[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

[Thomas Morton]

>
> >> The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors...
>
> Yes.
>
> > The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality
> editors
> > willing to work primarily on article content.
>
> No. Aiming for quality, would only reduce the number of editors.
>

Quality editors; perhaps should have said quality authors/writers.

We have no end of vandal fighters, admin material and so forth, who are
also critical. Those people will keep coming in. But we sorely lack people
with a quiet focus on content creation and prose. Doubling our current
numbers of that sort of editor would be a huge step toward improving our
content. Doubling the other sorts of editors would not have the same effect.

The idea that having more quality editors would reduce the number of other
editors is... somewhat confusing. But if that really is the case (and we
can swap low quality editors for high quality editors) then fine by me.

But I would be interested to hear your reasoning as to why looking for &
engaging quality writers would drive off others?


> Remember: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
>

Just because they *can* edit doesn't mean they should. We are aiming to
create free content here *not* create a place anyone can edit. Important,
even critical, distinction.

We do not blindly follow that pithy tagline (i.e. the existence of
semi-protection, bans/blocks for total incompetence).

> Whether they also want to
> > socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary
> > consideration/distraction.
>
> I disagree. A lot.


Of course that is your prerogative.

But I think in holding that view you've critically lost sight of the point
of being here. We are not building a social network in the background. A
social structure has to exists to keep the community going, but the prime
purpose is to write/develop free content.

But perhaps it would be useful to suggest some specific social features
that you'd want - that might help focus the discussion.

Tom