Sometimes, instead of patrolling recent changes for vandalism, I'll change the filter to "good faith edits" and "unregistered". A lot of edits made under IP addresses are constructive, and I send out welcomes that way. I also check my watchlist and welcome people. I like using the thank button as well, and give wikilove (to new and experienced editors). I find that reachng out to a newbie with a personal message along the lines of "you're doing a good work and I noticed that" is usually fairly well-recieved.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
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