I have 15 years experience on the coal face, and now more than 10 years actively encouraging others to part of that. I come from the time where the community was growing really fast and templates werent available for every action, that meant we had to leave personal message explaining what had taken place. Currently anyone can react at the twinkle of an eye to do the same thing 100 times in a minute with all the necessary policy links already there, nothing is written with a personal touch, there is no measure of encouragement its just a cold machine response even the edit summary is a cold you've been twinkled upon. We have forgotten to Assume Good Faith when its appropriate.
Doing outreach, workshops, editathons and other such events we need to step away from retention being the be all of these events, the aim of these events is content, connection, and community every edit whether its just one or one million is to improve and share knowledge. The more we get hung up on volume the less we value quality and diversity, outreach is building access to knowledge creating a path for others follow.
Twinkle is great tool in combating vandalism, and spam but its very poor tool for building community and becomes extremely dangerous when its applied as a training aid or for contributor there are no workshops, no outreach, no twinkleathons to teach people how to use it effectively just log a few edits ask nicely at a notice board and voila you're armed to zap template where ever, when ever. Twinkle needs to have limits placed on actions, some review process of those actions - 100 actions in your first 30 days then its disable until some reviews. We could even consider a limit to its use until a person has gained community trust as an admin, if person can only whack 100 people a month they are going to consider/value their decision when they do so, we might see a lot less templates and more talking.
On the subject of a twinlkeathon, twinlkeshop Wikimania 2020 is looking for such activities maybe you can help improve its use
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Also, overworked groups with large backlogs struggling to maintain high quality tend to have less patience with the inexperienced and not-yet-competent than we might like. It is also possible that some of the workers in those groups are not as competent as we would like them to be, but at those wages, what can you expect? The work probably also attracts a share of people who get their kicks out of telling other people what they can't do. Again, they are volunteers, we accept their offer to help in good faith until they prove otherwise. The competent and really incompetent are the easy cases. The not quite competent are harder to deal with. Will they get better or worse with experience? Some competence is required to edit Wikipedia. A suitable personality also helps a lot. However, an enormous amount of work gets done quietly and without fanfare and drama, if one chooses the topic carefully, and edits with discretion and a reasonable level of willingness to cooperate. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 25 February 2020 20:03 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI
As a rule, (at least) in Wikipedia, with very rare exceptions, established communities of editors treat newbies as unwelcome invaders. No idea how to solve that, since it's a problem related to the nature of humane beings, not something technical. But the result is a very low rate of retention, indeed - and increasingly reduced diversity and cultural richness, which eventually ends up reflected on content. At some point those established editors also start preying at other established editors, specially when newbies are not available. The environment is awful and toxic in general.
For outreach activities to have at least a minimal rate of success, the participants need to have some kind of protection shield, such as some privileged contact with established editors willing to help them. Otherwise, edithatons and other outreach activities are basically sending lambs to the slaughterhouse. As for newbies that come to Wikipedia by themselves, they are generally on their own.
Best, Paulo
Aron Demian aronmanning5@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 23/02/2020 à(s) 23:30:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
[...]
As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094 characters or 665 words.
This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason.
I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I
was
frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help.
I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not
just
with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing factor to the toxicity.
I've noticed the following issues:
- The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered
lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they
jump
right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor. 2) The lack of protection given to newcomers: "You have no rights" being explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall. 3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable". 4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles
for
years.
Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the "biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers.
By
that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the community - and primarily who get involved with handling disputes -
should
take these seriously, approach with a neutral mindset and remind the editors about our policies, but that almost never happens and such complaints are either ignored or blindly decided in favor of the editor with more supporters, enabling the abuse of newcomers.
Tl;dr: newcomers don't enjoy the safety net created by editors who know and care for each other and the community processes are not set up to create a welcoming and/or safe environment, this purpose is not
manifested
in any kind of endeavors or practices. If the WMF and the movement take
the
Mid-Term target of a welcoming environment seriously, that's a difficult, long-term target that will take a lot of effort.
Aron (Demian) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe