[Gendergap] Thinking about Solutions

[Florence Devouard]

Hello

Just a quick word to say that I really appreciated your (2) emails about 
Solutions. Whilst I agree that issues you raise are not directly related 
to the "gendergap", I do not think we should aim necessarily in finding 
solutions to address the women issue, but rather aim at identifying what 
would facilitate participation and help where we can.

Do not get boggued down by rather critical comments or limited comments 
from members of this list. What you suggest could have significant 
social impacts within our community, and we should always be careful to 
avoid breaking what basically works. It is normal that people be 
hesitant and it will take a long time and many many many discussions 
before some of your suggestions are implemented and go live. But if it 
goes in the right direction, there is no hurry. We have been there for 
already 10 years and we plan to be there for many years to come. There 
is nothing urgent. Time is the essence :)


Anthere


On 2/9/11 8:17 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> 	As promised, here is a mail in which I talk about possible directions.
>    A lot of this has to do with the discussion system that is used by
> Wikipedia.
>
> 	It is abundantly clear that Talk pages are a plague upon all the
> houses.  They are intensely difficult to use and understand.  They are
> *incredibly* difficult for new users to understand and navigate for many
> reasons (which I can elaborate on, but I'll assume we all know what they
> are).
>
> 	So let's get rid of them.  Let's move to a modern discussion system
> (which is the promise of LiquidThreads) - one that users are likely to
> be more familiar with, one that is easier to use, and one that
> encourages several principles.
> 	
>
>
> 	* Identity Emphasis
>
> 	It is a known problem that Talk pages do not engender (hah!) identity.
>    In fact, the only notification that a comment exists from a different
> user is an indent and (possibly) a signature. To a new user, however,
> that doesn't help much.  In fact, we've seen time and time again that
> newbies have difficulty distinguishing "that one guy was a jerk to me"
> versus "Wikipedia was a jerk to me."
>
> 	I should be clear that I'm not talking about "real" identification
> (e.g., "Brandon Harris" vs. "Jorm") but rather the ability for a new
> user to easily connect all of Jorm's comments together.
>
> 	There are several small things that we can do to make this better which
> will have a larger benefit than their sum.
>
> 	First, research has shown that people are far less likely to provide
> hostile or negative responses *if they believe they are talking to
> another person* and *if they do not feel anonymous*.
>
> 	Accordingly, attaching a sense of identity to both the poster and the
> replier can help to alleviate this.  One common way to do this is the
> inclusion of avatars to discussion posts.
>
> 	By encouraging communication between individuals we will go a long way
> towards creating a social structure that can build grass-roots style.
>
> 	* Positive Feedback Systems
>
> 	As a culture, Wikipedia has developed several mechanisms to indicate
> displeasure with an individual's activities. However, we have next to no
> methods for telling someone that they have done a good job, or "thanks
> for the comment".  Sure, we have barnstars, but they are a non-standard
> feedback mechanism and likely to be confusing to new users.
>
> 	A simple "thanks" button, or "this was helpful" mechanism can go a long
> way towards solving for that.  Promoting helpfulness will make being
> helpful a desirable trait and will go a long way towards alleviating
> "newbie bite."
>
> 	* Newbie Protection Mechanisms
>
> 	A sad truth is that there are many people on Wikipedia who are jerks or
> trolls.  Experienced users know to avoid such people but new users are
> thrown into the gladatorial arena without protection.
>
> 	A system where low-value contributors (trolls) can be flagged or
> "downvoted" can go a long way towards addressing this.  In
> LiquidThreads, unhelpful comments could be automatically "collapsed" and
> de-emphasized.
>
> 	That leads me to. . .
>
> 	* Reputation Systems
>
> 	A reputation system is a form of soft "social currency."  Helpful
> individuals (those with high "helpful" marks) are called out and those
> with low-value are de-emphasized.  New users would be able to recognize
> individuals that the community has determined to be high-value.  This
> helps to encourage trust, which promotes community health and vibrancy.
>
> 	I have a lot of other things I've been looking at but I think this is a
> sufficient launch point for now.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap