Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:25, 4 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Editor Retention

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

(outdent) was implimented but a new thread is a better solution since the topic is completely different

I have removed the duplicate box banner regarding EOT from the project page. Was the addition of this box banner ever discussed here? For more see: User_talk:Northamerica1000#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Editor_Retention. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for other members, but it would be appreciated if there was 'no more' edit-warring on that topic :) The discussion you've linked to, should be brought to this talkpage, as it concerns this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have no objection to “bringing” the discussion here. However, I leave this to the talkpage owner, but really what I want is an answer to my question:

Was adding the EOT banner ever discussed here before it was added to the top of this project? — if not why am I accused of edit warring just because I want it removed until such time that there is consensus here for this addition? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no talkpage owner. The potential edit war was between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll let the other RETENTION members answer your questions. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

where else would an exclusive, member-restricted WikiProject help?

• I was unaware of the KaffeeKlatsch proposal, though I knew of interest in having a women-only (or similar) area in Misplaced Pages, when, in a section above, I advocated helping to "Establish a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where membership requirements or admissions process can be defined, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (i.e. to allow an all-women task force to operate without interuption; semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, which would not be all bad IMO.)" It would help establish the right to use a WikiProject, for a Women's club, if there were other proposals on completely different topics. WikiProjects have a lot of useful tools, such as the use of article tracking scoreboards, and various notification services.
• There must be GOOD reasons to have an exclusive club, vs. BAD reasons. In the Kaffeeklatsch MFD and elsewhere fears have been expressed that if one exclusive club is allowed, then there will be terrible, mean ones. But if the purpose of a group is bad, or if the definition of membership boundaries is too uncomfortable, few will join and it will wither under scrutiny, I expect.
• I suspect GOOD reasons would be when membership boundaries and rules of order are clearly related to the purpose of the club. Some existing restricted areas within Misplaced Pages are the arbitrator-only sections in ARBCOM proceedings (where restriction is accepted as helping the elected arbitrators get their discussion and voting done). Arbitrators also have a non-transparent off-wiki email list. I wonder if elected wp:MILHIST coordinators have an on-wiki restricted area that helps them, or if they use an email list.
• What about when people want to assemble and share their interest in something, with a certain level of civility and positive collaboration, without being beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress?
• How about a group within WER to address bullying, without being overrun?
• Besides in the gender issues area, where else would it be GOOD to have a member-restricted club, governed by higher standards of civility or limited by a number-of-articles-created-criteria, or having any other difference from general rules?

--doncram 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt I would be of much help in any 'gender gap' goal, as I don't see editors as 'male' or 'female. Furthermore, it's impossible to verify every editors RL gender. Anyways, if any of these courses of action leads to more editors of Misplaced Pages, that's cool. Though, I'll always caution against the potential for schism. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant in OTHER areas, where could it help. Say, if wp:WikiProject Libraries is trying to recruit more RL professionals to participate, but some are truly offended by cursing going on, that has become commonplace, can the WikiProject set a membership criterion (no use of certain words) and enforce it? Or can they create a cursing-free discussion board? --doncram 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how anything "exclusive" could be anything but divisive, which is the last thing the project needs. If the level of discourse violates community standards, then we should deal with it on that basis (and we aren't doing a good enough job on that). If it does not, then the people must decide whether they can live with it or not, and make individual decisions as to staying or leaving. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, from a practical standpoint, how would you limit access to members? Are you hoping the community would agree to automatic and immediate blocking for violators of the membership restriction? Surely you're not hoping that all non-members would simply go away because you asked them nicely. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe a WikiProject can censure foul language from its talkpage, if members are united on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram:: Watch your stereotypes: Librarians are not the narrow-minded or over-sensitive types that comment suggests! Most of us can cope with the occasional foul language; it's the sniping and bullying, however politely expressed, and the constant flogging of dead horses, which might deter those who see themselves as adults and/or professional people from participating in an environment perceived to be dominated by that behaviour. (Actually I think librarians and former librarians are probably very well represented among WP editors: the urge to help people get access to information finds a new outlet here). PamD 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, sorry if that's the impression my comment gave, not intended. I actually perceive self-identified librarians that i've noticed to be professional, competent participants here, and relatively well-represented within Misplaced Pages, and sometimes actively reaching out to other RL professionals, and potentially a strong, positive force for change. I also don't think profanity is the worst behavior problem to be targeted by any self-aware, self-policing group; I focused on that as it is very simple to understand as a target for a behavior rule. Sorry that my conjunction seemed to make an implication that I did not intend. I'd be very interested if you could explain further, perhaps, on how adult vs. non-adult behavior within a Wikiproject could be defined and put into any rule for participating. --doncram 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, at this point, Outreach Wiki (also called "Wikimedia Outreach") is serving as the WikiProject for editors who need to maintain a more professional tone of discussion, especially for collaborations with GLAM partners. You will see some of your concerns about professionalism expressed at the Outreach Village Pump discussion, Proposal: merge the Outreach wiki into the Meta wiki. Some here may want to weigh in on the merger discussion. It's important to acknowledge that some working people receive rather restrictive guidance about participation in social media. If editors holding professional positions find they're basically tiptoeing around a bunch of craziness on the Misplaced Pages site, you get their polite, minimal participation at socially sanctioned editing events, or adding citations, and that's about it. (Or perhaps they oursource their Misplaced Pages tasks to a paid editor ...) In any event, the Wild West approach isn't proving the route to retention. --Djembayz (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You will not improve editor retention by creating private clubs segregated by gender, race, religion etc... Chillum 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Chillum. While I support the right of individual editors to restrict access to parts of their talk pages/subpages (within certain parameters), I don't believe any restrictions should be allowed in project space. The sole exception is for areas designated for arbcom, admins, checkusers, etc, and in those cases editing is restricted to people who have been through special community scrutiny; the community, not individuals, has set up the restrictions. One of the fundamental goals of this encyclopedia is collaboration, not isolation. We all benefit from being exposed to a wide range of opinions; it reduces groupthink and increases the potential pool of good ideas.
• I've been in a position of responsibility on WP; I was a Featured Article delegate for two years. Discussions about FA process changes were held on WP, with the involvement of anyone who was interested (which included those who simply wanted to disrupt the process). With enough participation, enough voices heard, enough RFCs, the community (not just those most involved in WP:FAC) reached a consensus that the other delegates and I could then enforce.
• I've worked on article collaborations on a contentious topic, and the collaboration failed because it was "beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress". Those newbies tried extremely hard to have me and others removed from the topic because we were not of the religion that was the focus of the article. They could not see that our religion made absolutely zero difference in whether or not we could research and write a balanced, well-sourced article. I honestly see no difference between those well-meaning but misguided editors and those who are insistent on removing men from discussions on the gender gap, or otherwise creating spaces where men aren't allowed.
• I continue to edit here because I firmly believe we should judge other editors on their contributions, not their gender, their religion, their age, etc. Even setting up something for "professionals" or academics only is problematic, because many of them do not have the Misplaced Pages-editing experience needed to be successful here (and I say this as someone who has collaborated with professors before).
• Is it frustrating at times to deal with those who don't seem to understand the policies, who don't seem to be working for the good of the encyclopedia? Of course, and it's a big reason why I essentially retired for 2 years. But I am confident that those who I found most annoying in turn thought I was the one who just didn't understand and wasn't working for the good of the encyclopedia. So who determines which group of us is asked to stay out of the collaboration area? We have dispute resolution processes, and they work most of the time. Honestly, I have had similar frustrations to this at work, when I was in school, and even at my HOA meetings. Editors need to be able to deal with conflict....people need to be able to deal with conflict. Perhaps a much more useful idea than restricting editing would be to create an advocacy project to help new users who don't understand their options for dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, but a comment re your last point. I've felt for some time that WP policies, guidelines, and procedures have grown out of control, so complex that the average editor needs an expert "wikilawyer" (a new definition) to interpret them. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what you just described. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my most favorite projects was years ago, when a professor, jbmurray, brought his college class to Misplaced Pages, with the goal of their creating articles and getting them to FA status. They were all complete newbies. He taught them the basics, and a group of article writers agreed to help guide them through the other processes. There was a specific page for that particular group to ask for help, and mentors were assigned to each student who wanted one. Their initiative was very successful in that the students created some very excellent articles; I haven't checked to see how many of them still edit, all these years later. I don't know how to implement something like this on a larger scale (although I think the Teahouse is supposed to help?), but I think it would help some new editors. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Misplaced Pages:Co-op will facilitate matching editors seeking guidance in specific areas with mentors who are able to help. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding MILHIST - there is a coordinators' page, but posting to it isn't restricted to coordinators (unless something has radically changed recently, at least). Closed groups with restricted membership are a bad idea in a place like this where we already have issues with OWN of policy, canvassing, and other things. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A WP:Co-op mailing just went out to prospective mentors. See User talk:Buster7#WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015 for an update. Mentors are needed. . Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've made a finer point above, but the fact is: No group that discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is 100% against the entire mission here and will not be endorsed nor tolerated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood. . Buster Seven Talk 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• • But, Dennis Brown, you're stating a rule here that you wish to be absolute, in this WikiProject, which is not a Misplaced Pages-wide rule. Which would be an example of trying to make a space that does not tolerate certain views. And, I don't want to stretch your intent beyond what you mean, but I would think it follows that you would want to eject a participant who did not adhere to the required behavior. I think enforcing a standard of behavior in an area is acceptable, and is the flip side of restricting membership to those who will abide by the rules; it's the same thing. So WER is an example that I was asking for? --doncram 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are more areas in wikipedia where behavior and/or membership is restricted, or should be.

• Another area in Misplaced Pages that enforces a different level of behavior is DRV. If i recall correctly, they do not tolerate "heat", if I may call it that, in discussions there, and will close a discussion rather than come to a DRV decision, if they judge the behavior in the discussion to be unacceptable to them.
• Also I think various WikiProjects do try to enforce behavior or belief standards, perhaps on wp:NOTHERE-type grounds. "Not here to pursue the purpose and strategy of this WikiProject", would be fair grounds, in my opinion, to ask persons whose oppositional beliefs and behavior seems disruptive to get out. I tend to think that empowering WikiProjects, including WER, to set some standards of behavior, would help the overall environment.
• About the academic professors who use their real names and have real expertise and interest, but are unable to deal effectively with others badgering them, maybe, yes, that it would be good to have area(s) where they can talk, share frustrations, and hopefully learn. Where they could talk among themselves, and learn how not to set off the anti-credentialist persons buzzers, say. Where they could ask around for help dealing with difficult situations for them, say, where persons they don't respect are pursuing and opposing. To discuss these things without being hassled endlessly. Don't get me wrong, I and most persons here would probably want them to "graduate" and get out into topic-based Wikiprojects, but I would think it helpful to give them a safe environment to commune in. --doncram 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I will simply restate that the initial and ongoing goal of WER is to be all inclusive. There is a difference in creating an organization that caters to one type of user such as professors (where there is a neutral criteria based on life accomplishment, not genetics), and one that discriminates based on DNA, geography or deity. I am not saying I agree with either, btw. One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the ideas of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. Any program that discriminates based on those factors is inconsistent with WER and in no way should WER be associated with them. You can not fight discrimination by practicing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, I will simply restate that the initial and ongoing goal of WER is to be all inclusive….You can not fight discrimination by practicing it. If WER is to be all inclusive then how is it that back on 07 January 2013 you allowed another editor to remove my comments here with an edit summary removing unrelated crap, and later instructed me on my talk page to to leave things alone? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the link you provided above is somehow a link to an article Dhimmi by User:Pecher. That makes it a lot harder to figure out what you are referring to. I am assuming that you are questioning whether this project can say it is "all inclusive" if it decides to remove content which does not further those objectives. I think the reasonable answer to that would be "yes, that is true of all WikiProjects." This project has as its stated goal editor retention, and comments which do not necessarily relate to that topic are basically irrelevant. That is not discrimination, but focus. If you could indicate exactly what you are referring to a bit more clearly, that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what happened to my link, but I found a better one. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Behavior based membership restriction can be invaluable. It was so on WP:SLR. We instituted it because of the experience with a previous WikiProject, which had failed because one side of the Sri Lanka conflict was underrepresented and, in a vicious cycle, eventually left the project altogether. So we had new members apply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Applications and be approved by all existing members. Surprisingly, nobody ever voted against another member for partisan reasons; I think the only one who voted against any application was me; I set behavioral conditions, and everyone strove to meet them, and in the end everyone who wanted to join was admitted. (Actually, I just saw that there was an application which got overlooked after the project had served its purpose and became defunct after the end of the Sri Lanka Civil War.) All in all, I can say that my dream that "I want the membership in this group to become a badge of honor." became true. — Sebastian 10:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• • And I'm not saying there is no room at Misplaced Pages for groups with different criteria, each has to be judged on its own merits, but WER has to be the ultimate "open tent" and can only coordinate with those that reflect our initial values of equality (admin and editor, male and female, German and Mexican, Jew and Atheist, etc.) and our goal of creating an environment all over Misplaced Pages that makes editors want to stay. Whether or not another project is acting within policy or not, this isn't within our scope. That is for the community as a whole to decide. It is our choice and charter to NOT promote groups that don't share the same philosophy as the original intent of the Project. As Founder of this project, I believe I have a pretty good bead on what the original intent was. It is quite rare for me to be rigid on a philosophical point here, but this is core to our principles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of opposing principles that apply: first, in accordance with the pillar that anyone can use, edit, or distribute Misplaced Pages, anyone who wishes to improve Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner is welcome to discussions on doing so. Second, as all contributors are volunteers, their interactions are a matter of personal choice: they choose what articles they wish to edit, and which conversations in which they wish to participate. The first principle takes precedence, so any conversations directly related to the improvement of an article must remain open to all collaborative commenters. Nonetheless, should I wish to seek advice on a matter, I can choose to whom I wish to request advice; I am not compelled to discuss matters of a more meta-level with anyone.

The line can be a bit fuzzy; for example, a discussion on how to deal with a combative editor is indirectly related to article improvement, as managing the situation improves the overall editing environment. Yet I feel there can be value for editors to be able to hold discussions with a self-selected group of similarly-minded editors, so they can refine their ideas without an undue number of interruptions from dissenters. I have discussed this a little in the context of mitigating issues with Misplaced Pages's current tradition of consensus. On a WikiProject level, this would translate to a group of editors who share basic goals of the project. A balance would have to be struck, to not unduly limit the range of viewpoints considered, and a global consensus could not be established on the basis of a limited discussion. However I think there are many nascent proposals that have floundered by being too quickly subject to criticism and would have benefited from being given some time to flourish and improve through discussion within a limited group first. In order to not pre-judge anyone's contributions based on personal characteristics, a self-selected group in a WikiProject should be based on the opinions held by the participants, and not any personal traits. (What users choose to do in their own personal spaces is more open, though subservient to the first principle I stated.) isaacl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All this is way off focus and out of the remit of this group. User:Dennis Brown in his post 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC) said it all- now move on. Some of us with grey hair have seen this all before in the late 1960- where the whole raison d'etre of volunteer organisations were subverted by militant pressure groups with their points of order and navel-gazing. The organisations soon became defunct. Alles diesen Klätschen ist echt Quatsch. (all this gossiping is pure rubbish) and destructive, we lose more good editors because they are sick of being harrassed by Klätschmaulen with a penchant for wiki-lawyering. Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the dissipating of the focus of discussions is an important part of why editors get frustrated with Misplaced Pages and so stop editing.(My comment is in support of avoiding subversion of discussions.) I don't believe Dennis's statement is at odds with this. isaacl (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have always promoted the idea that it is ok if discussion carry on too long, giving everyone a chance to speak, particularly since many don't visit this page daily. It is why my comments tend to be towards the end, if I comment at all. When I do make a strong statement, my goal isn't to end discussion, it is to give the discussion some direction, focus, or at least clarity. Then consensus can do its magic. Consensus isn't the end all here, we do have a charter, a mission, but I don't remember seeing those out of sync very often. Staying out of issues that have been at Arb, and are likely to end back at Arb, that is also a good idea, particularly when they are inconsistent with our mission. This isn't a judgement of those projects, just a prudent position. I may need to do some writing, not to make new rules, but to clarify the existing charter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, the best way to answer your question, would be to create such a WikiProject & see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Doncram can be empirical and find out. Start one, Doncram! EChastain (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

editing break

With all respect to Clem (from a fellow Greyback), one of the beauties of WER is that we let discussions flow wherever they might flow (like the rising tide that lifts all boats). Subversion of discussion is a problem everywhere on Misplaced Pages talk pages and we try to deal with it as best we can without too much consternation. I personally don't like it when some editor, of his own choosing, decides to hat a discussion. I understand if its divisive and disruptive...but not if its an extended free-flow of ideas. If you notice, there are many open discussions above. No harm is committed by waiting for them to be archived. I tried to manually archive many times before and was asked not to, for good reason. Your suggestion to "Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy" is a very good one. I suggest DIY which I suggest to anyone with a good suggestion. . Buster Seven Talk 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

With all the recent discussions, I did consider creating a sandbox to collect Dennis' offerings. But then I reconsidered because it might be construed as the WER version of The Little Red Book. . Buster Seven Talk 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Buster. It's called brainstorming, and it is an excellent way to through out suggestions. It's like genetic mutations - most of them are not improvements but every so often one comes along that promotes survival. In fact, I've been thinking of one for a long time myself and will try to put it together for consideration... :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the extended free-flow of ideas and philosophizing deserves its own section. Hadn't thought of this before, but if editor retention focuses on retaining the estimated 90% male majority editing population, perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention is de facto A Voice for Men on our site ... ;) ... * dodges tomatoes in best 1970s style, and dashes off to her alternative women's wiki / Systers consciousness raising group* ... (Now, loosen up and giggle a little there fellow greyhairs, ain't we been down this road before together? You think Kathleen Cleaver is still churning away on Eldridge's mimeograph machine? Ain't it our turn to show the kids how to do it right this time, men and women both?) --Djembayz (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting links. Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A "voice for men", or for those men who wanted to maintain the 90 10 ratio would be a voice for not changing the site. We are a voice for changing it in ways that would stop driving away established editors male or female. Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors. That shouldn't put us into conflict with projects to recruit new editors, some of the issues we will identify may be ones that also make it difficult for potential editors. But Misplaced Pages can support multiple projects handling many different issues. The focus of our project is the things that drive existing editors away from Misplaced Pages. But that doesn't mean that our focus should be 90% male, if the stats are correct our editor retention problems are worse among female editors than among men so if we succeed it should help the gender gap. To put it more crudely, if a large proportion of the blokes here are going to stay until we die or get blocked, then by trying to fix the things that drive good editors away we are going to help both men and women and in more balanced numbers than the existing community. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We can be mindful, helpful and each of us can be in two or more different projects, but WER itself is getting big enough that we need to start being a bit more strict in keeping our scope narrow, which helps everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors

I see the statement Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors made by User:WereSpielChequers and remember this was discussed somewhere in the bowels of wp:wer talk, but I did not realize this is now "official". If it is should it not be mentioned in this project's mission statement right at the top of this project page?. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it is already there in the name, I didn't consider myself to be making some official announcement, just reminding people what this project is about. wp:WikiProject Editor Retention is unambiguous at least in the variant of English that I know. We could also have sister projects wp:WikiProject Editor Recruitment and wp:WikiProject Editor Reactivation. Of course there will be editors recruited since this project started who we would now want to retain, but the name seems pretty unambiguous to me. If the word means something different in American English then that doesn't seem to have reached wiktionary. To give a little background I used to work in IT and on a number of large consumer/membership databases, and I'm used to the idea that membership recruitment, retention, upselling and reactivation have different challenges. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently the Main page was revised a bit. It will soon be revised a lot. Watch this space..... Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• As has already been said, the scope has always been retention, even if we strayed a bit at times. We have no power to recruit, that is really the job of the Foundation, to reach out to people outside of Misplaced Pages, or to another new project as WSC pointed out, to covert readers into editors. Our job is to focus on systemic changes such as policies, programs like EotW, and instilling the idea that "retention" should play a part of all decisions here. These are things that make editors want to stay. When I get back to full time, I have several ideas for project to help new editors become more productive by giving them a list of "to do" areas that they might have fun with, to keep it interesting for the guys with 500-1000 edits and not sure where to go to next. Editors more advanced than an adoptee, but would benefit from some direction on finding interesting areas that need gnoming. This is in the archives here, btw, and fits the scope of WER perfectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible collaborative "thank you" efforts?

Even with the best of intentions, there are some editors who we will lose. Some, like User:Wadewitz, die. Others, like User:Neelix and User:TParis, retire, possibly permanently, possibly not, sometimes for reasons we would regret. I was wondering whether there might be any interest in maybe having some of those involved here engage in something maybe beyond what we do now and maybe trying to get some content of some sort together and up to a decent standard of quality as a "thank you" to these editors, maybe, possibly, with some sort of template on the relevant talk page indicating who was being thanked. User:Koavf and I have recently finished the transcription of s:Original Stories from Real Life at wikisource as a sort of posthumous "thank you" to Wadewitz, and Neelix indicated to me in e-mail that he would maybe like to see the Homestead (Star Trek: Voyager) article, in which the character Neelix left the series, developed as a "thank you" to him. I actually found a few sources online which might be useful there. TParis has indicated that something relating to the military and Hawaii would be something he wouldn't mind seeing improved as a thank you to him. I actually found a book called "Myths, martyrs and Marines of Mokapu" at archive.org about the Marine Corps Base Hawaii from the Marine Corps historical branch which could be used to help develop that article, and have done preliminary prep of the text for inclusion at wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no experience in writing articles about TV shows, and not much more in military subjects, and wikisource work wants .djvu files to use as the basis for transcription. I still can't figure out how to upload the .djvu file from archive.org so I haven't uploaded it myself. Anyway, would any of the rest of you maybe be interested in some efforts along these lines? John Carter (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, TParis is still active. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that actually. 2 edits today here, his first in 2 weeks. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure John. I will be an active supporter and participant. I like the idea of paying homage to the hard work and endeavors of those editors that have chosen, for whatever reason, to retire. Khazar2 comes to mind. If they returned because of WER's efforts, so much the better...but that's not necessarily the reason for our thanks to them. It seems you have contacted the retirees you had in mind which is a good idea. Do you have a script of some kind? Whatever you create, I'm in! (I'm on strike in 1/2 an hour till Tuesday. I'm sure you know why and I understand why you are not. Someone has to watch the cookie jar!). Buster Seven Talk 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am rather happy to say that User:Neelix has returned to active editing again as of yesterday, but I still think maybe, if anyone might want to help in a "thank-you" there, it would probably be welcome. And, FWIW, probably tomorrow I will try to put up the PD history of the Hawaii Marine base I found on wikisource. In that particular case, all that will be needed for at least the finishing of the document there will be someone going through to proofread and by their terminology "verify" my first proof read. There is one point of question with the source, a footnote which doesn't actually have an indicator where in the text it is to be added, but that is about the only one I can think of. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors of the week and possible co-nominations?

If the backlog winds up getting too long, it might be possible, although obviously a pronounced increase in the workload of those involved, to maybe make it an award to multiple people in a given week. Also, although I think that some people might see the number of comments in the nominations talk page, it might not be unreasonable in some instances, particularly if people think that there is more information which others could reasonably be included, to more clearly allow multiple people to put some information in the nominations section. That might also be a way to seek additional support from people who might be more directly knowledgeable about individual editors, as maybe we might include a few "pings" in a nomination of other individuals who might be willing and able to provide more information about the laudable activities of individual editors. Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The backlog has never been more than 6 weeks. From the time of nomination, 2 weeks to get some seconds (and thirds, etc.) and then into the "Q" at accepted. 6 weeks to get the award. If it ever gets up to say...10...I might consider more than 1 per week. But my anxiety has always been to keep the "Q" stocked with at least 4 nominees. After Tuesday I'll make some instruction changes on the Nomination talk page to open the process up to more favorable comments. GoP mentioned to this weeks Awardee that they had received more than the required seconds which I thought was great. I really wish more members of WER would go to the Awardees page to congratulate but you can't make a horse drink water as they say. Not that WER members are horses. They are more like zebras...free spirits that can not be tamed. Buster Seven Talk 00:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter As you have probably noticed, more and more of the nominees have started to attract more than just a second. Your most recent nomination already has 7 seconds I believe. And both GoP and I have been willing to add comments made during the 2 week seconding period to the Award Prose on Sunday or to the Eddybox when it is delivered on the Tuesday following. . Buster Seven Talk 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the week — blunt criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don’t like raining on others’ parades, but this is something I believe should be discussed. Please forgive me if I am blunt, but in my experience such things have to be dealt with out in the open, and hope my posting will not be removed. So here goes…

In particular I find the following guidelines have not been followed:

Today for the first time I carefully checked out the list of award recipients and saw several editors who received this WikiProject Editor Retention Award who are:

• Well known to the community (user: Eric Corbett is only one of those) and I say this as someone who normally stays away from WP:Dramah and other community water-coolers.
• Admins

In real life this awards dispensing is behaviour described as ass-kissing. I therefore wonder if Editor of the Week task force detracts from this project? I would appreciate any honest feedback here. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What admins were awarded? I know of a few who became admins after receiving the award, but unless I dropped the ball, we have not awarded any individuals while admins. Go Phightins! 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Some admins were nominated but none ever received the Award. As far as the ass kissing goes, I'm gonna have to ask for Diffs. There have been over 120 nominations. I can't remember the well-known vs less celebrated quantifiers for each. If you provide the names of those that you think are contrary to the stated requirements, I can do some investigating after I return from being in strike mode. . Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note that in lieu of admins receiving the EOTW award, deserving admins can be awarded The Administrator's Barnstar. NORTH AMERICA 04:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that so far as I can see the initial post here, for all its "bluntness," is also apparently in error. I acknowledge that there have been past and future admins who have won the award, but they were not admins at the time the award was received. Of course, if you can produce any evidence specifically contradicting that, I think we would be quite willing to see it. Regarding Eric, well, our main purpose is editor retention and that individual is someone whom many people consider in many ways an active plus to the project who has been, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, regularly subjected to criticism which might cause many people to resign from the project. In such cases, I think the occasional exception is not to be considered problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the ways to retain editors is to bring a little joy to the place. Let's look at EC's reply after he got the award
How extraordinary and completely unexpected! Thanks....
Sounds to me like the award did what it was intended to do. . Buster Seven Talk 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're concerned that the EoW Award is a popularity contest. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned whose ass has been kissed and by whom. A rough count of the 120 or so nominations comes up with about 60 separate editors that have nominated a fellow editor for the award. Now...as long as a clear reason is given and a little vetting is done by the clerks and the seconds (+), there is no investigation as to the sanctity of the nominee. I think most nominators discover someone doing something for the benefit of the encyclopedia and they decide to put their name up for the award. No ass kissing involved. Maybe a little patting on the back for a job well done but no ass kissing. What someone could do is poll the 60 or so nominators and ask if ass kissing was their intended purpose. Or....someone could poll the 120 or so recipients and ask if they felt their asses being kissed. I can provide a list of all the nominators since the Awards began. It will take time to gather but it can be done. Other than the honest feedback already provided, I really don't know what to say.Buster Seven Talk 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I responding to Ottawahitech, Note the indent :) GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As per this definition, "ass kissing" is undue complimenting of someone the person in question is seeking something from, generally of a personal nature of some sort. I can see no evidence from any of the above that anyone involved has specifically nominated anyone for the explicit reason of getting something in response from the nominee. On that basis, I regret to say that the "blunt" use of that term is perhaps more accurately described as the "irrational, unsupported, clearly prejudicial" use of that term. I acknowledge that, in some cases, the people I have nominated have been people I have had to work with in cases where most editors might be reasonably seen as getting some form of burnout, but I do not think most reasonable people would attempt to equate the one with the other. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated 26 editors. 6 were editors I worked on articles with. The other 20 were strangers. . Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week recognition is basically a "thank you" in the form of a barnstar. When you've given a barnstar or thanks to editors for their contributions, I assume there was no intent to flatter someone in order to curry favour. I'm curious to know if there is something about the nominations for Editor of the Week that lead you to believe that the nominators were motivated by considerations other than those that motivated you to thank other editors? isaacl (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure if the criteria were exactly my words, but they looks like exactly something I would write. Note there are no absolutes ("must" "can't"). In order to cast a wide net, some will get in that others might disagree with. That's ok. Our goal isn't perfection, it is improvement. As long as we get it right most of the time, we are doing good things. And as someone has pointed out, about 5 EotW have moved on to become admin. That is one of the greatest, unanticipated side effects of the program. Once we put eyes on someone, we discover that some of them would be perfect admin. I would like to think that some of the most respected and competent admin have come from the program, but I admit I may have a little bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as Ottawaitech hasn't given us anymore feedback, I'll assume he's satisfied. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He came to edit his question just now, a day and a half later, but he cannot give us the courtesy of a thank you for all the time and effort to respond to a questionable comment. Look at how long this thread is and how many editors wasted their valuable time on it. For what? Now he wants to know about a banner two years after it was formulated. No one asked or gave permission in the earliest days of the project. It was every man for himself with ideas and action and discussion and editing. And the end result was a pretty damn good project if I don't say so myself. If memory serves, I asked him a question four years ago and he still hasn't answered. I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'.. Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let you & the other members answer Ottawahitech's future questions. PS: Someone might want to advise Ottawahitech to archive his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Members of WER

You are all invited to assist at anytime. One of the simplest things that WER members can do is go to the week's awardees talk page and offer their personal 2¢ in acknowledgment. If 20 strangers, 20 well-known strangers, came to the awardees talk page I think retaining that editor and strengthening the resolve of that editor to keep doing whatever it is they are doing is increased. Think of all the time we waste in "ring-around-the-rosie" conversations. What I'm suggesting takes one minute! Editor retention happens one editor at a time. . Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing the above message relates to Misplaced Pages:Editor of the Week. How does one locate "the week's awardees talk page"? Is it the talk page of the most recent editor added to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#2015 Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy? If so, and if there is not some easier way of finding it, is it worth adding editor talk page links to that table? Or possibly there is some way to code a single shortcut link that will always point to the talk page of the most recently awarded person? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Or....See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week, right at the top of the page is what I call an Eddybox. I put it there after Go Phightins! hands out the Award (almost always Sunday Morning). The List you mention can be easily used to get to the User page and then you are one click away from the talk page. I would love to broadcast it to a wider audience. Ideas are welcome! . Buster Seven Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

I have started a discussion relevant to this project at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Editor retention message --Geniac (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent retirements

Two valuable and productive editors, User:Yngvadottir and User:Sminthopsis84 have indicated their retirements today. The first seems to be maybe a case of, basically, burnout and frustration. The latter seems to at least relate to a rather contentious and maybe argumentative FAC for the article Cucurbita. Anyone who has had any prior experience with either editor and/or knows how to contact them offwiki, or who even wants to take part in the FAC, is more than encouraged to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message for both on their talkpages. IMHO, sometimes retired editors will sign-in, to see what's been happening since their retirement. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the other but User talk:Yngvadottir is a worthy suggested read for any editor interested in Misplaced Pages and the editors that work here.. Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Yngvadottir, indeed she is an important read. Thanks for the heads-up. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement of User:Catflap08

I regret to say that the above editor has made it known today that he is leaving the project, and has pointed out some serious problems we have regarding contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors, specifically, the sometimes poor coverage in English or generally in academic journals, and also the sometimes extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics. Honestly, I think the most effective way to proceed for cases like this one and others is to try to find some way to bring more uninvolved editors to help decide the matters reasonably, but be damned if I can figure out how to do that. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Catflap08 is a recipient of the Eddy Award. He is a quality editor that is a bit frustrated with Misplaced Pages at the present. Let's hope he revives his spirit and returns. . Buster Seven Talk 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@ user:Buster7, user: John Carter I have decided to retire from editing in Misplaced Pages as to my mind it has become increasingly dysfunctional. I cleared my talk and user page yesterday. Even though de. Misplaced Pages, which to my mind is due to its editing policy, runs much smoother, I have decided to stop editing there too. All rules and regulations are useless if the quality and correctness of information on display is no more the prime objective. The ignorant clique like behaviour of some individuals, and I have to say also by some admins, does not help matters either. The areas in which I edited and specialised in are for most parts on the fringe of Japanese Buddhism / Politics / Architecture. Being an academic I am well familiar with research methods and describing facts, lately though (over the past few years) I have noticed that articles that under normal circumstances attract not a high amount of attention can serve as a soapbox and means to advertise personal opinions and views. None of us run around with a halo, but finally being personally attacked and even my nationality ridiculed is a sign for me to leave – this is not what I want my spare time to be used on. The knowledge and expertise I have gathered, also by contributing to Misplaced Pages, is still there and might be of better use in more serious projects. So thanks to all those who displayed the ability to edit and work together in an amicable productive and most of all respectful manner. I might keep an eye on one or the other article – no idea if I can be bothered to edit them though.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit

WP:16 shells from a 30 ought 6

I made it half way though your section on "Reasons editors leave" and then I knew this was all bullshit.

The reasons editors leave is because of trolls. Trolls, in this context, are editors willing to argue for the sake of argument, but not for another goal, such as, maybe, improving the encyclopedia. The troll is the predominant species here. And as long as you fail to recognize and admit it, your efforts will fail. These editors exist from the newbie level all the way up though admin to the arbcom level. They are trolls. And I don't want to hear it anymore.

My ears are too old.

I'm the number one wikisloth having set a record of a wikibreak of 61 months (it could be broken, but, still).

If I make 19 good edits, and 1 bad, in one single save, I will be reverted, having wasted hours of my time at 1RR. But there is nothing to argue, BRD-wise at the Talk page, my one bad edit was bad, and the 19 good edits were good and lost. I'm not going 2RR, that's just it. The troll wins. The troll knew they would win. There is nothing to argue. They got me 1 out of 19. I'm dead. Nany nany boo boo.

If I ask you to justify a maintenance tag, then I am asked to put it back without justification. Bullshit.

This isn't Misplaced Pages. This is Wiki-maintentance-tag-mania. I have no way, because it is not discussed, nor required to be discussed, how the hell to get rid of of the maintenance tags. Yes, "The banana is yellow". Give me a break.

No, the policies favor the trolls here. They do not have to justify the defacement of the article, but if we want to fix it, we do. Fuck off, get a policy, get a wiki that does not include the trolls, it's not that freakin hard, I did it. Is it this wiki? I hardly believe so.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• As an admin (currently without the admin bit by choice), I often find it frustrating to see someone that I knew we simply need to block, but if I block, it will be met by a barrage of questions and "admin abuse" claims, by people who fancy themselves as retaining editors, when in fact they are simply being contrarian. Editor retention isn't about saving every editor, it is about providing the best environment for those editors that want to create and improve articles. Most of the people on this page understand that, but sometimes I think many editors on the whole are more interested in the politics of the place instead of the articles. Sometimes, it is indistinguishable from trolling to me as well. It helps if you are very well versed in policy here, it makes it easier to argue against some editors, but most editors don't want to become policy experts nor waste time arguing what should be obvious, so I understand the frustration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem you're experiencing with Misplaced Pages is that it's got a far wider demographic, both due to its design and the passage of technology over time. Back in the "good old days" (I'm a veteran of Monochrome BBS from 20 years ago - haven't been on for years, I can't believe it's still running!) BBSes had a particular community with a house point of view and the unwritten rule that "the sysop is always right". A good sysop would leave the community be, but if the community were bothered by one user, chances are they'd be kicked off. You just don't get that on Misplaced Pages because nobody's really in charge and the demographic is so much wider. Since no one person can dictate policy by fiat, decisions gravitate to whoever has the most time on their hands. And since the most annoying trolls also have lots of time to spare on the internet ... well you can guess the rest. Ritchie333 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Good analogy. I started with BBSes in the late 80s, and ran a three line BBS for years in the early 90s. The hierarchy is very different. It was easier to kick troublemakers just on a whim, something we simply can't do here, even if it is clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Right or wrong, there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through when you are an admin here. Most of the time, that is a good thing, but not always. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The cultural demographics have also changed. Even as late as 1995, the internet was the domain of the young and geeks - you wouldn't get too many people above 30 turning up - and systemic bias would be more apparent, if such a thing was even considered desirable. As the article on Monochrome says, a "spod" from the UK marrying a "spod" from the US in 1996 was significant enough to be on television and broadsheet news. 20 years later, I'm British and in a relationship with an American I met (albeit indirectly) on the internet - nothing odd at all. Man, I feel nostalgic talking about mono, spending an entire weekend away in some town drinking more real ale than I knew what to do with. Did you know .... in 1996, you could get a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale for £1.30 in The Mission Nightclub in Edinburgh? Bargain! Sorry, that doesn't mean anything to anyone who wasn't there. I'll shut up now.... Ritchie333 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree that there is some trolling, I do not see that as the problem the submitter does. To me the problem that dives more editors off than anything else are unwarranted administrative actions. That isn't to say they are all abusive, but often they are unnecessary. For example, blocking IP's that have never edited, excessive length blocks or minor or made up infractions, baiting editors into blockable situations, assumptions of bad faith or lack of patience with newby's, etc. There are some problematic editors as well, but all they can do is annoy, admins can block or threaten to block and that can cause longterm morale problems by making editors and readers frustrated, confused and even just pissed off. The Arbcom only recently desysopped on admin for poor decisions but its exceptionally rare and its still too hard and too much of a novelty for admins to be even questioned about bad decisions. Now, most admins and most admins decisions are just fine. But when the same half dozen continually make mistakes and they are high output blockers, it tends to make people lose faith in this project when everyone just turns a blind eye to obvious problematic actions. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

New Editor of the Week

Misplaced Pages:Featured Lists

Cowlibob

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 15, 2015

Known for his high quality DYK contributions, he is a major contributor to hundreds of articles about film, actors, etc. At FLC he actively helps new editors rather than just point to where help is. His efforts to create lists for the movie world keeps Misplaced Pages in touch with todays movie aficionado.

