you've got X blocks already, so I'm going to come down hard on you". I'd actually argue that poor blocks like that (and many others in my block log) are a major impediment to editor retention. I've simply been lucky so far that none of the Mafia soldiers, aka civility police, have been able to make their sanctions stick, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. And I'm equally sure that many less high-profile editors have been quietly chased away by them. As I think you're suggesting, prioritising the recruitment of female editors is putting the cart before the horse; change the Wikipedia culture, stop all the ridiculously childish blocking for using words such as "sycophantic", be tougher on racial, religious or sexual abuse, whether or not it's accompanied by naughty words, and the other problems will solve themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! That's exactly what I am saying! Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, unfortunately I also tend to agree with you in regard to editor retention being mostly a factor of admin exposure, markedly affected by admins bossing around content editors like we work here or something, and we've stretched our coffee breaks from editing too long and need to punch back-in. IME, 9 times out of 10, Wikipedia admins "handle" issues by doing little more than simply, and unconvincingly playing the role of a crabby pre-school teacher: "knock it off brats! Stop it now you pathetic children! Get to work improving articles now or else!". Well, that's definitely no way to treat creative adults who are volunteering their precious time, and its certainly not a good tactic if Wikipedia's actual strategy is to retain editors long-term. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- But that's the hollow centre of this editor retention initiative: "We must be see to be doing something, and this something". The truth is quite simply that Wikipedia considers editors to be easily replaceable units of work who can be treated like shit, and for reasons of political correctness it would like to have a few more female units of work and a few less male units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't consider editors replaceable and I don't think Wikipedia as a collective consider editors replaceable although I do agree you(MF) have at times been treated in such a way. From my perspective it is a failure of policies, processes and people rather then intention. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- But that's the hollow centre of this editor retention initiative: "We must be see to be doing something, and this something". The truth is quite simply that Wikipedia considers editors to be easily replaceable units of work who can be treated like shit, and for reasons of political correctness it would like to have a few more female units of work and a few less male units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Did I? You're probably right, but after a while one block merges into another in the memory. I imagine the blocking admin in my case used the old chestnut "well, you've got X blocks already, so I'm going to come down hard on you". I'd actually argue that poor blocks like that (and many others in my block log) are a major impediment to editor retention. I've simply been lucky so far that none of the Mafia soldiers, aka civility police, have been able to make their sanctions stick, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. And I'm equally sure that many less high-profile editors have been quietly chased away by them. As I think you're suggesting, prioritising the recruitment of female editors is putting the cart before the horse; change the Wikipedia culture, stop all the ridiculously childish blocking for using words such as "sycophantic", be tougher on racial, religious or sexual abuse, whether or not it's accompanied by naughty words, and the other problems will solve themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well said Malleus Fatuorum, I tend to agree. The "abusive and hostile behaviours" are a symptom of a disease of culture, that is certainly not solely caused by testosterone. I also unfortunately agree that interactions on Wikipedia can at times seem Mafia-esque, with cliques and groups coming to each other's aide in complete defiance of guidelines or morality. Also, the movie Serpico comes to mind, and once you "cross" an established user, especially an admin, be prepared for the wrath of anyone they are friendly with, as you will certainly face some ice-out if not straight-up repercusions. I noticed you received a one-week block recently for a slightly snarky comment made to an admin, while not long ago another editor also received a one-week block for three racial taunts intended to harrass an Asian user. Parity? I digress, but perhaps Miss Chadhuri may find these things interesting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just can't get on board with that point of view at all. The fundamental problem is that "abusive and hostile behaviours", to borrow GabeMc's phrase, are neither recognised nor dealt with here; all far too many focus on is naughty words and never-ending vendettas. It's more like the Mafia than it is a collaborative working environment, and I see no reason why men would be more prepared to tolerate that than women. I would hazard a guess that in the eyes of many editors I'm the poster child for "abusive and hostile behaviours", yet a good proportion of those I collaborate with are women, which leads me to doubt that the number of female editors is as low as it's claimed to be. I also find that women don't tend to swoon so much as they perhaps once did at the sight of a naughty word, but are actually quite tough when they need to be. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've always felt expendable here, there is no question about that, I still do feel that way and I likely always will. I personally think there is no need for any great initiative beyond encouraging the basic civility promised in the pillar. If basic civility were encouraged in actuality as it is in principle, then I think the gender issue would be rendered moot, as would race, creed, sexual orientation, political persuasion etcetera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- As a volunteer you don't want to feel to much that you have to do something, so in some ways a certain amount if being 'expendable' is fine. It's when that 'expendable' becomes more a 'makes no difference' or 'not appreciated' that is not appropriate. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that as a volunteer I shouldn't feel essential, for my own piece of mind if for nothing else, and I guess to me, expendable people are by definition not appreciated. I know I have made, and continue to make a positive net impact on Wikipedia, no amount of negativity or popularity contest loses can take that away from me. The question is, how long before the excessive tedium overrides the positive sense of accomplishment? Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus, I don't see WER as the "solution" by any stretch. For me, it has been incredibly educational, and I think this project has moderated my perspective on a lot of things, due to actually hearing what others think. The one thing I think we have done successfully here is define "retention" in a broad enough fashion that it invites a lot of discussion on what people think are the real problems. Then we can go elsewhere for the actual solutions. What I feel is the success of WER so far (and this is a new project) isn't tangibles I can point to, but is simply it is a place that people can talk about anything that is remotely related to retention without being shut down. It is a genuine forum for discussion, at leisure, with no heavy "rules" and no timetable. I'm serious that I've learned a lot listening to editors here. This is also the reason you don't see me post too often here. This isn't my project, it is all of ours, and I don't want to dominate the discussion, I want to learn from it. I will inject an opinion, then see what people think, like here. I want to keep men and women here, but I can't help but be concerned that our retention of women is worse than men. The first thing I think is "Ok, as an admin, what am I doing wrong that might be contributing to this lopsided issue?". Again, WP:WER isn't the answer, it is just a starting place where people can speak freely and learn where they can go to fix problems. This project has changed the way I deal with editor retention in the actual project, and I'm still learning. Maybe I'm not alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that as a volunteer I shouldn't feel essential, for my own piece of mind if for nothing else, and I guess to me, expendable people are by definition not appreciated. I know I have made, and continue to make a positive net impact on Wikipedia, no amount of negativity or popularity contest loses can take that away from me. The question is, how long before the excessive tedium overrides the positive sense of accomplishment? Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- As a volunteer you don't want to feel to much that you have to do something, so in some ways a certain amount if being 'expendable' is fine. It's when that 'expendable' becomes more a 'makes no difference' or 'not appreciated' that is not appropriate. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've always felt expendable here, there is no question about that, I still do feel that way and I likely always will. I personally think there is no need for any great initiative beyond encouraging the basic civility promised in the pillar. If basic civility were encouraged in actuality as it is in principle, then I think the gender issue would be rendered moot, as would race, creed, sexual orientation, political persuasion etcetera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot see a link to the "national publication (WSJ)" - what am I missing? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- "User:Tvoz says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames 'an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages.'" ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- With respect I'm going to disagree with Malleus on this, but possibly not for the reason that he expects. I don't think that civility is the big problem here because very few editors are blocked for civility issues or indeed say anything impolite. Whether you are a fan of Malleus' or one whose ambition it is to see him blocked or bowdlerised, the alleged civility police are not the main component of our adversarial culture. My personal bugbear is the shift from SoFixIt to Templating, and that shift has been very big and coincided with our community going off the boil. My experience is that people don't mind having their errors quietly corrected, many editors appreciate it (and yes one of the easily confused words I patrol is pubic - I've probably changed a hundred pubics to public this year alone). Perhaps we could start to deal with the problem by making a template removal pledge - promising to remove more templates than we ourselves add. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean tagging in main space? If so my perception is that they are slowing going. Some of the article wide tags
{{expand}}
have gone to section only, some have gone to inline{{cn}}
and some{{NOT}}
have been deleted. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)- Yes I mainly mean tagging in mainspace, though I'd also include deletion tagging outside it (the sekrit page purge was a great example of irritating editors for no benefit to the pedia). Aside from one or two contentious areas wikiproject tagging is very rarely contentious on talkpages - the wikiProject might occasionally not agree that an article is "theirs" but the authors are rarely if ever going to give a monkeys as to who adds a wikiroject tag to a talkpage of an article they've written. If there has recently been a couple of templates deleted or changed to hidden cats that is great, but I still see lots of enthusiastic editors who add thousands or even tens of thousands of templates in mainspace without realising that the same time spent actually improving articles would be more useful and would be collaborative rather than aggressive. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean tagging in main space? If so my perception is that they are slowing going. Some of the article wide tags
- Back to the topic of sexist comments: I believe a big part of the sexist perception has to do more with the subtle issues and less with explicit sexism. Anyone who feels they are not part of the in-crowd is bound to feel ostracized to a certain degree. When terminology such as "dick-waving contest" is common at Wikipedia it gives women (please don’t call them not females/ladies) reason to believe they are in a men-dominated territory, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite quote on Wikipedia,
"I tagged that article three and a half years ago, and in all that time nobody has bothered to take the 30 seconds required to fix that damn article"
. As to the testosterone comment, it cetainly could have been worded better but I'm not certain it was meant to be inflamatory. I tend to agree with Dennis in that sometimes things seem to be more competetive than cooperative. Perhaps we could work on that in the future. 64.40.54.175 (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
you got mail
As soon as any kind of problem arises, the specific editor gets YGM messages. Why is that? It's like everything is conducted in secret with "certain" editors. Now I don't trust the whole process. As a relatively new editor, I see this "secret" stuff carried on all the time when an "old time" editor gets out of line. Any way to level the playing field? Feels really ugly. I've given up editing most areas of wikipedia and I don't think I've done anything wrong. I feel "old time" editors are given special privileges because they all have "friends". Impossible for a newbie to crack that nut. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, a newbie can learn quite a lot when he follows advice given him. Of course, it is rather difficult to break into established groups when one attacks people, makes snide comments, and generally makes a nuisance of himself; unfortunately, it is human nature to be less willing to assume good faith of such individuals, particularly when they are unwilling to admit their own culpability in negative interactions. As to the nominal topic of this post: sometimes taking things off-wiki can help lower the temperature of a conversation – when certain information is private, obviously, but also to offer feedback or advice without the risk of a peanut gallery butting in or quoting people out of context or even attacking the editor. Speaking to the editor privately allows them to save face or skin, and can minimize drama. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, MathewTownsend. Nice to see new faces here, especially those who notice things that oldtimers never talk about. What is this YGM you are talking about? I don't believe I have ever seen it? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- {{YGM}}, or more simply "you've got mail". "Oldtimers" do talk about it, but it's considered a necessary function (for example, for the reasons Dennis cites below). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be honest, I do a great deal of work via email. Sometimes it is because I think someone is a sockpuppet, but don't want to create drama. Sometimes it is to tell someone "Look, you are really out of line and acting like a jerk" or "you really need to drop the stick" and I don't want to embarrass them, but want to make a point clear. Sometimes it is to correct a factual error and I would rather give them the dignity of correcting it themselves. Sometimes I just want to talk about something that isn't related to Wikipedia, maybe a common interest. In a few cases, I know some members on a personal level or want to talk about something that might "out" them, as I know personal information about them (being a friend) that they don't want public. I prefer to work on some preliminary ideas offwiki without disruption. I've had to email back and forth to ArbCom or Checkusers about stuff that I can't talk about on-wiki, for technical/legal/strategic reasons. I get and send over a dozen emails on any given day, but being an admin and SPI clerk, that is probably higher than average. I can't speak for anyone else, but my goals are not nefarious. I wouldn't read too much into people wanting to email others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. - Anyone who has been Wikistalked long enough will have absolutely no issue with private e-mails. Remember, AGF, for all you know these e-mails are about RL, or mundane points not nearly as interesting as you may assume. At least, IME, that's how I've used them, but also as Dennis explains so well above. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - is it a help or a hindrance that wiki has no private messaging system? It seems unusual to have no direct messaging. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes things happen by email, you can be more frank when your comments are not going to be reviewed years down the line. You should know this Mathew, as your past mentor, you've sent me half a dozen emails over the past year. I'm sure the subjects of those emails would feel just as your are feeling, if they knew - it works both ways. WormTT(talk) 06:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Email is just easier for me, i notice it faster and can respond from anywhere without having to log in to Wikipedia. The majority of it is people asking questions and praise, both things which could be done on wiki or off, it's no skin off my back. I see it as a necessity though and something which makes things much easier round here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
best discussed elsewhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please see above where I've quoted your public, demeening response on wiki to my email to you.[1] If you felt there was something wrong about my email, you could have informed me by email. Instead you tried to make my role in the DR seem disruptive. As it turned out, the evidence was on my side, the "other" party didn't even post in the DR as they had no convincing side. If you had not turned up here, because of my post about email, the whole issue of you wouldn't have come up.
