That feels similar to an interview I heard a while ago on Fresh Air with
author and business writer Charles Duhigg, who wrote a book on habit
formation and motivation:
Here's the big takeaway:
It turns out that every habit starts with a psychological pattern called a
"habit loop," which is a three-part process. First, there's a cue, or
trigger, that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and let a behavior
unfold.
"Then there's the routine, which is the behavior itself," Duhigg tells*
Fresh
Air*'s Terry Gross. "That's what we think about when we think about
habits."
The third step, he says, is the reward: something that your brain likes
that helps it remember the "habit loop" in the future.
It's interesting to think about how apps like FitBit do this: they reward
people not just for the number of behaviors they complete (steps) *but also
for the streaks they maintain (number of days in a row.)* I imagine that
both are important — the steps works towards the goal, and the streak works
towards the habit.
There's also quite a lot of literature out there on how belonging to a
cohort is motivating for people. I wrote a lengthy paper a few years ago
looking at how this might apply in the public media world:
But some of the footnotes are applicable here. I would direct you to Kate
Krontiris' work on "interested bystanders" in civic life:
Because it talks about how different kinds of people might be motivated by
different types of factors.
Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them
after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:
So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.
Footnotes 30, 33, and 45 are also relevant to this discussion.
Mel
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ward Cunningham <ward(a)c2.com> wrote:
I am reminded of B.J.Fogg's notion of triggers as
one of three requisites
for behavior. The other two are motivation and ability.
http://www.behaviormodel.org/
This is probably old news on this list as he has been explaining his work
for a long time now. Still, any initiative should be analyzed in his terms
before launch.
Best regards -- Ward
On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. Integrating "push notifications"
into training, as well as using
them for recognition and suggestions for skill
development, sounds like a
good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
Pine
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <syeates(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I have thought about writing a bot that
congratulated active users on
account creation anniversaries and suggested
directions for growth.
"Grats X you've been editing for 2
years, here's a picture of a kitten.
Have you thought about doing New Page
Patrol?"
"Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've
earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"
Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty
carefully
first.
cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kerry,
Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had
more than
one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new
editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.
I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and
Commons in
particular. But that's different from the motivation issue,
which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training
system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I
have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades
(hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia
Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money
or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR
management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious
to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other
hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for
socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some
Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a
particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged
for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But
it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to
taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad
cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds
of good-faith long-term contributors.
Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career
paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move
into new roles?
I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out
how to
motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and
there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but
significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see
more people make that journey.
Pine
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Pine,
It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.
One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active
editors. The
second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps
upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy
editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.
The first question probably relates to being able to get them better
informed
about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area
of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is
the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.
The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and
other
collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but
some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be
what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the
nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to
introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories
for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is
overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome
templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to
know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar
reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular
projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based
on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like
them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit
some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to
hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them
productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there
needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.
In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a
learning
journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and
interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives
(as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's
offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an
example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate
skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element",
"make links",
"make piped links", "add citation", "add templated
citations", "use a
template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their
talk page,
write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to
their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies
are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have
acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where
they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various
ways.
Kerry
Sent from my iPad
On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Research-l,
>
> A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human
resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the
skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list
aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors?
In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert
productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term
community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive
Wikimedians.
Thanks,
Pine
_______________________________________________
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
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
--
Melody Kramer <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MKramer_(WMF)>
Senior Audience Development Manager
Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RandomInCategory/Featured_articles>
mkramer(a)wikimedia.org