Based on patrolling thousands of speedies and prod deletions at enWP,
of the people whose articles get rejected at enWP, I would say that
fewer than 20% of them have even the least likelihood of becoming
helpful regular editors. (and I've the reputation of taking an
extremely broad view of what might be conceivably be a potentially
useful article),
So the actual conversion rate of potential editors is about 1 in 32
for those who write potentially useful articles that nonetheless get
rejected as compared to 1 in 22 of those whose articles get accepted.
That means that our procedures for scaring away editors of rejected
articles only scare away 1/3 of the possibly good ones, and 2/3
persist nonetheless. I am not sure how much better we can get it
without doing very extensive work with those editors.
We might get a higher yield by working with editors who make edits,
but not new articles, encouraging them to continue to make others.
Anecdotally, many people edit to fix a single error or add a single
fact , and never really want to do anything more.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:11 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all;
I think we can compare our retention rate with other communities like Wikia.
If its retention rate is higher, we can learn from them, otherwise they can
learn from us.
Also, some months ago I read about a Facebook study which said that
"Facebook users who edit their profiles in the first day, use to get
involved". But now, I can't find that study.
Regards,
emijrp
2010/9/23 Peter Gervai <grinapo(a)gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:49, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would take a major effort to get individual
wiki communities to
And by that you mean communities on enwp? :-)
People bite everywhere, and the reasons are the same as well, as you
properly pointed out. Enpw is the largest so people bite there most
often.
(That's because there's ridiculous
amounts of complete rubbish to sift
through. I'm not saying it's simple or easily remedied negligence on
the part of existing community members, because if it was it would
have been trivially remedied by now.)
But still I agree that the original topic is mostly non-problem.
Peter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG