Jane, what would you think about the concept of
an IEG research project
(or, due to the grantmaking restructure, a "project grant" research
project) about gathering some of the data that you suggest and developing
recommendations, tools, or systems designed to improve the situations with
NPP, AFC, and similar queues?
Pine
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Pine,
Thanks for your thoughtful answer! No, let's not throw any money at
this problem yet, but let's consider first all of our options. We should
have a pretty big amount of data available in AfC backlogs and deletions.
Maybe we can direct some trusted researchers there. I guess they would have
to have admin rights if we want them to have access to the deletions,
though that may be debatable if the material was never published onwiki and
only submitted to an open-access project.
Last month I was flattered, amused, offended, and astounded by degrees
when I attended the Erasmus Prize presentations by researchers of the
University of Amsterdam. I have been thinking back to those presentations
again and again ever since. I wish they had been taped, especially some of
the reactions from the mostly Wiki(p/m)edian audience. We need solid data
in order to make weighed decisions. Since this is an encyclopedia, there is
no rush and we can plan for decision-making based on numbers and ways to
get those numbers.
Though the collateral damage in CoI (Conflict-of-Interest) editing is a
big one, it pales in comparison to the collateral damage in diversity
edits. By diversity I don't even mean women and people of color, but
subjects currently not on the top-ten notability list of new page
patrollers. In order to innovate and morph into an up-to-date "sum of all
knowledge" hub for the universe, we need a lot more than just the stuff we
let in now. We need ongoing projects dealing with such things as oral
histories, film- video- or audio citations, music themes, recording types,
and all sorts of other things that don't even fit the old text-based model.
After listening to those presentations it occurred to me that the
typical Wikimedian could probably write a better study proposal than the
typical professor who has never made an edit. Maybe we should be actively
soliciting scholarly research from our own ranks and offer a quarterly
research award to Wikimedians who are able to wrangle the data in such a
way that our questions are answered. We just need a place to put our
structured questions and some "How-to" info about the data. As far as I
know, we don't have a published database schema that relates the technical
terms to the onwiki terms.
Jane
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jane,
>
> Regarding "Are there any numbers available on how many AfC's resulted
> in articles vs. submissions and then also the same numbers for non-AfC page
> creations vs. speedy deletions?", I'm sure that data is available but I
> suspect that getting WMF to take another round of analyzing and trying to
> improve the situation with AfC would probably require that it be on some
> team's quarterly goals.
>
> I feel that it would be good to resurrect the WMF Growth team.
> Currently, I hear that contributor growth is one of the metrics that is or
> will be emphasized for Product teams, but there is no single point of
> contact for coordinating the multiple growth initiatives, both inside of
> Product and those being funded by grants. I think that coordination in this
> area would be beneficial, and that this team would be well positioned to
> take on activities like developing ways to improve AfC, NPP, etc.
>
> Along these lines, one of my thoughts is that WMF has invested heavily
> in software engineering and data science, my impression is that WMF is
> lacking in social scientists. WMF has tried many times to develop technical
> improvements for social problems, with success that has been mixed at best.
> I would like to see people with backgrounds in fields like social
> psychology, economics, sociology, and urban planning be involved in a
> resurrected Growth team.
>
> Also, I'm wondering if the shortage of volunteer capacity --
> particularly the shortage of competent and quickly-responsive volunteer
> capacity -- in certain community roles (like reviewers of CoI-flagged edits
> as well as domains like AfC) increasingly suggests that some of these tasks
> be at least partially done by paid staff, such as the Wiki Ed Foundation
> currently does with its content experts that assist classes in the US and
> Canada Wikipedia Education Program. I suspect that WMF wouldn't want to
> touch these roles in AfC, CoI and other queues because content review is
> involved, so maybe this is a place where Wikimedia affiliates can and
> should get more involved. The affiliates can work on content in ways that
> WMF cannot.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> I agree with Oliver and Kerry on the violence vs. drip-drip-drip. Our
>> success at keeping people from editing matches the height of the
>> threshold-to-edit. There's no violence going on, it's just the annoyance
>> tolerance level that the typical volunteer needs to have in order to be
>> able cross into the wikiverse seems to be going up these days. Thanks for
>> posting the link to that SWOT analysis - is there any more information
>> about the context in which it was made? Though you mention that experienced
>> Wikipedians know New Page Patrollers create collateral damage and
>> the SWOT slide shows NPP as both a strength and a weakness, no one
>> ever addresses the fact that NPP also contains some seriously misguided POV
>> pushers who in fact act as censors when they use the AfC tools and leave
>> the entries they don't care about to rot. So I see NPP not just as a
>> strength and a weakness, but also as a threat, and its associated AfC is a
>> major threat. I assume AfC was left out of the SWOT analysis because it is
>> so controversial:
>>
>>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWOT_analysis_of_Wikipedia_in_2015.…
>>
>> In that slide the parenthetic notes on items which may fall into more
>> than one quadrant do not include "undisclosed conflict-of-interest
editing"
>> so I am also guessing whoever made it falls into the camp of thinking that
>> anyone who is a paid editor and doesn't reveal this on their userpage is a
>> threat. It leaves out a major battle ground about whether or not GLAM
>> employees are considered paid editors or not when they venture into our
>> world for the first time. I see AfC as one of the major threats to the
>> English Wikipedia, and one way to combat this is to educate newbies on how
>> to avoid it. Whenever I speak to anyone who is interested in contributing
>> on the English Wikipedia and who also has a paid job or a volunteer
>> position that they want to write about on Wikipedia, I first try to change
>> their mind and try to get them to contribute to another subject first and
>> if not that, then another project first such as Commons or Wikidata. I
>> also always tell them 1) never edit Wikipedia from their work IP address in
>> case someone links their onwiki interests to their job and 2) never attempt
>> anything on English Wikipedia through AfC as it will rot there forever. I
>> recommend they ignore the official advice to indicate their employer on
>> their userpage, and always emphasize that their choice of username should
>> be personal and not organization-based. In the case of volunteers this is
>> really hard to explain and unfortunately most have to experience some form
>> of onwiki-harassment before they get it.
>>
>> I personally see AfC as some sort of last-gasp effort to keep the
>> hoards at the gate. If anything, it enforces a form of old-boys-network
>> onboarding as people have no hope of having their contributions rescued
>> without the help of an insider. I am an experienced Wikimedian of several
>> projects and can wrangle my way through the most complicated templates, but
>> I give up entirely when it comes to the jungle of AfC. Are there any
>> numbers available on how many AfC's resulted in articles vs. submissions
>> and then also the same numbers for non-AfC page creations vs. speedy
>> deletions? Post creation period analysis (3, 6 and 12 months later) would
>> be interesting to have too. My gut feeling is that AfC is busily creating a
>> backlog we will never get through.
>>
>> To answer your original question, I think the reason we lack New Page
>> Patrollers for the subjects in which they are needed at AfC is exactly the
>> same reason why those people are being turned back at the gates - nobody
>> currently cares about their contributions. If an AfC comes in for a soccer
>> player, ship model or popular TV episode they are welcomed with open arms.
>> You always get what you reward most in the end.
>>
>> Jane
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yesterday I gave a presentation about community policing at the
>>> Cascadia Wikimedians' end of year event with Seattle TA3M [1][2][3]. An
>>> issue that came up for discussion is the extent to which, on English
>>> Wikipedia, experienced Wikipedians conducting New Page Patrol create
>>> collateral damage during their well-intentioned efforts to protect
>>> Wikipedia. Another subject that came up is the need for more human
>>> resources for mentoring of newbies who create articles using the Articles
>>> for Creation system [4]; one comment I've heard previously is that the
>>> length of time between submission and review may be long enough for the
>>> newbie to give up and disappear, and another comment that I've heard is
>>> that newbies may not understand the instructions that they're given when
>>> their article is reviewed. These comments correlate with the community SWOT
>>> analysis that was done at WikiConference USA this year, in which
"biting
>>> the newbies", NPP, and "onboarding/training" were identified
as weaknesses
>>> [5]
>>>
>>> Personally, I would like the interaction of experienced editors with
>>> the newbies in places like NPP and AFC to look more like this
>>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Police_Week_May_15,_2010_on_Court_Avenue_Bridge,_Des_Moines,_Iowa,_USA-1.jpg>
>>> and less like this
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferguson_Day_6,_Picture_44.png>.
>>> Granted, it's hard for a relatively small number of experienced
Wikipedians
>>> to keep all the junk and vandals out while also mentoring the newbies and
>>> avoiding collateral damage, so one strategy could be to increase the
>>> quantity of skilled human resources that are devoted to these domains. Any
>>> thoughts on how to make that happen?
>>>
>>> I am currently especially interested in this topic because of my IEG
>>> project which officially starts this week. [6] It would be very helpful to
>>> retain the new editors that are trained through these videos, so improving
>>> editor retention via improved newbie experiences at NPP and/or AFC would be
>>> most welcome.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>> [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing
>>> [2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_reform_in_the_United_States
>>> [3]
>>>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presentations_at_Cascadia_Wikimedia…
>>> [4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
>>> [5]
>>>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWOT_analysis_of_Wikipedia_in_2015.…
>>> [6]
>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_vid…
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org