These are really interesting insights!

Masssly m: +233 (0) 207101435

Sent from Samsung Mobile.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Nkansah Rexford nkansahrexford@gmail.com </div><div>Date:04/11/2015 00:17 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>To: Wikimedia-gh Wikimedia-gh@lists.wikimedia.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: [Wikimedia-GH] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext </div><div> </div>Some insights coming through

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 Subject: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

On the edit training session front, I can report on the sample size of 1 VE edit training session in mid August, where the two trainees both aged 60+ took to editing relatively quickly in under an hour, which compares favourably with the half day to a day it often takes to cover the same ground in the source editor due to the lack of comfort with markup. Both trainees did a few edits after the training session but neither appears to be currently active. I certainly intend to teach future sessions using the VE.

But the research question I would pose is “does edit training make any difference?” I’ve done loads of it but I haven’t noticed that it creates ongoing contributors. Most people come away from the session very positive but, when I’ve bothered to check, most don’t edit again. Having said that, after my own initial edits, I too became inactive for a year or so before doing some very sporadic edits over a number of years before getting active, so it may be that people do resurface months/years later (possibly creating a new username/password as they have forgotten their old one).

Now I have thought that maybe the difficulty remembering the markup weeks/months later might be a contributory factor to this apparent failure to create active editors and that maybe switching to the VE will make a difference. But deep down, I am not convinced that the problem of creating active editors is just about training. And I think Aaron’s study somewhat supports this. I think the problem with edit training is twofold.

1. People with a burning desire to edit don’t sit around waiting for an edit training opportunity. Edit training attracts the “just in case” learners, who think it might be useful to know how to edit Wikipedia. People with a burning desire to edit just click on “Edit” and hope they can make it work. Q. Is the VE enabled for anon editing? (I just logged out to test it and it does not appear to be – why not? Surely anon editors should be dumped into VE by default or offered both?)

2. The routine beating up of newbies. One of the joys of edit training is seeing just how unpleasant our community can be to newcomers. In most edit training sessions, trainees experience reverted contributions, quality tagging, etc, without any attempt to reach out and help them make their good faith contributions (anyone who comes to edit training is good faith, I have never seen any of them attempt to vandalise). The trainees find this somewhat upsetting. It is interesting to note that many assume other editors should know they are in a training session (they are probably mapping their real world experience that training sessions are “visible”). However, despite a couple of people telling me there is some template I can use to indicate an educational activity is taking place (not clear if it tags the user or the article) but I have yet to discover what it is. I have tried putting {{inuse}} onto the article but that’s been a failure (doesn’t deter these unfriendly folk and it’s often removed as well).

So, in summary, yes, teach the VE, it’s much easier for new users. But don’t think the problems of new users are completely solved with the VE.

Kerry