Why when we talk about "editor engagement" we think exclusively about new editors? How about retaining people, who already made Wikipedia (= the product) and keep maintaining it?
Retention of people who have made dozens of edits is about the same as it's ever been. Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up at the same rate.
I believe sister projects are deeply important....
All of them have much more popular alternatives doing the same thing they do. For example, PeerWise is vastly more popular than Wikiversity, and is being integrated into thousands of existing institutions' courses far faster than the http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz site can keep up with. On the other hand, the many commercial Commons alternatives are doing fine on their own. It would be more appropriate to reach out to existing non-profit, wiki-like organizations such as PeerWise and simply offer them hosting support than try to pour resources into Wikiversity.
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dan,
whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dan,
whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not).
Cheers Yaroslav
The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at, were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved in Malleus's specific debate.
-Dan
On 21 October 2012 22:29, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at, were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved in Malleus's specific debate.
As I understand it, the biggest problem with editor retention at the moment is the second edit. By that point, they haven't had any interaction with our governance structure, so that can't really be the cause.
On 21 October 2012 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it, the biggest problem with editor retention at the moment is the second edit. By that point, they haven't had any interaction with our governance structure, so that can't really be the cause.
Anecdotally, I see it turning a lot of smart people with friends into anti-evangelists. I'm not sure how one would measure that, but I do think it's bad enough to be a problem.
- d.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dan,
whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not).
Cheers Yaroslav
on 10/21/12 5:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal at swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at, were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved in Malleus's specific debate.
While I agree completely with what you say, Dan, I think it would be a good idea to start the discussion with a coherent definition and/or description of the English Wikipedia's "governance structure".
And, a discussion of the work environment of the Project is very much worth it's own thread.
Marc Riddell
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who have made dozens of edits is about the same as it's ever been. Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up at the same rate.
Retention of accounts, at least.
Since 2005 the need to create accounts in order to do things has significantly increased.
I've personally certainly created dozens of accounts since 2005.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up at the same rate.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Since 2005 the need to create accounts in order to do things has significantly increased.
http://www.informationweek.com/wikipedia-tightens-rules-for-posting/17490078...
December 05, 2005
"As a result of the incident, Wikipedia no longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors, Wales said. A person now has to register with the site before contributing an article."
I wonder, what percentage of those newly created accounts with only a handful of edits include an edit which required the creation of an account? If you're going to check, make sure to include deleted edits.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up at the same rate.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Since 2005 the need to create accounts in order to do things has significantly increased.
http://www.informationweek.com/wikipedia-tightens-rules-for-posting/17490078...
December 05, 2005
"As a result of the incident, Wikipedia no longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors, Wales said. A person now has to register with the site before contributing an article."
I wonder, what percentage of those newly created accounts with only a handful of edits include an edit which required the creation of an account? If you're going to check, make sure to include deleted edits.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wsor-june13-enwiki-time-percentage.png
Ignoring pre-2003, the percentage of anonymous edits peaked in November of 2005.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org