MathewTownsend (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
|
- As DB points out, e-mail is a two-way conversation. No peanut gallery is waiting to take the discussion "into the cornfield". Talk can be more open and forthright outside the public eye. I rarely assume something underhanded regarding YHM. I just assume the parties want to have a private talk. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even with editors with whom I have disagreements, I generally find their emails to be relatively objective and polite - far more so than open discussion on-Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- When it comes to contacting people at times of stress, sometimes a quiet word is helpful. I've used email both to say that someone needs to tone things down and to say that though I'm still supporting and I wished that things were going differently, my advice is to withdraw. Otherwise I use Email in various contexts. While I haven't been nominating candidates recently, my preferred method for approaching potential adminship candidates is via Email. Privacy allows for frank discussion, people can and do decline for all sorts of reasons, many of which they might not want to detail on wiki. I hope for even more obvious reasons people will understand why it is better to email an admin to request revision deletion of something instead of linking it on wiki. I am also involved in various real life training events, and their coordination is in my experience more convenient by email. What we need to avoid is Email being used to canvass and for things that should be public. Mind you I do find the YGM template irritating unless there is good reason for the implied urgency. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The final details are being discussed for the upcoming Arbitration elections. As this is the primary discussion on the election, including the ground rules for holding the election, and Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, thus an important part of editor retention, I would recommend everyone just go and take a look, so they can have a better understanding of how the process will take place. Participation isn't required, but knowledge of the process is always a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't find discussion on that election page about anything significant or of lasting meaning, if there is please point it out. It seems the same Arbcom pattern will happen over again. Well meaning editors will apply(along with a few not well meaning) some will be elected, once they realise the commitment to do a good job they decide either to do a poor job or leave or have difficulties in some way. The Arbcom decisions will continue to be as haphazard as before, with the fallout in editor retention. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawing editors
- User:Kumioko, Retired, maybe this.
- User:Boing!_said_Zebedee, reason on user page.
- User:Drmies, same as User:Boing!_said_Zebedee
Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- User:Diannaa has listed of 9 or more at the Arb page, many are admin, so you can add User:John, User:Floquenbeam, User:Pablo X, User:Sitush, User:RegentsPark, User:SpacemanSpiff, User:Black Kite and others. I've also received some emails from others considering it. I'm listed as involved in that Arb process, so I can't comment further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why not add them to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? - and by the way, I am saddened to see User:Kumioko on the list since I believe he was the one who set up this really useful category tree and associated templates Ottawahitech (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- User:Diannaa has listed of 9 or more at the Arb page, many are admin, so you can add User:John, User:Floquenbeam, User:Pablo X, User:Sitush, User:RegentsPark, User:SpacemanSpiff, User:Black Kite and others. I've also received some emails from others considering it. I'm listed as involved in that Arb process, so I can't comment further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal notes at the end of a Welcome
Retaining new editors may be easier than we think. As soon as WE make them part of US they feel wanted and included. I added this to the end of a welcome I posted for a new editor. Granted, this editor reached out to me Before I welcomed him but I am confident he will be a good editor. Not because of me, but because of his own confidence:
- Good luck and happy editing. From my observation, the biggest problem that new editors have is they want to drive in the fast lanes right away. They don't even have a learners permit but all they see is the road ahead and the gas pedal. They are bound to crash. So much depends on our early travels. Inevitably, you will run across an intolerant editor. The place is full of them. Just don't let their bites be fatal....or let them waste your time. Be careful of what you say. Consider it from many angles. WE (Wikipedia Editors) often mis-read and misconstrue what we say to each other. When in doubt, step back and take a break.
