[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))
martijnhoekstra at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 23:56:54 UTC 2013
On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >> 1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal
> >> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own
> >> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that
> >> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
> >> about, the history of your own family, etc.
> > This can be a problem in that people will become interested first in
> > fixing something they think is wrong because they know about it. I do
> > realise all the steps from that to here, and that a list of
> > instructions pretty much won't be read.
> Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
> What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
> instruction? Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
> Normal people won't be so much of an expert that using their own
> professional or academic work as a reference is even applicable.
> Actual experts, we can include a "Please cite your sources, rather
> than your own work, thanks!" and leave it at that.
> Actual experts who fail to heed that are a problem, but a much smaller
> and easier to communicate with and explain problem than the no-newbies
Please resubmit this suggestion after three hours of AfC work
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l