[Wikipedia Library] Re: Edit requirements for access

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:50 PM Shane Murphy &lt;shane.music(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I'm a TWL coordinator in charge of approving applications for Project > MUSE. I don't have much for feedback or a strong opinion, but here is my > experience. Almost all applications I get qualify (and are approved) and > when I reject an applicant I try to include a message encouraging > reapplication when the applicant has more experience. I do not think that I > have ever seen a reapplication in those cases, although I could be wrong. > To me, that implies that many editors who do not get access either found > that they did not need access or decided not to continue editing Wikipedia > (I just skimmed the applications I've rejected ~25 over 5 years or so, it > looks like most are not active editors anymore but a few are). I'm not sure > if rejected applicants stopping editing is a great outcome, but the high > rate of accepted applications and the low rate of long-term participation > of rejected applications makes me think the process is working well. > What the current process doesn’t show is the hundreds of thousands of potential editors who don’t even apply. As another example here: voting in the Board of Trustees elections requires 300 total edits and 20 recent edits. Why is Wikipedia Library access more restrictive than what counts as an active volunteer we trust to elect our governing board? > Shane Murphy > smmurphy > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:24 PM Paul S. Wilson &lt;paulscrawl(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> I concur with Sam Walton's expert observation (not conclusion): >> renegotiating current legal agreements with some 80 plus generous >> publishers is a much higher bar than the already nominal requirements for >> Wikipedia editors to access their resources, a low bar for some 57,000 >> editors. >> >> Paul >> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 11:48 AM Steven Walling < >> steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:37 AM Sam Walton &lt;swalton(a)wikimedia.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm the Product Manager for The Wikipedia Library, thanks for >>>> starting this conversation! Let me start by providing some background >>>> context around how and why the criteria are set this way. >>>> >>>> Way back when the library started, it was an uphill battle to get >>>> publishers to agree to participate. While some were happy to jump right in, >>>> others were very wary about making their paywalled materials free for a >>>> nebulous group of folks from around the world. The editing requirements >>>> were primarily designed to convince those publishers that the only people >>>> who would be getting access to their materials were active Wikipedia >>>> editors who would be using their access primarily to contribute to >>>> Wikipedia. The initial requirements were actually even higher than they are >>>> today, at 1000 edits and 12 months of activity. We lowered that to 500 >>>> edits and 6 months around 2015 because it was clearly excessive. Last year >>>> we added the 10+ edits/month and no active blocks criteria as we shifted >>>> ~half of the publishers to the instant-access model where no applications >>>> are required. I think those two criteria are pretty minor compared to 500/6 >>>> (if you don't meet the 10 edits criteria you can make them all in the space >>>> of an hour and get access again right away). >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, lowering the requirements isn't quite as easy as >>>> simply making an internal/community decision. Almost all publishers who >>>> provide access via the library sign an agreement with us. We don't pay for >>>> access, so adding new publishers is entirely dependent on convincing them >>>> to join the program. That agreement currently includes the editor activity >>>> criteria. This means lowering the requirements would necessitate going to >>>> each publisher, having them agree, and then likely signing a new agreement. >>>> This was enough of a challenge when we made the 2015 change, but by now we >>>> have something like 80 partnerships and the criteria need to be the same >>>> for all publishers, so this would be quite the undertaking. That's not to >>>> say it isn't worth the effort, I just want to clarify what's required. >>>> >>>> In terms of who qualifies under the current criteria, the figure is >>>> somewhere around 57,000 active editors in total today, obviously with more >>>> receiving the eligibility notification each day. >>>> >>>> In terms of lowering the requirements further, I do agree in >>>> principle that it would be nice if newer good faith editors were able to >>>> access the library, but we need to balance this with publishers' >>>> willingness to continue providing this free access. When we say '500 edits >>>> and 6 months of editing' this generally puts folks we're pitching to at >>>> ease, and makes them confident the program isn't likely to be used by >>>> people who aren't actively editing Wikipedia and have simply registered a >>>> free account to use the library for personal reasons. I'm not sure what the >>>> boundary is there, i.e. whether we would be as successful if we said '250 >>>> edits and 3 months', for example. I'll also say these numbers aren't hugely >>>> data-informed. We didn't analyse at what edit count/tenure threshold we can >>>> be confident in saying 'this is an active and engaged content contributor' >>>> versus 'theres a chance this user has made trivial edits simply to get >>>> access', but that's certainly a research project I could see being useful >>>> here, rather than making an arbitrary change that we can't justify with >>>> data. >>>> >>>> Because of the work involved in changing these criteria I'm very >>>> hesitant about doing so, but I'd love to hear what you all think and >>>> whether the above changes your perspective at all. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Sam >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for all the background Sam. >>> >>> "makes them confident the program isn't likely to be used by people >>> who aren't actively editing Wikipedia and have simply registered a free >>> account to use the library for personal reasons" >>> >>> I would say that any reasonable person would probably agree that >>> along with all the other reasonable criteria like no blocks and a minimum >>> number of recent edits (which I agree seem useful), that a bar of at least >>> 200 edits and 3 months of editing would also suffice to represent real >>> commitment to editing Wikipedia. >>> >>> If we haven't even *asked* publishers about lowering the requirement >>> for seven years, don't you think it's worth at least starting a >>> conversation about expanding access, given that it's pretty impactful for >>> our mission? A good start might be doing a simple data pull to see how many >>> more editors a lower bar would include. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:38 PM J West &lt;jessamyn(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I can absolutely see lowering the number of edits required, but it >>>>>> might also be worth looking at or adjusting what sort of edits we >>>>>> are >>>>>> looking for or adjusting them per-resource though that might get >>>>>> messy. For example, people who are creating articles need to have >>>>>> a >>>>>> different, and one could possibly argue higher, level of Wikipedia >>>>>> literacy and familiarity than someone doing automated edits. >>>>>> They're >>>>>> both valuable! But may have different needs w/r/t the Library. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who approves people for a few different WL resources, >>>>>> I see >>>>>> basically two kinds of applicants >>>>>> >>>>>> - People who just apply for access to ALL WL resources and just >>>>>> are >>>>>> rolling the dice about whether they'll be accepted. What they >>>>>> apply >>>>>> for doesn't match their areas of interest or expertise or even >>>>>> editing >>>>>> areas, or their qualifying edits are all profile page edits >>>>>> - People who apply for a narrowly-tailored set of resources that >>>>>> match >>>>>> their editing expertise >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess the larger question is whether WL resource access is seen >>>>>> as a >>>>>> perq for longer time editors or if it's supposed to just be a >>>>>> tool to >>>>>> help people edit Wikipedia. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing that's valuable to hear. I would put money on >>>>> the fact that a lot of helpful new editors who don't yet qualify wouldn't >>>>> even bother to apply, for lack of awareness or just giving up after seeing >>>>> the requirements on the main landing page. >>>>> >>>>> Your larger question is definitely the right one. I would say that >>>>> if our mission is to give everyone on the planet free access to the sum of >>>>> all knowledge, we need to treat it like a resource that's available to >>>>> anyone who wants to make a good faith effort to create and edit articles. >>>>> The bar for access should be the minimum necessary to ensure that you've >>>>> shown real interest and ability to make use of the library. If there are >>>>> limits on the volume of editors who can participate, there are other tools >>>>> we can use like making access expire if you don't use it. (Do we do that >>>>> already? Pardon my ignorance here.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _____________ >>>>>> Jessamyn West >>>>>> User:Jessamyn >>>>>> box 345, randolph vt 05060 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:26 PM Steven Walling < >>>>>> steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I wanted to start a discussion on lowering the threshold for >>>>>> access. Very very very few people qualify for the current requirements of >>>>>> 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, and no active >>>>>> blocks. In fact basically this excludes any new editor no matter how good >>>>>> faith and helpful they have been. Even just lowering one of the account age >>>>>> or edit count thresholds would go a long way. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I recently was pretty shocked to discover this high of a bar >>>>>> for access, after recommending the library as a resource to a new editor >>>>>> who has been doing a great job and (as a young student) could use access to >>>>>> academic source material in creating science-related content. I won't name >>>>>> them, but as an example this editor has over 300 edits and has created just >>>>>> over 50 articles, mainly for missing plant species. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Do the participating institutions require this level of >>>>>> exclusionary criteria? How can we gather data to show them that there are >>>>>> good content contributors being excluded here? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > These requirements seem pretty absurd especially since many of >>>>>> the largest resources in the Library, like JSTOR, give any random person >>>>>> with a Google account access to 100 free articles per month. The risk >>>>>> profile of a Wikipedia who say has,100 edits and 1 month of experience has >>>>>> got to be less than that? We should pilot a threshold like that. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Steven >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- >>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- >>>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- >>>>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sam Walton >>>> Senior Product Manager, Moderator Tools >>>> >>>> swalton(a)wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- >>> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- >> wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- > wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-Library mailing list -- wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikipedia-library-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org