Marielle,
Good point and I will include the links to the blog and the
superspreader talk page on the proposal talk page for reference.
I am definitely not discounting the IEG proposal completely, as I can
imagine the "edit button allergy" must be a problem for people who use
Wikipedia in the classroom. However, though it may seem important to
recruit new editors, or to expand our activities in the classroom, we
must remain loyal to our current editors, who are doing lots of work
right now. Editor retention is in this case more important than
getting those shy editors on board. If someone is too nervous about
hitting the edit button, they will probably be scared off as soon as
they bump up against the daily wikidramas that pop up regularly.
I was interested to read the comments on the blog that questioned the
"blob paste" approach.
Jane
2014-05-08 13:38 GMT+02:00, Marielle Volz <marielle.volz(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Jane,
(Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as
well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves
that step-wise editing might not help shy people.
The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was
comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to
do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy"
people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might
help bring this population into the editor pool.
I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a
spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away
a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob
additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture
of editing that disparages these kinds of additions?
If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for
it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these
kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and
potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future?
While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and
I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to
remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT
the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of
people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia
editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it
could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy"
editors.
By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and
student?
-mvolz
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting
since I was having a lot
of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wik…
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit
button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows
that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable
doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review.
Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this
IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this
particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob"
like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is
interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for
me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in
the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott <datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com>om>:
The discussion is located at the talk page for
the article in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at
(my
first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George
Herbert
Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participation of women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help
(enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor -
the
editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke
2010", a
female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks
like
a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe
somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks,
Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-class…
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap