Maybe it's just the circles that I happen to circulate in, but it seems to me that a very small percentage of Wikipedians tend to be consistently harsh or toxic, and that small number of people tends to have disproportionately negative influence on the atmosphere in the community. Aligned with Jimbo's comments at Wikimania 2014 in London, I do wonder if their caustic nature rises to the level where they should be excluded from the community, and if so, on what grounds we would make that exclusion. Being a relentless critic doesn't necessarily rise to the level of harassment if it's done broadly rather than directed at a particular individual or group, but looking at the problem from an HR perspective rather than a judicial one, I agree that maybe more should be done to exclude toxic personalities. I wonder, though, how we can do that; our process for excluding people from the community is more like a judicial process than like an HR process. Maybe we need more of an HR approach?
Pine
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
We can probably talk about the nature of new page patrol without resorting to comparisons to violent, real-world overreactions with multiple serious injuries.
To be perfectly honest as a new page patroller the biggest issue I've seen is toxic senior members of the community making the prospect of patrolling particularly unpleasant. It doesn't do much for patroller numbers.
On 15 December 2015 at 18:28, Pine W wiki.pine@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 and less like this. 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_Wikimedian...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation [5]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWOT_analysis_of_Wikipedia_in_2015.j...
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_vide...
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l