Part of the larger discussion is about an on-boarding system that is asking the user what
they are trying to do so they can be given "just in time" advice on how to do
it. Obviously the thing isn't built yet to know the options to be offered but you are
right that we don't want unintended consequences of it. But, having said that, we did
over 1000 edits at State Library of Queensland both this year and last year (about 1/4 of
the world's total last year and about 1/6 of the world's total this year), so I
see my fair share of 1Lib1Ref edits and, yes, they do get reverted. Here's an example
edit from 2018 1Lib1Ref that was reverted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charters_Towers&type=revisio…
Our community will bite 1Lib1Ref people (and the edit is clearly tagged as such) just as
happily as any other new user and, in this case, wouldn't back down when I pointed out
there was nothing wrong with the edit. I note that I had advised the Australian community
in advance about 1Lib1Ref and the kinds of edits they would see happening precisely to try
to start this sort of thing happening, but ...
Actually the on-boarding system would also get in the way of training sessions. So I will
probably be asking for a way for "trustworthy" new users to be able to bypass
the on-boarding as this will be necessary for training sessions and might also be a
solution for 1Lib1Ref.
But the larger issue is to avoid new users having really bad initial experiences because
it drives them away so avoiding the high-risk articles for reverting would be useful
strategy. I'd happily keep 1Lib1Ref-ers away from that kind of experience. I am
hand-holding my librarians through the process (the new ones all do their 1Lib1Ref in a
series of edit-a-thons (we run 3 each week through the 3 weeks and they all have my email
address for any problems, plus we do have some moderately experienced users among the
librarians themselves). We do not encourage the new users to use Citation Hunt because it
takes them to high-risk articles. We have our "lucky dip box" instead. We
literally have a box with slips of paper with the names of articles needing certain kinds
of edits -- this year we added public libraries in Queensland to articles about Queensland
towns and suburbs and opening/closing of schools in Qld towns and suburbs) and we have
clear instructions on how to do those kinds of lucky dip edits. The repetition of doing
the same kind of edit over multiple (usually low-risk) articles builds skill and
confidence with these groups. We do similar things in our monthly WikiClubs with the new
users (different theme each month). They love doing the lucky dips (librarians are
"completer" personalities I think) and only a few seem to desire to advance to
more "freelance" editing.
Kerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Andy Mabbett
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 9:40 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article
importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP
On 20 March 2018 at 10:09, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
where I am suggesting that we don't allow new
users to edit articles
of higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect
that this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting.
I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact things like 1Lib1Ref,
or an editor who just adds photos (possibly their own, taken especially) to articles that
lack them.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l