[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
>> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
>> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that you're
>> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel strongly
>> about, the history of your own family, etc.
>
>
> This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
> fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
> realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
> instructions pretty much won't be read.

Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...

What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
instruction?  Encourage people to write on subjects they know...

Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.

Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.

Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
one.
.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com