Just an example of a successful contact.--Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, yes I agree. The first greetings at Wikipedia are VERY important - both positive and negative. However, sometimes the chemistry is just not there, even if you try vey hard. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Buster7, I notice you do a lot of welcoming at Wikipedia. I wonder if you keep track of those you welcome - If so, would you share those statistics with us? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only way I keep track is via "My contributions. When I first started to do welcomes as a daily chore (not really a chore) I would watch the asst pages for a week or two. But my watchlist got so cluttered it was tedious to slog thru. Now I just do my welcomes and I'm on my way. Every now and then, I will sense that a new editor is or will soon be visited by a stern template. Those I do show on my watchlist and I jump in to soften and personalize any discussion. I remember when Wiki Guides was started by the Foundation we were asked to report progress via "related changes". Maybe they have some stats that were gathered from that period. I'd be willing to do the grunt work if someone sets up something that would provide some form of statistic. I too wonder if there is a study on the success or failure of the varied Welcomes. I like the one I'm using since it provides the most info in a nice clean and clear fashion. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can use the ToolServer to get a list of your welcomes based on your edit summaries. I think it's one of Scottywong's tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Kudpung. What a great tool. Turns out I have about 2400 Welcomes. Just yesterday I started to forego the edit summary step since it required individual entry on each users page. Had I continued in that manner it would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep a count. Now it took all of 10 seconds. I'm glad to find out that I should return to entering "Welcome " in the summary box. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can use the ToolServer to get a list of your welcomes based on your edit summaries. I think it's one of Scottywong's tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting reading
"A Gallup poll of more 1 million employed U.S. workers concluded that the No. 1 reason people quit their jobs is a bad boss or immediate supervisor ... The New York Times says bully bosses enjoy making subordinates squirm and run for cover. Why do cruel bosses not only survive, but also thrive? 'What we're finding,' Dr. Calvin Morrill of the University of California at Irvine, told Times reporter Benedict Carey, 'is that some of the behaviors that we think most protect us are what in fact allow the behavior to continue. Workers become desensitized, tacitly complicit, and don't always act rationally.'
Unlike the playground, bully bosses pick on people their own size and bigger--that is, in terms of power and authority. And while women are more likely to be the target of a bully boss, women bosses are just as likely as men to be the aggressors, notes the Times." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Inexperienced guidance will lead to fatalities for new editors
Please see User talk:SarahStierch#Adoption and provide assistance. An inexperienced (fill in the blank) new user, User talk:RAIDENRULES123, is insisting on adopting other new users. Considering assorted factors it can only lead to the detriment and malnourishment of the New Users she adopts. What can be done? This issue deals directly with Editor Retention. The new users this editor adopts are, without a doubt, in harms way. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I was brand spankin' new I wouldn't want some whack job showin me the ropes. 216.80.117.134 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:Brybry1999. I am tempted to step in and say something to User:Bry and give another viewpoint but I'm reluctant to upset User:Raiden. This needs to be handled with kid gloves to assure a positive outcome for all.```Buster Seven Talk 06:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- When I was a child, my parents purchased a set of world book encyclopedias for me. I remember clearly the salesman pushing them to also buy Childcraft, cause that was an encyclopedia for elementary school kids. I don't know why I think that is relevent, but i thought I'd just add that in to the mix. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the mix is child-like behavior so I think thats where yer' coming from. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just dropped a note on BryBry's talk giving him some suggestions for getting started at Wikipedia (he has already worked on three articles) and suggesting some minimum qualifications for an adoptor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well Done, Fan. You have eased my troubled mind. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just dropped a note on BryBry's talk giving him some suggestions for getting started at Wikipedia (he has already worked on three articles) and suggesting some minimum qualifications for an adoptor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the mix is child-like behavior so I think thats where yer' coming from. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- When I was a child, my parents purchased a set of world book encyclopedias for me. I remember clearly the salesman pushing them to also buy Childcraft, cause that was an encyclopedia for elementary school kids. I don't know why I think that is relevent, but i thought I'd just add that in to the mix. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:Brybry1999. I am tempted to step in and say something to User:Bry and give another viewpoint but I'm reluctant to upset User:Raiden. This needs to be handled with kid gloves to assure a positive outcome for all.```Buster Seven Talk 06:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- When I first joined Wikipedia an experienced editor (admin) tried to coach me. It was an unmitigated disaster that ended up with my adopter suggesting I was under-age (a compliment, I suppose :-). The moral of the story is, there are other considerations to take into account, other than experience alone. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your point is taken. Each editors early experience is unique. Our early travels and hook-ups are the builing blocks of our WP careers. This specific issue is not one of experience over lack of experience. Its one of the Blind leading the Neophyte. I'm glad you hung in and developed into a Quality Editor. Most will not be so lucky. New Editors depend on current editors for proper guidance. We wouldn't send a new editor to learn from "those vandals that hang out over there" ... would we?. You cant self appoint yourself a Driving Instructor two weeks after you get your learners permit. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- @Buster7, thanks for saying I have (luckily) turned into a Quality Editor. Unfortunately, it seems others here think that I am Blind. If you check this page's history you may see this edit summary: "Revert to revision 516519718 dated 2012-10-07 19:52:01 by Ottawahitech using popups" - which would lead one to suspect that one of my contribution here was reverted earlier, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true. But, not to worry. Within minutes it was reverted back to your original by User 13dzf59b. My guess is that GogoDodo was doing some speed type of edits and not verifying the accuracy of his determination. There is alot of WikiPedia grunt work that needs to be done. Some times you dig a hole in the wrong spot and some other editor comes behind and fills it back in. All's well that ends well as they say. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note the edit in question reverted the edit following the one made by Ottawahitech, going back to the page as it appeared with Ottawahitech's edit. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your point is taken. Each editors early experience is unique. Our early travels and hook-ups are the builing blocks of our WP careers. This specific issue is not one of experience over lack of experience. Its one of the Blind leading the Neophyte. I'm glad you hung in and developed into a Quality Editor. Most will not be so lucky. New Editors depend on current editors for proper guidance. We wouldn't send a new editor to learn from "those vandals that hang out over there" ... would we?. You cant self appoint yourself a Driving Instructor two weeks after you get your learners permit. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia surveys
For the first time in my wiki-career I have been invited to participate in a wiki-survey. I made it to page 2 (out of many more judging from the % completed bar at the bottom), but had to give up at that point.
So my question is, how many people complete the surveys out of how many who attempt? Does anyone at Wikipedia keep score? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Partial response sets are a natural part of every survey. However, I'm not actually sure that your responses are recorded if you "give up" midway through the survey. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I completed the survey, but by the end I was asking myself the same question. How many people actually finish it? I found it to be a little long. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Mabeenot, I was given a second chance to participate - I am completely drenched now because I was afraid to leave before completing the whole thing - didn't want my work to go to waste. Not sure if would have done it if I knew upfront how mUch work it would require :-) Ottawahitech (talk)
- I completed the survey, but by the end I was asking myself the same question. How many people actually finish it? I found it to be a little long. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Depends much on how important the users rate participation the survey. Other considerations are:
- 1. It it an official survey or one started by an independent user?
- 2. What identity protection guarantees were provided, and if so, did initiator signed an NDA with the WMF?
- 3. What security does the software offer?
- 4. Was the software easy to use?
- 5. Were the questions prepared by someone with experience in survey psychology and technique?
- 6. How was the data to be extrapolated and used?
- 7. What 3-party survey software was being used?
- 8. Is it locally hosted or offered by an online provider? (eg. The very name of SurveyMonkey is known to evoke skepticism).
- In my experience of conducting many (non Wki) surveys, respondents generally get fed up with surveys that take longer than around 10 minutes to complete. A Wikipedia survey I once initiated had around 3,000 respondents from about 5,000 targeted users. According to the WMF, after removing trolling and other unusable responses, only around 900 responses were used in the analysis. The survey was open for responses for 2 weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Answers from OHT:
- 1. it was official
- 2. no idea
- 3. don’t know
- 4. Sometimes, but:
- pull-down menus with tons-of choices took me awhile to figure out (gave up on my first try because choices were not alphabetized.
- pages were too cluttered for my taste – several questions on the same page
- 5. I don’t think I was told…
- 6. I don’t think I was told…
- 7. I don’t think I was told…
- 8. I don’t think I was told… Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Answers from OHT: