Oliver Keyes wrote:
... Mobile now makes up 30% of our page views and its users display divergent behavioural patterns; you don't think a group that makes up 30% of pageviews is a user group that is a 'big deal' for engagement?
For the English Wikipedia:
>100 Million active mobile Date editors Change pageviews Change July 2009 3,795 -7% July 2010 3,517 -7% 278 July 2011 3,374 -4% 571 105% July 2012 3,360 0% 1,210 112% July 2013 3,135 -7% 1,880 55% July 2014 3,037 -3% 3,010 60%
Where is the evidence that mobile use has any influence on editor engagement?
If you want to predict how long editors will stay, compare how many new articles they were successfully creating in their first 500 edits in 2004-2006 versus 2008-present.
Hi James,
The data you show in that table indicates that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews. Correlation does not imply causation, but I for one find it difficult to edit text using a phone and I would guess that the same is true for other potential or former contributors.
A tablet might work better for editing, and one of the unfortunate consequences of switching the mobile view to tablet is that tablet views and edits are now mixed in with phone views and edits.
Regarding my other point about how Wikipedia culture has become more hostile over the years, I suggest viewing the presentation by WMF's Jonathan Morgan in which he discusses this issue [1] [2] [3].
Pine
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TA3M_July_2014_J-Mo_Wikimedia_presen... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TA3M_July_2014_J-Mo_Wikimedia_presen... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TA3M_July_2014_J-Mo_Wikimedia_presen...
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:24 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
... Mobile now makes up 30% of our page views and its users display divergent behavioural patterns; you don't think a group that makes up 30% of pageviews is a user group that is a 'big deal' for engagement?
For the English Wikipedia:
>100 Million active mobileDate editors Change pageviews Change July 2009 3,795 -7% July 2010 3,517 -7% 278 July 2011 3,374 -4% 571 105% July 2012 3,360 0% 1,210 112% July 2013 3,135 -7% 1,880 55% July 2014 3,037 -3% 3,010 60%
Where is the evidence that mobile use has any influence on editor engagement?
If you want to predict how long editors will stay, compare how many new articles they were successfully creating in their first 500 edits in 2004-2006 versus 2008-present.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
My personal hypothesis is that much wikipedia incivility is part of the broader internet-troll phenomenon (google "Don't Read The Comments" if you're unfamiliar with the effects of trolling). I'd be very interested to see a linguistic comparison between classes of edits/comments tagged as 'bad' across a range of sites which allow unmoderated comments.
Being able to confirm that large part of the problem was actually part of an internet-wide problem rather than a local problem would be a big step forward.
It worries me that the WMF may, by making the wikipedia interface more similar to other discussion systems, reduce the differences between us and the troll-infested platforms and make it psychologically easier for those who troll on other platforms to troll on wikipedia.
cheers stuart
I'd go further and say it's extension of bullying that my grandmother would have called "little hitlers" (officiousness) or perhaps more scientifically the kind of behaviour observed in the Stanford prison experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
In Wikipedia, we have created a situation where any editor can be judge, jury and executioner over other people's edits. We provide the anonymity of pseudonyms too, just to make it a little bit easier. We have a civility rule that evidently sets the bar so low that we have editors calling a female editor a "cunt" and it being written off as "oh, that's just SoAndSo" (on the grounds that this particular contributor uses that kind of language all the time) -- read the gender gap mailing list if you want more charming examples of that sort of thing.
This recent article in The Guardian might be a bit over-the-top:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/sep/12/comment-sectio ns-toxic-moderation
but it does make the point pretty well. For everyone who tries to make a contribution, we have an army of folks with apparently nothing better to do than pass negative judgement (without making any positive contribution of their own).
For myself, I'd reduce the power for anyone to revert edits down to some small set of circumstances, e.g. vandalism, patent nonsense and derogatory comments on living people without citation, and enforce this with a tick the box to indicate the grounds you are reverting on. Other concerns could be "reported" but not reverted (done like "thank" with a text box to raise the concern). I would introduce some new roles/rights called something like "curator" in relation to different topic areas (probably linked to category or maybe Project -- noting that many Projects are moribund though) assigned to those judged by the peers (like Request for Administrator) to have a track record of positive edits and collaborative behaviour (which would include communication) within that topic area. I'd give these folks the power to revert on a wider set of criteria within the defined topic area and the obligation to respond to "reports" within their topic area. Obviously the intention is that these people would be more able to decide if something needed a quick revert or a discussion on a talk page or whatever or some advice to a new contributor etc. This kind of mechanism is used to manage a lot of online forums and I see no reason why it should not work on WP.
