The number of active editors watching the Project page is probably an easily computable
indicator. Analysing the nature of conversations on the Talk page requires more work and
probably a human eye. I’d probably use that as a “ground truth” that the first indicator
is giving reliable results.
Kerry
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Pine W
Sent: Friday, 29 January 2016 9:41 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>; James Hare <james.hare(a)wikidc.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community policing, New Page Patrol, Articles for Creation,
and editor retention
I like the idea of those reports. Pinging James Hare to ask if those tools could be
included in future WikiProject X! activities.
Pine
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:38 PM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com
<mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com> > wrote:
That's one possibility. But if we have declining wikiprojects in a negative feedback
loop at the same time as an overall stable or slowly growing community, then either the
active wikiprojects are better able to retain existing editors and also convert more
casual editors into regulars or there is some other growth area to more than balance the
local declines.
We need some research to test that model. It is also possible that some people like
ploughing their own furrow and being the undisturbed Wikipedia expert in their own area.
I'm pretty sure that one thing that drives some people away is conflict and not
everyone enjoys the process of their work being ruthlessly edit by others. We may also
have a more complex community that needs measurement over a longer period of time, it
could be that hundreds of the wikiprojects we now think of as inactive are merely dormant
and over a longer time period many of them will have intermittent flourishes of activity
as editors join them or reactivate.
If it turns out that dormant wikiprojects have as Pine puts it "low stickyness"
then perhaps it would make sense to declare loads of inactive projects dormant and
redirect them to parent projects. On the other hand if it turns out that simply keeping
inactive wikiprojects around waiting for the next person who cares about the topic means
that when that person joins the community they are more likely to stay then it would make
sense to keep inactive wikiproject.
In any event I suspect some reports, "unanswered newbie queries on wikiproject
talkpages" and "Wikiprojects with no watchlisters who are currently active
experienced editors" would probably be worthwhile.
WereSpielChequers
On 28 January 2016 at 23:05, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com
<mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com> > wrote:
I've been thinking about what David said. It seems to me that there's a vicious
cycle of too few contributors --> languishing wikiprojects --> low stickiness for
potential contributors who would otherwise be attracted to those wikiprojects. So how do
we get out of it? Any suggestions?
I'm wondering if Wikia has some practices that we could borrow. Any thoughts along
that line?
Pine
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 PM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com
<mailto:dggenwp@gmail.com> > wrote:
There will always be difficulties in getting good volunteer patrolling of some subjects,
for exactly the same reason that there are difficulties in getting articles on those
subjects: the lack of knowledgable volunteers interested in writing about them on WP.
What complicates the situation is that many of these subjects that are relative
unattractive to volunteers are very attractive to people with the most blatant forms of
conflict of interest: practitioners of various professions, companies in various lines of
business, makers of certain types of products.
It is unfortunately impossible for a volunteer-based project to avoid this, in the absence
of fixed rules that can discriminate closely between those articles and subjects worth
fixing and those not. There is a very few areas of WP where we do have such rules, (eg.
WP:PROF) and decisions there go quite smoothly in most cases. But there is no way of
making exact decision on keeping articles when relying on something as amorphous as the
GNG. At AfC, there is another limitation: the question is not whether an article should be
accepted into WP, but whether there's a decent probability that the article will in
fact be accepted.
As an analogous problem, the qualification for giving accurate and effective online advice
about writing an article is not very common. Many more WPedians can write a decent article
than they can teach others to do so. Thus, even the most dedicated people can reach very
few of the people who ought to be reached.
i do not mean to suggest that we should not try to do better--we should try to do very
much better at every step. But there is a limit to what can be expected in an organization
like ours.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com
<mailto:jane023@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Pine,
I definitely think that there is enough data to start a project or workspace dedicated to
creating tools that will deliver the data in ways that can support decision-making. Given
10 newbie good-faith editors, what are their types of interests and reasons for staying or
leaving? Similar questions can be asked of current editors. If we break this down, I guess
the main questions we have can be split into two groups; namely content-related questions
(what types of content receive the most onwiki support? what types of content do we delete
most often?) and onboarding questions (who do we let edit the articles we have? who are
our page-creators?). Slicing and dicing these questions, you could look at the problems
with our current category structure and naming/diambiguation conventions, but also our
current list of "reliable sources" and how that relates to our current
interpretation of "notability" for whatever field of interest the end-researcher
may have. If we can come up with proven success factors based on long-standing editor
contributions, we may be able to develop a recipe for successful canvassing to use in
editathons and presentations.
Like I said, I think experienced Wikimedians can probably formulate such questions better
than outsiders to our community, and I think we need to get some new talent on board that
can help us write/summarize a structural history of Wikipedia-editing over the past decade
in order to help get people up to speed on the issues.
Jane
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com
<mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com> > wrote:
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
<mailto:jane023@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
<mailto:wiki.pine@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
<mailto:jane023@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
<mailto: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
<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 <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l