New subject: The first three weeks.

30 May 2014

Hi Rui,

You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help address.
 I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.  Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfa…
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
5.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enw…
6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
8.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
9.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_r…
10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron

...

  From: Rui Correia &lt;correia.rui(a)gmail.com&gt;
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
 Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
 Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;

 Hi James

 Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
 average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
 months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?

 New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
 developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
 create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
 new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
 disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find  that
  someone comes along and either deletes your first
attempt or nominates it
 for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
 version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk 
page.
  I've seen edits reverted because the
formatting of the source was wrong.  It
  should be a basic pillar that before reverting,
we see if we can improve/
 fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
 WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
 policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the  new
  editor can read about it. I know it is
time-consuming to fill in edit
 summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
 whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a  blank
  edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text
and you can select an
 applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
 page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
 splitting the field.

 No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. For
 reference, this section has some interesting facts,
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors.

 We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit warring.
 There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of themes and issues and  these
  defend their turf.

 Pages that contain controversial details should display a specific  notice -
  not difficult to do, given the array of templates
already in use. Some
 pages are the result of a compromise reached after acrimonious debate. An
 editor - old or new - who was not involved in discussions will not know
 this and might make an edit that detonates the powder keg and starts the
 war all over again. It would be so easy to display a notice on the EDIT
 PAGE saying something like "Hi, if you were planning to edit .....[ x
 detail] ... please read (link) the discussion and resolution on this. I  am
  pretty convinced it would work far better than
having thousands of pages
 locked ([semi-]protected). Some pages just require a simple message on  the
  EDIT PAGE such as (example) "In the English
Wikipedia we use the spelling
 *Braganza* and not *Bragança* when referring to the House of Braganza.
 Please do not change this.".  There are 1,300 pages where Braganza is
 mentioned, imagine how many headaches we could spare ourselves.

 Some editors seem to derive pleasure from the constant reverting/
 protecting - you soon get to know who the 'group' is and can read on 
their
  talk pages comments and jokes about a "here
we go again" scenario. It is  as
  if they actually lie in wait for the next unwary
editor to come along and
 make a change.

 At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that do not  meet
  20% of the quality criteria and nobody does
anything to remedy them. Yet,
 do something like move the page, change the infobox and immediately the
 'owners' come out of the woodwork to revert.

 Someone cited Ukranian in this thread and I would like to pick up on  that.
  There is a tendency at the higher levels to
equate Wikipedia with the
 English Wikipedia and all else are something else. This includes the  level
  of involvement by the Foundation etc in the
non-English Wikipedias, often
 with the justification (excuse?) that each is independent. And of course
 each language WP will use this independence to its advantage when
 convenient, as a reason why this or that is being done differently. In  the
  same breath, content that is specifically marked
as referring to the  En-WP
  is then regurgitated as if it reflects the whole
WP, as here, in the
 Portuguese WP:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiabilidade_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Avalia.C3.A7…

 Independence is well and good, but not when for example the Portuguese WP
 votes/ debates/ discusses/ relaxing sourcing policies. If WP is to be
 judged on its reliability then on a number of key elements it must be  held
  to one standard with criteria that apply across
the board. We can't have
 different standards on reliability of sources, notibality, etc.

 To shrug it off as an issue of the Portuguese WP is to bury our heads in
 the sand, to shirk responsibility, because such issues are symptomatic of
 the problems facing the WP as a whole and contributing to the reasons  that
  make editors pack up and go.

 Also from Portuguese WP, it is embarassing that since 2009 there have  been
  all kinds of processes to arrive at a solution
for what to call pages on
 animals and plants - eg: cattle/ bull/ ox/ cow/ bos ... By the looks of  it,
  [[Cattle]] in the English WP has been locked for
years for the same  reason.
  This kind of thing snowballs and then other
aspects come into play,
 overflow and contaminate other areas of the WP as if by contagion.

 James, from the link you provided, I see a reference to bias. We all have
 our 'usual beats' but we all also edit anywhere where we might happen to
 find something wrong. In doing that, you soon find out that just about  each
  page has 'owners', usually 3 or 4 and
these work as a team to preserve
 their way of seeing it. Very worrying is that a lot of this happens on
 pages on big corporations, which raises the spectre of the possibility
 (already proven) of 'editors' working for money. Equally nefarious, I 
have
  noted a group of editos (5 or 6, plus socks [some
exposed, others
 suspected] and countless IP accounts) who are active on a few hundred  pages
  deleting/ sanitising negative references to CIA/
US (and 'allies')
 involvement in right-wing coups all over the world and generally anything
 unsavoury about the US in all pages on conflicts in which the US has  taken
  part.

 In my experience, resolution mechanims for situations such as any that  fit
  any of the cases above tend to favour the status
quo. I have investigates
 some of these cases and it is quite apparent that in many cases the 
'admin'
  taking a decision is also part of group that is
trying to defend a  certain
  point of view.

 Finally, I think it is time to think seriously and hard about anonymous
 (IP) editing. We can all be anonymous, so with a username you are not  less
  so. I do believe that IPs who make a few edits
here and there, often
 unconstructive, would stop if they were not serious and do not want to
 bother registering. Conversely, one you register, it is as if you become
 officially a member. It is unlikely that one would bother registering and
 then engage in vandalism and unconstructive editing.

 Best regards,

 Rui 