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

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Mark <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> On 1/4/13 5:51 PM, George Herbert 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
>>>> or
>>>> emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
>>>> your supervisor's or colleague's research, a project of yours or that
>>>> you're
>>>> involved with, a nationalist/political/religious subject you feel
>>>> strongly
>>>> 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...
>
>
> Hmm, I should've worded that more narrowly. I don't disagree with people
> writing on subjects they know (quite the opposite!). I have more in mind to
> avoid things that people have an unusually close personal/emotional
> connection to, which makes it more likely their editing will result in
> POV-pushing.
>
> For example, I'm Greek, and know a bit about Greek culture, history, etc.,
> and these are fine areas for someone to start editing in. On the other hand,
> a Greek choosing [[Macedonia naming dispute]] or [[Cyprus dispute]] as the
> first article one edits (e.g. to "correct misinformation") is less
> advisable, imo. It's certainly possible to edit reasonably in those areas,
> but I think it's a poor starting point, and requires some more experience
> with how to write neutral articles in contentious areas, and how to reach a
> consensus over what that even means.

I almost wonder if having a "warning flag" for highly sensitive or
contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
edits (500?  ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
article talk page first, rather than going directly to editing the
actual article...

Don't make it impossible for them to edit the actual article by any
means, but give them an intermediate popup warning them that they
might want to think about it and ask about it first...  Click through
to edit the article, or click over here to ask on the talk page.

If they edit anyways and push hot buttons, we deal with it, but at
least they were warned.  If they ask on talk page and figure it out,
great.

> Same in my area of expertise: editing AI articles is a great place for an AI
> researcher to start editing, but editing an article on one's own research
> lab, self, department, algorithm, etc. is not a great place. Unfortunately I
> often find academics primarily interested in the latter: the would-be-editor
> question I most often get is along the lines of, "how do I create a
> Wikipedia article on [my own thing]"? I do try to redirect this into
> suggesting they edit more generally in their area of expertise but not
> *specifically* their approach/self/lab they're trying to promote, e.g. think
> about what exists in a good textbook or survey article that's not yet
> covered well in Wikipedia, and work there. But I'd say that's usually not
> successful.


Most experts haven't written or contemplated writing general purpose
overviews or survey texts in their field, so they're not actually
experienced in that aspect of it.  Many of them may have escaped
having to teach the undergrad intro to the field course, even 8-)

It's not easy.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com