[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))
kim at bruning.xs4all.nl
Tue Jan 8 23:56:45 UTC 2013
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:48:46AM -0500, Risker wrote:
> all. New editors don't know what BRD means (Bold, Revert, Discuss).
some "older"editors typically don't either. They often read it to mean the opposite
of what it actually means.
WP Consensus works by switching between 2 different feedback cycles.
(For more on similar feedback cycles, see PDCA (corporate) or OODA (military) )
The first is simple Bold edit->watch->noagree?->edit [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]
The second is Bold->Revert->Discuss->Bold mentioned at [[WP:BRD]], but
that page does not cover this fully.
The mistake a lot of editors make is that they think it's linear
In reality, the objective is to get back to bold editing, because you're on a wiki, and that's what wikis are for.
If you disagree that discussions are getting stuck, why can't we outright edit
policies anymore when they no longer fit? Why is there a report that says
wikipedia's structure is ossified?
If you disagrees that the primary objective is and should be to get back to
editing (and thus remain flexible and responsive at all times): How do you
propose that wikipedia adapt to the changing world around it, if many policies
and other pages are now effectively locked down?
I've worked at some very old companies. The reason they're still around is
because they accept input from the outside world, listen to people, and they
stay flexible by having processes in place to change the processes, as needed.
Finally, I don't think the WP structure is nescessarily bad. It's just that
people currently aren't learning how to use it like they did before.
Look at procedures used for elections in Iraqs system: first they taught
everyone how democracy worked, *then* they held an election. If they'd just held
elections without ever teaching anyone what that means, they'd have gotten a(n
even bigger) mess. :-P
More information about the Wikimedia-l