I agree with the statement "New tech can only do so much to fix the problem." Our retention rate for new editors was <1% the last time I checked. What we should do about that should probably be the subject of a different thread. We've had multiple discussions about vital statistics for the editor population on this mailing list, the Research mailing list, and the Gendergap mailing list, in addition to countless on-wiki discussions. I also hope that there will be discussions about this issue at the Wikimedia Conference. I personally wrote "Saving Wikipedia" as one of my interests in attending the conference, and that's not an exaggeration. We need to get out of long-term-decline mode.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilogur@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, and from what I hear it helped, but it was no panacea, especially since it's a solution that still relies on a still-declining editor base. Not like turning the valves would be, and that's clearly not going to happen. Hence why I doubt there's much more room for improvement on this issue. New tech can only do so much to fix the problem.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM, James Alexander < jalexander@wikimedia.org> wrote:
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pete,
Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
Pine
He pops in every once in a while during his break but while he is away Maggie and I are splitting his work up (and this is, for better or worse, well before Rachel's time).
On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall
--
was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward
the
Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did
in
response to ACTRIAL?
If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes
panned
out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed
and
built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
compromising
the core value of openness"?
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I do not believe he was talking about the Draft feature, which came
later.
I think he was referring to the Page Curation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Curation tool which I know for a fact was created in direct response to ACTRIAL because one of the big
complaints
was the difficulty with patrolling new pages. While I wasn't directly involved it was one of the first software products I remember (either as
a
community member or staff member) the Foundation trying to engage closely with the community throughout it's development to create something that would work well. I also think it was the first product with a Community Liaison (who, incidentally, had been the most active page patroller for multiple years before as a community member). _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe