[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Fred Bauder]

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
>> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
>> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
>> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
>> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
>> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>
> I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
> topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
> But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the "editor
> retention problem" as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
> to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
> which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
> deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain.

Correct. Nasty editorial disputes and use of incivility to enforce point
of view comes later, as does finding out that sometimes nothing can or
will be done about it.

> The answer, then, is to find ways to make the new user experience more
> encouraging and pleasurable, such as:

[Improving editor clipped]

> * making it easy to find things to do that are relatively low-risk
> (something the E3 team is experimenting with right now) so that new
> editors can have a more ladder-like experience of becoming good
> contributors;
> * guiding the new user in a clear and instructive manner, and pointing
> them to places where they can get help from another human being (cf.
> Teahouse)
>
[clipped for now > More disruptive technical solutions could include:]

> All best,
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation


I've been playing on a MUD lately, http://www.alteraeon.com/ that has put
considerable effort into getting new users started. MUDs, at least
text-based ones, also suffer from failure to attract and engage new
users.

The first thing about a MUD that is simply not on a wiki is channels. On
a MUD there will be a Newbie channel that experienced users monitor.
Experienced users are expected to be helpful, offering encouragement and
practical help to new users. A channel on a MUD is more or less an IRC
channel incorporated into the software. It's real time. Another thing is
that a user is logged on, and presumably engaged in the game. There is no
need for that on a wiki. Anyway, a post on the newbie channel is seen by
all others who are logged in and have activated that channel. This
happens on a telnet terminal with a command line for input or a
functional equivalent, called a client, a mud client. So something like
an in-wiki IRC channel that new users would automatically be logged into
along with experienced users might be helpful.

The MUD I reference has both a MUD school where a presumably new user
goes through the basic game moves and is instructed in them and, much
more interesting and engaging, a complex Newbie zone where the new player
faces an increasing complex series of challenges which successfully
accomplish learning by doing. The coding on the particular MUD generously
rewards every "right" move with "experience", "money", and other goodies.
This is all very nanny and I doubt the average highly educated user who
is a university professor or professional could accept being put to
school in this manner in a compulsory way before being allowed to edit,
but it could be available as an option. We could even have a "practice"
wiki which was set up in this way as an option. Probably no one would use
it though, I suppose, so whatever is done would probably have to be on
the main site. It would be a sandbox, but a more active and monitored
one, actually a set of practice articles in sandboxes.

With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
to only flagged newbie helpers.

Fred Bauder