In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think was shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the retention of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was the finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and this was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Hi,
I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html
I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" for this mailing list archive https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l.
Tom
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think was shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the retention of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was the finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and this was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I think you're talking about a paper that I just finished editing American Behavioral Scientist: *The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: **How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline** *
Summary of findings (and free to download pre-print): http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
Official listing: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/26/0002764212469365
For quick reference, here's my *TL;DR: *
To deal with the massive influx of new editors between 2004 and 2007, Wikipedians built automated quality control tools and solidified their rules of governance. These reasonable and effective strategies for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia have come at the cost of decreased retention of desirable newcomers.
1. The decline represents a change in the rate of retention of desirable, *good-faith* newcomers. - The proportion of newcomers that edit in good-faith has not changed since 2006. - These desirable newcomers are more likely to have their work rejected since 2007. - This increased rejection predicts the observed decline in retention. 2. Semi-autonomous vandal fighting tools (like Hugglehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle) are partially at fault. - An increasing proportion of desirable newcomers are having their work rejected by automated tools. - These automated reverts exacerbate the predicted negative effects of rejection on retention. - Users of Huggle tend to not engage in the best practiceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD for discussing the reverts they perform. 3. New users are being pushed out of policy articulation. - The formalized process for vetting new policies and changes to policies ensures that newcomers' edits do not survive. - Both newcomers and experienced editors are moving increasingly toward less formal spaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ESSAYS.
-Aaron
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga < ezalvarenga@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html
I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" for this mailing list archive https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l.
Tom
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think
was
shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the
retention
of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was
the
finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and
this
was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks to all of you who replied to me on and off-list. This is indeed the paper I was looking for!
Aaron, your research looked at new editors. Have you thought about undertaking a similar study about loss of seasoned editors (the beyond-newbie phase)? I note that there are a number of hypotheses on this topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reasons_ editors_leave
but not much evidence to provide any guidance. There was a survey sent to "formerly active" editors (can't find the URL) which gathered some data which indicated that, apart from personal reasons, seasoned editors primarily left because of "community issues", e.g. the behaviour of other editors. So I was wondering if the use of edit logs, user contributions, etc could be used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to provide insights into patterns of behaviour (of the editor or others interacting with that editor via contributions or talk pages etc) that might provide clues into the departure of seasoned editors and/or early warning signs of someone "about to walk".
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Halfaker Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:36 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] looking for paper on the "new editorexperience"
I think you're talking about a paper that I just finished editing American Behavioral Scientist: The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline
Summary of findings (and free to download pre-print): http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
Official listing: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/26/0002764212469365
For quick reference, here's my TL;DR:
To deal with the massive influx of new editors between 2004 and 2007, Wikipedians built automated quality control tools and solidified their rules of governance. These reasonable and effective strategies for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia have come at the cost of decreased retention of desirable newcomers.
1. The decline represents a change in the rate of retention of desirable, good-faith newcomers.
* The proportion of newcomers that edit in good-faith has not changed since 2006. * These desirable newcomers are more likely to have their work rejected since 2007. * This increased rejection predicts the observed decline in retention.
2. Semi-autonomous vandal fighting tools (like Huggle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle ) are partially at fault.
* An increasing proportion of desirable newcomers are having their work rejected by automated tools. * These automated reverts exacerbate the predicted negative effects of rejection on retention. * Users of Huggle tend to not engage in the best practices http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD for discussing the reverts they perform.
3. New users are being pushed out of policy articulation.
* The formalized process for vetting new policies and changes to policies ensures that newcomers' edits do not survive. * Both newcomers and experienced editors are moving increasingly toward less formal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ESSAYS spaces.
-Aaron
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga ezalvarenga@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html
I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" for this mailing list archive https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l.
Tom
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think
was
shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the
retention
of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was
the
finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and
this
was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I looked at editors of all experience in earlier work, but found the strongest effects for new editors (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038585). My primary motivation was to understand the editor decline and other work that found out the decline represents the declining retention of new editors, not the experienced ones(http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641322 ).
For anyone who is considering looking into the retention of experienced editors, I highly recommend looking into the RfA process and dropping a note to User:WereSpielChequershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers. He has a lot of insight into the process and how some problems could have long term effects on the pool of administrators and the motivation/culture of the top 0.1% of editors.
-Aaron
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks to all of you who replied to me on and off-list. This is indeed the paper I was looking for!****
Aaron, your research looked at new editors. Have you thought about undertaking a similar study about loss of seasoned editors (the beyond-newbie phase)? I note that there are a number of hypotheses on this topic****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reasons_...
but not much evidence to provide any guidance. There was a survey sent to “formerly active” editors (can’t find the URL) which gathered some data which indicated that, apart from personal reasons, seasoned editors primarily left because of “community issues”, e.g. the behaviour of other editors. So I was wondering if the use of edit logs, user contributions, etc could be used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to provide insights into patterns of behaviour (of the editor or others interacting with that editor via contributions or talk pages etc) that might provide clues into the departure of seasoned editors and/or early warning signs of someone “about to walk”.****
Kerry****
*From:* wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker *Sent:* Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:36 PM *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] looking for paper on the "new editorexperience"****
I think you're talking about a paper that I just finished editing American Behavioral Scientist: *The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community: How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline*****
Summary of findings (and free to download pre-print): http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/****
Official listing: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/26/0002764212469365****
For quick reference, here's my *TL;DR: *****
To deal with the massive influx of new editors between 2004 and 2007, Wikipedians built automated quality control tools and solidified their rules of governance. These reasonable and effective strategies for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia have come at the cost of decreased retention of desirable newcomers.****
- The decline represents a change in the rate of retention of
desirable, *good-faith* newcomers.****
- The proportion of newcomers that edit in good-faith has not changed since 2006.**** - These desirable newcomers are more likely to have their work rejected since 2007.**** - This increased rejection predicts the observed decline in retention.****
- Semi-autonomous vandal fighting tools (like Hugglehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Huggle)
are partially at fault.****
- An increasing proportion of desirable newcomers are having their work rejected by automated tools.**** - These automated reverts exacerbate the predicted negative effects of rejection on retention.**** - Users of Huggle tend to not engage in the best practices<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD> for discussing the reverts they perform.****
- New users are being pushed out of policy articulation.****
- The formalized process for vetting new policies and changes to policies ensures that newcomers' edits do not survive.**** - Both newcomers and experienced editors are moving increasingly toward less formal spaces <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ESSAYS>.* ***
-Aaron****
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga < ezalvarenga@wikimedia.org> wrote:****
Hi,
I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html
I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" for this mailing list archive https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l.
Tom****
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think
was
shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the
retention
of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was
the
finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and
this
was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
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
Found it via Google Scholar
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
Sent from my iPad
On 03/01/2013, at 12:47 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga ezalvarenga@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I don't know the article, but check if searching here helps
http://www.mail-archive.com/wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/WikiMedia-Research-f1477409.html
I don't know why I cannot use google.com with the parameter "site:" for this mailing list archive https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l.
Tom
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
In the past few months, I read a paper (or a draft paper?) that I think was shared on this mailing list. Unfortunately I seem to have lost both the paper and the email (job change), so I would be grateful if anyone could send me the paper or a link or whatever.
IIRC, the paper was looking at editor retention, particularly the retention of new editors. I think there were about 8 hypotheses given and some experiments conducted to test these. The one I remember most clearly was the finding that new good-faith editors were highly likely to see their contributions deleted, by either bots or more experienced editors, and this was likely to be de-motivating for them.
If anyone can help with this, it would be much appreciated.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org