Alternatively, we could introduce a "no thanks" button which silently records that a logged-in user isn't happy with an edit. We use this data to look for patterns of "no thanks" involving the same editor as either the one who did the edit or as the "no thanker" with a view to identifying "problem people" and trying to do some remedial work around their behaviour/expectations. It might also reveal early signs of conflict in articles or categories involving multiple editors which might benefit from early intervention. Generally the longer arguments go on, the more entrenched the participants become in their viewpoints (it becomes more about "winning" rather addressing the original issue). Because the purpose of the tool is "macroscopic" rather than "microscopic", I actually don't think the data should generally be public but accessible to those who would be taking action on it (whatever role that might be). I know some people will not like the "lack of transparency" but I think to make it public does not help as victims and bystanders are often afraid to report bullying for fear of attracting retaliation. Also you don't want single reports to become an argument in themselves -- it's a macroscopic tool not a microscopic one. I'd even go further and say that nobody with rights to see the data should be able to see the data about themselves.
But, this is a research list. What's the research we do to contribute to solving editor attrition. For myself, it's looking at patterns of edits (and reaction to those edits by others) in the days/weeks prior to a long-term active editor becoming inactive. Is there any difference to the normal pattern of their edits and edit reactions? By reaction, I mean reverts or other "non-survival" of edits on a mainspace page or response on a talk/user talk page. If it's conflict that drives people away, you'd expect to see edits not surviving or an increased level of talk (with negative sentiment if we can do sentiment analysis on the edit summaries or the talk messages).
For newer editors, I think we just look at their reverts. Being new, we don't have a history of "normal situation" to compare against. Where are they editing, why are being reverted? Obviously we'd like to unpack why good faith edits are being reverted and see what might be done about it. Aside, my personal belief is that new editors don't know about Talk and User Talk and it's our consequent inability to communicate with them that makes them walk away when their edits disappear (without explanation as they will see it). I think if you could talk with them, you could probably help them achieve what they were trying to do or nicely explain why it can't be done. Our insistence on allowing anonymous edit and sign-up without an email address works against being able to help newcomers.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stuart A. Yeates Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2014 7:15 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What works for increasing editor engagement?
My personal hypothesis is that much wikipedia incivility is part of the broader internet-troll phenomenon (google "Don't Read The Comments" if you're unfamiliar with the effects of trolling). I'd be very interested to see a linguistic comparison between classes of edits/comments tagged as 'bad' across a range of sites which allow unmoderated comments.
Being able to confirm that large part of the problem was actually part of an internet-wide problem rather than a local problem would be a big step forward.
It worries me that the WMF may, by making the wikipedia interface more similar to other discussion systems, reduce the differences between us and the troll-infested platforms and make it psychologically easier for those who troll on other platforms to troll on wikipedia.
cheers stuart
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hoi, Thanks for that :) this is good constructive thought :) Gerard
On 15 September 2014 01:48, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go further and say it's extension of bullying that my grandmother would have called "little hitlers" (officiousness) or perhaps more scientifically the kind of behaviour observed in the Stanford prison experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
In Wikipedia, we have created a situation where any editor can be judge, jury and executioner over other people's edits. We provide the anonymity of pseudonyms too, just to make it a little bit easier. We have a civility rule that evidently sets the bar so low that we have editors calling a female editor a "cunt" and it being written off as "oh, that's just SoAndSo" (on the grounds that this particular contributor uses that kind of language all the time) -- read the gender gap mailing list if you want more charming examples of that sort of thing.
This recent article in The Guardian might be a bit over-the-top:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/sep/12/comment-sectio ns-toxic-moderation
but it does make the point pretty well. For everyone who tries to make a contribution, we have an army of folks with apparently nothing better to do than pass negative judgement (without making any positive contribution of their own).
For myself, I'd reduce the power for anyone to revert edits down to some small set of circumstances, e.g. vandalism, patent nonsense and derogatory comments on living people without citation, and enforce this with a tick the box to indicate the grounds you are reverting on. Other concerns could be "reported" but not reverted (done like "thank" with a text box to raise the concern). I would introduce some new roles/rights called something like "curator" in relation to different topic areas (probably linked to category or maybe Project -- noting that many Projects are moribund though) assigned to those judged by the peers (like Request for Administrator) to have a track record of positive edits and collaborative behaviour (which would include communication) within that topic area. I'd give these folks the power to revert on a wider set of criteria within the defined topic area and the obligation to respond to "reports" within their topic area. Obviously the intention is that these people would be more able to decide if something needed a quick revert or a discussion on a talk page or whatever or some advice to a new contributor etc. This kind of mechanism is used to manage a lot of online forums and I see no reason why it should not work on WP.
Alternatively, we could introduce a "no thanks" button which silently records that a logged-in user isn't happy with an edit. We use this data to look for patterns of "no thanks" involving the same editor as either the one who did the edit or as the "no thanker" with a view to identifying "problem people" and trying to do some remedial work around their behaviour/expectations. It might also reveal early signs of conflict in articles or categories involving multiple editors which might benefit from early intervention. Generally the longer arguments go on, the more entrenched the participants become in their viewpoints (it becomes more about "winning" rather addressing the original issue). Because the purpose of the tool is "macroscopic" rather than "microscopic", I actually don't think the data should generally be public but accessible to those who would be taking action on it (whatever role that might be). I know some people will not like the "lack of transparency" but I think to make it public does not help as victims and bystanders are often afraid to report bullying for fear of attracting retaliation. Also you don't want single reports to become an argument in themselves -- it's a macroscopic tool not a microscopic one. I'd even go further and say that nobody with rights to see the data should be able to see the data about themselves.
But, this is a research list. What's the research we do to contribute to solving editor attrition. For myself, it's looking at patterns of edits (and reaction to those edits by others) in the days/weeks prior to a long-term active editor becoming inactive. Is there any difference to the normal pattern of their edits and edit reactions? By reaction, I mean reverts or other "non-survival" of edits on a mainspace page or response on a talk/user talk page. If it's conflict that drives people away, you'd expect to see edits not surviving or an increased level of talk (with negative sentiment if we can do sentiment analysis on the edit summaries or the talk messages).
For newer editors, I think we just look at their reverts. Being new, we don't have a history of "normal situation" to compare against. Where are they editing, why are being reverted? Obviously we'd like to unpack why good faith edits are being reverted and see what might be done about it. Aside, my personal belief is that new editors don't know about Talk and User Talk and it's our consequent inability to communicate with them that makes them walk away when their edits disappear (without explanation as they will see it). I think if you could talk with them, you could probably help them achieve what they were trying to do or nicely explain why it can't be done. Our insistence on allowing anonymous edit and sign-up without an email address works against being able to help newcomers.
Kerry
-----Original Message----- From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stuart A. Yeates Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2014 7:15 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What works for increasing editor engagement?
My personal hypothesis is that much wikipedia incivility is part of the broader internet-troll phenomenon (google "Don't Read The Comments" if you're unfamiliar with the effects of trolling). I'd be very interested to see a linguistic comparison between classes of edits/comments tagged as 'bad' across a range of sites which allow unmoderated comments.
Being able to confirm that large part of the problem was actually part of an internet-wide problem rather than a local problem would be a big step forward.
It worries me that the WMF may, by making the wikipedia interface more similar to other discussion systems, reduce the differences between us and the troll-infested platforms and make it psychologically easier for those who troll on other platforms to troll on wikipedia.
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On 14 September 2014 03:24, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
... Mobile now makes up 30% of our page views and its users display divergent behavioural patterns; you don't think a group that makes up 30% of pageviews is a user group that is a 'big deal' for engagement?
For the English Wikipedia:
>100 Million active mobileDate editors Change pageviews Change July 2009 3,795 -7% July 2010 3,517 -7% 278 July 2011 3,374 -4% 571 105% July 2012 3,360 0% 1,210 112% July 2013 3,135 -7% 1,880 55% July 2014 3,037 -3% 3,010 60%
Where is the evidence that mobile use has any influence on editor engagement?
My apologies; there's a point of confusion here. I'm not saying that the source of difficulties around editor engagement == mobile traffic increases. What I'm saying is that the increase of mobile traffic is going to have an impact on efforts to reverse the negative trend in active editors. Sure, the problem started long before Mobile became a factor, but the existence of Mobile means that the terrain has changed dramatically. If the attempts at solutions to editor engagement problems don't take that into account, we have a problem.
I think engagement (getting people to start editing) and disengagement (editors stopping editing) are separate issues.
I think it's quite true that with the rising use of mobile, we do have to look at the engagement strategies and disengagement issues that relate specifically to the mobile context. For example, a pain in the arse to do citations on mobile in my experience, which is going to make them "lower quality" edits and therefore more prone to deletion, therefore more prone to disengagement.
Of course, there are also many issues of engagement and disengagement that have nothing to do with the device you use (e.g. conflict).
There's no single answer to any of these. There are a number of legitimate lines of enquiry and perhaps remedy here.
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Oliver Keyes Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2014 11:53 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What works for increasing editor engagement?
On 14 September 2014 03:24, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
... Mobile now makes up 30% of our page views and its users display divergent behavioural patterns; you don't think a group that makes up 30% of pageviews is a user group that is a 'big deal' for engagement?
For the English Wikipedia:
>100 Million active mobile Date editors Change pageviews Change July 2009 3,795 -7% July 2010 3,517 -7% 278 July 2011 3,374 -4% 571 105% July 2012 3,360 0% 1,210 112% July 2013 3,135 -7% 1,880 55% July 2014 3,037 -3% 3,010 60%
Where is the evidence that mobile use has any influence on editor engagement?
My apologies; there's a point of confusion here. I'm not saying that the source of difficulties around editor engagement == mobile traffic increases. What I'm saying is that the increase of mobile traffic is going to have an impact on efforts to reverse the negative trend in active editors. Sure, the problem started long before Mobile became a factor, but the existence of Mobile means that the terrain has changed dramatically. If the attempts at solutions to editor engagement problems don't take that into account, we have a problem.
Pine wrote:
... The data you show in that table indicates that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews....
No, it does not. The rate of editor attrition has been constant since 2007, while mobile views have increased from zero to billions. Mobile pageviews have has absolutely no correlation with editor engagement whatsoever.
If there is a quantification of civility issues per editor somewhere, please bring it to my attention. I suggest that editors who think incivility has increased since 2006 are not familiar with incivility issues prior to 2006.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
... all efforts intending to enable mobile editors enable a latent potential of editors.
Editing under the Vector skin has worked just fine on Android since 2010 and on iOS since 2012. There is no evidence that the edits under mobile device specialty skins or apps will ever approach the proportion of editing under the Vector skin.
Nor is there any evidence that the increasing proportion of mobile pageviews has had any impact on the number of active editors, who again have been declining along a constant trend since 2007 to the present, even as mobile pageviews have displaced a very substantial and growing proportion of desktop pageviews.
The visual editor has as a side benefit that we will be moving away from Wiki editing.
Are you aware of the proportion of active editors who have enabled the visual editor? It is miniscule, judging from tags in recent changes.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
... the increase of mobile traffic is going to have an impact on efforts to reverse the negative trend in active editors.
Why? Mobile pageviews are now 30%. Editing is enabled and relatively easy on mobile devices. The rate of editor attrition is unchanged from 2007. Where is there any evidence that the trend in active editors will change at all if and when mobile pageviews reach 50% or 75%?
Hoi, Please define "just worked fine"... Really ?? !! Try editing a page that starts with a template.. there are a few on a mobile .. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 September 2014 18:38, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Pine wrote:
... The data you show in that table indicates that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews....
No, it does not. The rate of editor attrition has been constant since 2007, while mobile views have increased from zero to billions. Mobile pageviews have has absolutely no correlation with editor engagement whatsoever.
If there is a quantification of civility issues per editor somewhere, please bring it to my attention. I suggest that editors who think incivility has increased since 2006 are not familiar with incivility issues prior to 2006.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
... all efforts intending to enable mobile editors enable a latent potential of editors.
Editing under the Vector skin has worked just fine on Android since 2010 and on iOS since 2012. There is no evidence that the edits under mobile device specialty skins or apps will ever approach the proportion of editing under the Vector skin.
Nor is there any evidence that the increasing proportion of mobile pageviews has had any impact on the number of active editors, who again have been declining along a constant trend since 2007 to the present, even as mobile pageviews have displaced a very substantial and growing proportion of desktop pageviews.
The visual editor has as a side benefit that we will be moving away from Wiki editing.
Are you aware of the proportion of active editors who have enabled the visual editor? It is miniscule, judging from tags in recent changes.
Oliver Keyes wrote:
... the increase of mobile traffic is going to have an impact on efforts to reverse the negative trend in active editors.
Why? Mobile pageviews are now 30%. Editing is enabled and relatively easy on mobile devices. The rate of editor attrition is unchanged from 2007. Where is there any evidence that the trend in active editors will change at all if and when mobile pageviews reach 50% or 75%?
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Pine wrote:
... The data you show in that table indicates that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews....
No, it does not. The rate of editor attrition has been constant since 2007, while mobile views have increased from zero to billions. Mobile pageviews have has absolutely no correlation with editor engagement whatsoever.
If there is a quantification of civility issues per editor somewhere, please bring it to my attention. I suggest that editors who think incivility has increased since 2006 are not familiar with incivility issues prior to 2006.
James, that's a good argument, but if that's the argument that you want to make then please show data back to 2007, not to 2009. Also, I stand by my statement that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews in the data that you showed. Correlation and causation are different.
If you watch Jonathan Morgan's presentation, you'll see that he says that his favorite theory about the decline in active editors after 2007 is the rise of the popularity of Facebook. I think everyone would agree that there are other issues at play as well. I believe that Jonathan says that new editors were welcomed more readily in Wikipedia's older days, and now they are more likely to receive template warnings on their talk pages.
Other possible factors include * The length of the review time at Articles for Creation, at least on English Wikipedia, which means that contributors may lose patience before their drafts receive reviews * The trend of preferred Internet devices switching from desktop to mobile, combined with the difficulty of contributing text from mobile, as some of us have mentioned in this discussion * Shorter human attention spans (is there any data about this?) * Preferred modes of social expression switching from lengthy blog prose to short strings * The number and complexity of policies and laws that govern Wikimedia content * Increased surveillance, censorship, and criminalization of Internet activity, which may deter potential contributors * The reputation in social media and technical communities that Wikipedia is a hostile environment; I have heard this personally from other tech open source enthusiasts
Other people on this list may be able to contribute additional ideas.
I agree with Stuart that Wikipedia may be part of an Internet-wide trend of trolling becoming more common, and that making communication and editing easier on Wikipedia is likely to make trolling and vandalizing easier. My bigger concern is that lots of resources are being poured into VE and Flow but that VE and Flow address problems that are of less significance than others that we've mentioned in this thread, particularly the difficulty of mobile editing and the increase in hostility. AfC and the Draft namespace would be other good territories for investigation of their impact on editor retention and content creation.
I hope that VE and Flow will be net positives (I am generally supportive of the VE concept, and cautious about Flow) but I feel that Wikipedia's biggest problems may lie elsewhere, and I would like to see resources that are proportional to those spent on VE and Flow get spent on some of the other areas like AfC and the on-wiki culture. These would need to be addressed in collaboration with the content communities, and the WMF Strategic Plan update would be a good time to elevate Wikimedia's cultural issues as a priority, with a continuing emphasis on mobile and new modes of consumption and creation.
Pine
I too am very hopeful about VE but less sure about Flow. I do Wikipedia edit training locally for Wikimedia Australia and markup is something a lot of folks struggle with. Here's an email I received today from someone who was in one of my groups a month ago. I get an email from this person once or twice a week. This person is quite able to write (is an author of journal papers) and is keen to contribute to WP but, as you can see, knows what they want to do but is unable to deal with the markup. Now because this person has spent face-to-face time with me and because I know new people can't handle "Talk", I always hand out my email address at these events because this is the way they prefer to communicate post-event (this is why I am less sure about the benefits of Flow, learning it adds yet another cognitive demand on new users).
Hi Kerry, I need your help again! to complete (from me anyhow) the XXXX article. 1. I'd like to change (but I can't figure out how to do that) the text underneath the picture of XXXX. I'd prefer it to read "XXXXX". and 2. I entered some text about the XXXX issue and entered (incorrectly\incompletely?) a URL (#24) reference. When I tried to correct it, I found that I couldn't edit the reference section of the existing version. Hope that you can 'fix-it-up'. Thanks heaps. Cheers,
Aside, the Facebook theory of reducing Wikipedia editing is probably valid. Not because I believe that people see Facebook as a direct alternative to Wikipedia, but more that Facebook and Wikipedia compete for the spare time in your life. And in Facebook, I have shut out the people I don't want to deal with. Not so on Wikipedia.
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Monday, 15 September 2014 5:12 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] What works for increasing editor engagement?
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:38 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Pine wrote:
... The data you show in that table indicates that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews....
No, it does not. The rate of editor attrition has been constant since 2007, while mobile views have increased from zero to billions. Mobile pageviews have has absolutely no correlation with editor engagement whatsoever.
If there is a quantification of civility issues per editor somewhere, please bring it to my attention. I suggest that editors who think incivility has increased since 2006 are not familiar with incivility issues prior to 2006.
James, that's a good argument, but if that's the argument that you want to make then please show data back to 2007, not to 2009. Also, I stand by my statement that there is a negative correlation between active editors and mobile pageviews in the data that you showed. Correlation and causation are different.
If you watch Jonathan Morgan's presentation, you'll see that he says that his favorite theory about the decline in active editors after 2007 is the rise of the popularity of Facebook. I think everyone would agree that there are other issues at play as well. I believe that Jonathan says that new editors were welcomed more readily in Wikipedia's older days, and now they are more likely to receive template warnings on their talk pages.
Other possible factors include
* The length of the review time at Articles for Creation, at least on English Wikipedia, which means that contributors may lose patience before their drafts receive reviews
* The trend of preferred Internet devices switching from desktop to mobile, combined with the difficulty of contributing text from mobile, as some of us have mentioned in this discussion
* Shorter human attention spans (is there any data about this?)
* Preferred modes of social expression switching from lengthy blog prose to short strings
* The number and complexity of policies and laws that govern Wikimedia content
* Increased surveillance, censorship, and criminalization of Internet activity, which may deter potential contributors
* The reputation in social media and technical communities that Wikipedia is a hostile environment; I have heard this personally from other tech open source enthusiasts
Other people on this list may be able to contribute additional ideas.
I agree with Stuart that Wikipedia may be part of an Internet-wide trend of trolling becoming more common, and that making communication and editing easier on Wikipedia is likely to make trolling and vandalizing easier. My bigger concern is that lots of resources are being poured into VE and Flow but that VE and Flow address problems that are of less significance than others that we've mentioned in this thread, particularly the difficulty of mobile editing and the increase in hostility. AfC and the Draft namespace would be other good territories for investigation of their impact on editor retention and content creation.
I hope that VE and Flow will be net positives (I am generally supportive of the VE concept, and cautious about Flow) but I feel that Wikipedia's biggest problems may lie elsewhere, and I would like to see resources that are proportional to those spent on VE and Flow get spent on some of the other areas like AfC and the on-wiki culture. These would need to be addressed in collaboration with the content communities, and the WMF Strategic Plan update would be a good time to elevate Wikimedia's cultural issues as a priority, with a continuing emphasis on mobile and new modes of consumption and creation.
Pine
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
If you watch Jonathan Morgan's presentation, you'll see that he says that his favorite theory about the decline in active editors after 2007 is the rise of the popularity of Facebook.
It is *in a sense true* that the Facebook Theory is my favorite theory about the editor decline. But that's because that particular theory, of the many theories that exist, is singularly unverifiable and unrepeatable. So it's fun to see people trot it out in debates about the editor decline (as many do), without the need for pesky things like evidence.
My actual favorite theory is a dog's breakfast of rising mistrust of newcomers, bureaucratization, and a lack of diversity along multiple dimensions.[1][2][3]
That said, Facebook probably didn't help ;)
- J
1. http://dub.washington.edu/djangosite/media/papers/morgan_cscw2013_final.pdf 2. http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfak... 3. http://jtmorgan.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/morgan_hicss2012.pdf
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org