[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

[Steven Walling]

On Apr 5, 2012 2:42 PM, "Jan Kučera" <kozuch82 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow
> remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public...
> you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US
> now) go to the full globe instead...

I think your understanding is outdated. The Foundation has quite a few
remote workers. I can count 20-30 people not based in San Francisco just by
scanning the staff and contractors page.

> 2012/3/28  <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>:
> > It seems to me that there has been a quite a variety of results to
booster activities, and that the poorest results have come from random
educators who decide to make a "Wikipedia class project" without consulting
any veteran editors rather than from people more thoroughly exposed to the
sausage factory nature of wikis. I don't doubt that outreach can be done
very poorly, I just don't really expect future programs, especially ones
with old hats on board, to make the same mistakes past programs have
already discovered for us. As far I can determine, contributors fall along
a full spectrum without any sort clear way to claim at what point an
individual has become an official editor, nor when one might have forfeited
such a status.
> >
> > I think that biggest difference in our viewpoints stems from your
belief that there ever has been some sort of natural ecosystem of
contributor motivations and that activities not intended to promote a
specific viewpoint are somehow artificial. In a way, all of it was always
artificial, or else it is really all quite natural given the nature of the
system. I can't manage to find those labels meaningful. Nor can I find any
objective criteria that would make sense to populate two categories of
contributors in the way you speak of one side being boosted over the other
by outreach.
> >
> > It is however the most natural thing in all of humanity to transform a
complex system down into some sort of false dichotomy. To transform a truly
varied world into "us" and "them." I dislike the necessity of suggesting
that your position may be partially supported by a failure of critical
thinking. However I am at a loss as to what your other side could be,
besides that they are not "us".
> >
> > Also while I understand that the last bit is a sort of talking point
for your position, I cannot see why the statistical goals are not
understood as indicative of significant qualities. It is like complaining a
sports team signed a big contract with star player just for the sake of
statistics. Statistics are how you take measure of meaning over time or
across groups.
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for this email Birgitte. I greatly enjoyed reading it, it give
> >> insight in not just your own motivation, but mine and several others
who
> >> have come to know. I apologize for my following lengthy response as
well.
> >> This is a well-articulated, reasoned response, that should stand apart
from
> >> the ongoing discussion.
> >>
> >> This does not mean I don't disagree with some of your points in the
> >> discussion. I believe we have two fundamentally different perspectives
o
> >> this. It shapes our opinion of where we are and where we are heading
> >> towards. The central difference resides on the difference between an
editor
> >> and a member of the crowd. I do not believe every individuals can
become an
> >> editor. I should make a clear distinction here that I am referring to
> >> active editors, not just every reader who can incidentally make as
> >> correction to never repeat again. The edits stand on their own, the
> >> individuals might not. That is where we differ on, the crowd we are
both
> >> referring to is composed of a large majority of those, and very few
actual
> >> editors. The conversion rate between the two has been out of
proportion for
> >> some time now.
> >>
> >> It may be that collected edits might be what you are referring to
here, not
> >> the individual contributor. Collected edits form the wisdom of the
crowd,
> >> they are irrespective of who they came from. Editors, curators, new
> >> contributors, vandals, PR agents, occupy the entire spectrum of the
crowd.
> >> The issue is between the normal ecosystem that came to be on its own,
and
> >> the artificial albeit temporary addition to the equation.
> >>
> >> Activities undertaken to artificially boost one side, by incentives and
> >> outreach effort, have not yielded positive results. We are having this
> >> discussion because there is a trend that has developed. The past
measures
> >> have not yielded favorable results. It has contrarily, in some cases,
> >> increased the already heavy burden on one side, the backlogs have only
> >> increased through them, so have copyright violations and so on. These
> >> attempts artificially inflate and unbalance the ecosystem, by
temporarily
> >> bringing in an unmotivated crowd for the sake of statistics.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I snipped previous emails because your summary is accurate and this
ended
> >>> up being massive. Fair warning.
> >>>
> >>> Let's say this doesn't happen.  Things stay exactly as they are now.
No
> >>> increase in vandals nor PR agents nor anything other kind contributor
for
> >>> the rest of the year.  Do you imagine the workload for admins and
veteran
> >>> editors to be acceptable? Do you imagine the quality of articles to be
> >>> acceptable? They are not.  I and am not talking about award-winning
levels
> >>> of quality. I am speaking articles right now that were tagged as being
> >>> inaccurate, contradictory, or biased many months ago yet still are
> >>> unaddressed.  I am thinking of known contributor's of copyright
problems
> >>> whose edits are cataloged and are waiting for someone willing to
tediously
> >>> review them. I suspect a large factor in the attrition of veteran
editors
> >>> is the current workload as it stands.  It is hard to stay motivated
when
> >>> you can't hardly notice your work has made any dent in the backlog.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, there is a difference between the actual workload, generated by
> >> inaccuracies, copyright violations, policies, plain old vandalism, and
the
> >> one brought in artificially to address a trend. One side is already
having
> >> a hard time with regular tasks, veteran editors are facing attrition,
new
> >> editors are sometimes adding to the backlog instead of lowering it.
> >>
> >> Temporarily Incentivizing and bringing in a large number of unmotivated
> >> editors for the sake of numbers, only exasperates the problem. I
believe
> >> this is the cost of experimentation MZMcBride and others were
referring to.
> >> It only increases the workload over the normal, by temporarily
recruiting
> >> one side of the crowd from which only a minority will continue editing.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I suppose I simply see the bigger concern to be: What if we don't add
> >>> 1,000 new curators who care to learn how to interpret copyright law
and
> >>> 3,000 new contributors who are willing respond to RfCs and
participate in
> >>> peer review?  The vandals will come as inevitably as 8 year-olds
transform
> >>> into 12 year-olds. The PR agents are equally likely to remain
consistent. I
> >>> don't really understand the basis of the concern that this outreach is
> >>> expected to add more vandals and PR agents. Why is it so suspect that
this
> >>> project could add sincere and useful people which are, perhaps in some
> >>> aspects of their personality and/or circles of interest, simply a
different
> >>> kind of person than you and I who self-selected to contribute without
any
> >>> such an overt program? But truthfully while there are certainly tasks
I
> >>> selected to work on my own, because I find them inherently captivating
> >>> (poetry) or because I am inherently driven to understand and make
sense out
> >>> what is presented as arbitrary and seeming senseless to me (copyright
law),
> >>> there are many contributions of significance I have made only because
an
> >>> overt effort was made asking me to contribute personally (peer review
> >>> Evolution pre-FA) or by a generalized campaign (Proofreads of the
Month).
> >>> So perhaps, the people brought in by such outreach won't be such a
> >>> different kind of contributor after all.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We can not easily recruit curators. We can make it a part of someone's
> >> curriculum, provide workshops and teach classes, but it can not
motivate
> >> someone to do so beyond what is required. Curators of content,
> >> would indisputably have to be self-motivated. New contributors might
not
> >> understand what an RfC is, how to do peer review, our job could only
be to
> >> educated them to the best of our abilities. A job, we haven't been
doing
> >> too well to begin with.
> >>
> >> There is also something to be said about the costs. These experiments
> >> monetarily costs a good deal, not to mention the workload it requires
from
> >> volunteers. All of which pales in comparison to the cost of making new
> >> editors on English Wikipedia, a priority; the focus for WMF remains
those
> >> new editors. It is in my mind a travesty to focus on them and overlook
the
> >> existing veteran editors and curators. They are deserving of more
attention
> >> than what they receive, this problem only compounds to an abject
> >> proportion, when you start moving away from English Wikipedia, to
sister
> >> projects and other languages. Curators are not easy to recruit, while
> >> veteran editors face attrition, our measures completely ignore this
core
> >> group that basically power the projects everyday, for something that
might
> >> affect the statistics and the conversion rates for tomorrow.
> >>
> >> I am not suspect that we can not add well meaning and sincere
individuals
> >> willing to contribute, I, like others, am only basing it on the past
> >> experiments. It is not an easy task, past attempts to engineer the
> >> community and contributors have not yielded the expected results, it
does
> >> not mean that future experiments will not succeed. The priority there
> >> should be containing any such fallout from the existing ecosystem.
> >>
> >> Disproportionate work load, is another issue. The automated tools and
their
> >> proliferate usage is symptomatic that the existing community does not
have
> >> the time to deal with the workload under normal circumstances. This is
in a
> >> closed environment of its own, the tools are community made and used; a
> >> reaction to the disproportionate distribution. Add to it attempts to
> >> engineer the community and incentivize individuals who don't have the
> >> patience to commit, this would get far too disproportionate, you would
have
> >> more attrition than ever before. And sadly, those attrition statistics
> >> aren't followed as closely as the new editors.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If the underlying concern is that there are not enough veteran editors
> >>> willing to educate them, or that these newcomers won't conform to our
ways
> >>> sufficently. Well then maybe the newcomers can educate us instead. We
are
> >>> great at some things we have done, but we are crap at a whole bunch of
> >>> other things.  And was all trial and error to begin with! If new
people
> >>> come and want to do things differently, I can only imagine they will
be
> >>> trying to change the crap things not the great ones.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Perhaps. But I have rarely seen a large, functional, existing
communities
> >> change to accommodate new members. From an example already cited on
this
> >> thread, there might be more credence to this claim already.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I disagree with this summary.  In fact, the wisdom of crowds is
considered
> >>> wiser because it assumes the members are *not* homogeneous. The model,
> >>> however, does not give more weight to members with qualities that
normally
> >>> would earn them weight in more traditional models, which the point
most
> >>> people find counter-intuitive. The reason a larger crowd is supposed
to be
> >>> wiser is because a larger crowd is assumed to be more diverse.  I do
not
> >>> see see why a diversity of motivations to participate should be any
less
> >>> desirable than other forms of diversity.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is probably truth in that statement. But I still believe that
> >> motivation separates the crowd, when half the contributors are trying
to
> >> work in good faith and be productive, the other half might be
consciously
> >> trying to sabotage the wisdom. No statistical method of analysis can
take
> >> this into account. If people intentionally promote lies and falsehood
> >> within a group, it only distorts the end results.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I agree I was speaking of the wisdom of crowds model more than the
wiki
> >>> model. I do think there is a wiki-model which has emerged by
happenstance
> >>> and in fleshing it out below realized that the wisdom of crowds is not
> >>> really inherent to it. For the record, I  believe the key facets of a
> >>> working wiki are as follows:
> >>>
> >>> *Low barriers to participation
> >>> *Self-Governance by participants
> >>> *Participation is transparent
> >>> *Critical mass of participation is maintained
> >>>
> >>> These are what seem to separate wikis which flourish from wikis which
> >>> whither.  But why use a wiki if you do not want to form the wisdom of
> >>> crowds? Looking up the key factors for wisdom of the crowds are
(these I am
> >>> not just throwing out there like the above which I really did write
before
> >>> looking this up!):
> >>>
> >>> *Diversity of opinion
> >>> *Independence
> >>> *Decentralization
> >>> *Aggregation of output
> >>>
> >>> So you can so see why wiki's are such a good model for forming the
wisdom
> >>> of the crowds. Critical mass will often naturally grant a diversity of
> >>> opinion. Self-Governance inherently grants independence and often
leads to
> >>> decentralization (although I can imagine wiki participants choosing a
> >>> centralized governance model and losing that one). Transparency means
> >>> records which preserves all the raw data needed for aggregation. So
the two
> >>> models are a natural fit and tend to feed into one another. After
all, it
> >>> is hard to imagine a critical mass of participants governing
themselves in
> >>> any way at all familiar to our experience without forming the wisdom
of the
> >>> crowds.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree with that summarization.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I addressed some of this above and I hope the inline replies do not
annoy
> >>> you, it easier for me to think of it in pieces.  I am probably less
> >>> "social" than the average contributors, but still I feel the community
> >>> aspect is truly necessary.  Especially, with regard to the more
tedious
> >>> chores of curation. If all we needed was people to share their
writings on
> >>> subjects they are passionate about, I would hold your opinion.  But
> >>> community is the power driving much necessary and tedious work
(copyvio!).
> >>> Honestly I burned out on copyright years ago. But I remember thinking
> >>> myself once upon a time thinking to myself "I cannot leave all of
this work
> >>> for Moonriddengirl to do, no one else helping her! I' ll at least fix
X
> >>> before calling it a night." I do not believe I had any purely social
> >>> interaction with her at the time of that experience (or ever!), but
just
> >>> receiving some explanation from her and seeing her doing so much good
work
> >>> made me feel an obligation to pitch in.  I am certain SJ means
community
> >>> building as working together on a common objective and necessary
education
> >>> of any contributors new to some area of the wiki, rather than
socializing
> >>> for it's own sake.  Proofread of the month at Wikisource is probably
a good
> >>> example, but he can correct me if I have misunderstood. Along these
lines,
> >>> I personally find community to be supremely motivating.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ok there is a distinction here. You were part of the community first,
you
> >> *chose* at some point to work on something in this ecosystem without
any
> >> incentive. The community aspect came in later, to retain and constantly
> >> engage you. There are different approaches to this. I hope you will
agree
> >> that there are several prolific editors who are even less social than
> >> anyone. They can continue to contribute year after year without so
much as
> >> a single community-oriented interaction. There are those who remain
> >> near-anonymous, not revealing a single facet about their personality or
> >> engaging any other editor. It used to be once that they were not in the
> >> minority, as it may be now, but their work is not affected by lack of
the
> >> community aspect that might drive others. In my opinion, community
aspect
> >> is more important to retention and engagement, than recruitment.
> >>
> >> It takes most new editors months until their first direct interaction
> >> on-wiki. I have known editors who said they went for an year before
they
> >> had a direct interaction with another editor. It was usually limited to
> >> warnings and corrections, some have spent even longer without it. It
rarely
> >> affects their work, it does affect their own motivation if they
continue
> >> editing in vacuum.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Truthfully I am highly self motivated to explore and understand
things,
> >>> the community, however, is what motivates me to share my
understanding.  If
> >>> I didn't feel community engagement, I imagine I would have merely
lurked
> >>> till I got busy and forgot I had been fascinated by the place. I am
sure I
> >>> would still consult Wikipedia and Wikisource, even if I hadn't ever
> >>> belonged to the community but I would rarely remember to pull back the
> >>> curtain and lurk. I have lurked in scores of places over the years,
> >>> sometimes one thing in particular will really motivate to comment.
Mostly I
> >>> begin to comment and find the barrier to participating troublesome and
> >>> change my mind, less often I actually leave a comment on the topic
that
> >>> motivated me. Nowhere else have I stuck around more than three
months. And
> >>> I am not even sure how you guys laid a claim on me. And it is not the
> >>> overall project, although I really still find the whole idea as
marvelous
> >>> as ever, it the people that I bound to more than the idea.  As I said
I
> >>> really don't have the strong individual social ties that I see among
others
> >>> here. So I mean the collective of people, the collective which also
sees
> >>> this Marvelous Possibility which barely resembles the feeble attempts
we
> >>> have managed so far. I feel this collective belongs a little bit to
me and
> >>> owns a little bit of me in return. That it would be irresponsible of
me,
> >>> no, worse dishonorable of me, not to tell you guys that I see rocks
ahead
> >>> when I happen to see rocks ahead. Or to stay quiet when people are
talking
> >>> about the sky falling and it all seems rather normal to me.  I know
people
> >>> can perceive me as angry sometimes (often?), but really I am not so
> >>> attached to what is finally decided out of my line of sight.
 However, I do
> >>> feel this obligation with you guys that I feel no where else outside
of my
> >>> employer, with those things sent for public consumption. That I have
share
> >>> any strong convictions with you, even when I find it unpleasant, in
order
> >>> to sleep in good conscience. It matters much less to me whether or
not my
> >>> opinion prevails than that I offered it, that I discharged my duty.
So this
> >>> is all rather anecdotal, but I believe community engagement is really
the
> >>> only thing that has ever driven my participation past the curious
stage. I
> >>> wanted to help the hard-working and helpful *people* I observed on the
> >>> wikis long before I understood the full implications of the project.
 And
> >>> then at some point, which I can't pin down, it had become my community
> >>> where I was obligated to share myself, which is an even stranger
thing in
> >>> my experience. This part is probably incomprehensible, but I cannot
> >>> articulate these thoughts any clearer. I tried not to use the word
> >>> community to steer clear of begging the question in describing
community
> >>> engagement, but substitute community for any of that if makes more
sense.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And this is the part I am most grateful to you for writing. I have
nothing
> >> more to say about this then, Thank you. I see my own self in more than
half
> >> of what you are describing.(I hope Sj and a couple of other board
members
> >> can see the similarities in the part about being perceived angry,
warning
> >> when I see rocks, and sharing my strong convictions.)
> >>
> >>
> >>> Maybe my non-article writing background is influencing me here, but
there
> >>> really are simple tasks anyone on Facebook could do (Proofread of the
> >>> month). There are things that can be done entirely individually
without
> >>> *needing* to understand a single policy tome (peer review). I also
imagine
> >>> a lot of potential for breaking down existing backlogs into some
> >>> incremental tasks which could used as introduction to more complex
issues.
> >>> I am sure there is all kinds of other stuff I haven't been exposed as
well.
> >>> And really do you think people on Facebook really care that much about
> >>> some song or what they ate? Those people are just sitting in front of
a
> >>> computer feeling bored. They are being directly prompted  to "post
your
> >>> status"  while eating a plate of food and the radio playing in the
> >>> background.  They could equally satisfy their boredom being asked to
do
> >>> something useful on a wiki.  I don't  imagine Facebook really appeals
to
> >>> them any more than it appeals to me. It probably just appeals to them
more
> >>> than nothing at all.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is still some requirement to contribute I suppose, just as it
would
> >> be to reading a newspaper or writing a letter - Not everyone is cut
out to
> >> be an editor. I don't believe that those are the same skill sets that
> >> entail pressing "Like" to something, and editing an article. The
> >> distinction again, is editing not performing simplified task that would
> >> only require someone to press a button. I would reiterate that
Facebook is
> >> a social networking platforms, after all the "Likes", status updates
and
> >> "lol"s, there would be nothing left of value. In our case, what we are
left
> >> with in the end, is the goal, the other aspects of a community might
only
> >> be incidental in the end. No one is stopping anyone from relieving
their
> >> boredom on Wikipedia, the person just has to choose. Maybe we can find
> >> incremental tasks and setup ways to make certain tasks as easy as
playing a
> >> game on FB, but then again, isn't that one of the criticism about
automated
> >> tools and turning patrolling into a game.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Theo
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l