There are already plenty of mentors on Wikipedia...no one needs to pay for
it. There is already an individual engagement grant focusing on a mentor
program. Can't link to it but on my user talk page there is an invite to
participate.
That is funded. When I worked at WMF they decided to out the onus on the
community. so don't expect WMF to be leading the fight.
That changed years ago. It's up to the community to do it.
Sarah
On Dec 31, 2014 8:52 AM, "Carol Moore dc" <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
wrote:
The below definitely are interesting issues which
deserve their own
thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the
implementation very often.
On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians
(i.e., people making edits
on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account.
The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the
early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall
seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits
without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the
majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about
2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult
to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have
flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an
edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which
can
sometimes take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and
articles covered?
others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all
edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism
patrol") whether or not the
content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the "devolution" article and dealt with
it;
what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever
reason?
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in,
and was within a whisker of getting blocked for
fixing typos - 70% of my
edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from
questionable editors?
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to
the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That
projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons
or POV reasons?
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their
$50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to
support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to
help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least
showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b)
mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
Maybe that's another theme to guilt trip WMF about - being a REAL
encyclopedia and not just a technopolis (or whatever negative term best
describes whatever it is they are doing.)
CM
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap