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@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@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:49, David Gerard dgerard@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l