Recognized for

His friendly demeanor and hard work

Notable work

Has already created 5 lists this year

Submit a nomination

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Misplaced Pages, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Misplaced Pages to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor of Week beginning March 22

Sunshine on a Cloudy Day

I dream of horses

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March22, 2015

A hard-working editor that holds the reader and her fellow editors in high esteem. Her dedication, diligence and quality work is commendable and praiseworthy.

Recognized for

being a true role model for all Wikipedians

Notable work

Spreading WikiLove all over the place

Submit a nomination

Add a new nomination now! Criteria for Editor of the Week

Visit the Editor of the Week Hall of Fame

What is editor retention?

I'm not around much, and you don't want to be me this month, but I will take the time to reiterate one point, a point that addresses some of the questions above and in the archive: What is editor retention really about? Let me offer a different perspective, a different way of looking at how I see editor retention in general. WER isn't the only effort to retain editors, although we are arguably the most visible project doing that work. There are many other valid analogies, this is just one of many....

WER is a group of farmers. Like all farmers, it isn't a binary job, but rather one in which you do good work and you will get good results. Put a little more effort into it, and you will get better results, etc. Our first focus is on the soil, the medium in which our crop grows.

We try to give Misplaced Pages better soil, a better environment, so that good things will grow from it. We do this by encouraging policies that help new users, and ones that make it possible for blocked users to come back if we reasonably believe they will be an asset. We improve the soil by helping out in dispute and content resolution, by welcoming new users, and taking the time to help someone. It all starts with the soil, the foundation, the overall environment at Misplaced Pages. The more people you have working the soil, the better that soil is likely to be.

Editor of the Week and other programs like the T-shirt giveaway (which isn't WER but does the same function) is like fertilizer. it takes existing editors and makes them stronger, more vigorous. This has additional benefits, we have learned, in that it helps us identify new leaders, as we have several admin come from the program.

The crop is articles; the primary product that Misplaced Pages produces, and the only reason it exists.

Reading is the harvest. The beautiful part is that the crop is infinite. It is literally like an apple tree that never runs out of fruit. Once we have retained excellent editors, and they produce well written and sourced prose, it is available to be enjoyed by 1 person or 100 million. The most important Wikipedian IS the reader, and they reap the greatest reward from a competent editor retention program. Keeping high value talent here means better accuracy and sourcing, more readable prose, all on a well maintained page.

While it is easy to think about the individual editors we try to assist so they can be happy, productive members of Misplaced Pages, it is important to remember that all our work here at WER, just like all the editing, admin'ing, coding and even the people running payroll at the Foundation, is all about and for the reader.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, Dennis Brown. Indeed, the WP:READER is of paramount importance to Misplaced Pages, and should always included when considering matters. NORTH AMERICA 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages board can really help with editor retention!

Hello all!

What is the wikipedia board currently doing about this crisis?

Thank you for your response! Namecheapblues (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are talking about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the question could be paraphrased as "What are the WMF doing about editor retention?" Given I'm still finding bad CSDs and have to work to to stop newbies being scared away, not a lot. Ritchie333 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is indeed the question, then we need to keep in mind that the WMF's primary goal is to attract readers who will become editors. They can assist in retention (although I've never seen them volunteer anything here, maybe they have) but how we deal with editors is a function of the community, not the Foundation. It is a separation of power thing; they generally don't get involved directly in issues like retention on the small level and instead focus on the background issues, such as making the user interface more usable, etc. We have never asked directly for WMF assistance, again, that I know of. I wouldn't be opposed to doing so, but we are community driven and I haven't, and can't as I write this, think of an situation where their assistance would be helpful. Maybe a free T-shirt for all Editor of the Week recipients, but that is kind of a small thing that by itself may not be helpful and may in fact detract from the concept. They already have a Tshirt giveaway program, which is pretty random, but I think helpful for retention in its own way. We have promoted that here before. I don't have the link on me, if someone else does, please provide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Merchandise giveaways will link you to Wikimedia. . Buster Seven Talk 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to sound overly pessimistic here but the WMF cares little about finding editors or keeping them. They do not care about the politics of the individual projects and really don't care all that much if they succeed or fail. The only time they even show up is when they want to force the community to do something. They want to exert their influence when and where they want but when the community asks them for their help in areas where their help is truly needed they do nothing because generally those areas aren't exciting, don't generate revenue and more often than not, don't interest them. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week March 29, 2015

Although he enjoys the Barouque period, this is not an image of Editor Contaldo80

Contaldo80

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 29, 2015

A focused content contributor with almost 75% of his edits to article main space. With over 20 articles on Historic subjects, he is an active member of the LGBT Misplaced Pages community.

Recognized for

being a role model for congenial and fair-minded participation in talk page discussions

Notable work

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Submit a nomination

Congratulations are in order. Stop by Contaldo's talk page and wish him well. . Buster Seven Talk 10:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Does EotW work? This weeks editor says it does, "Thank you. You are very, very kind. I must admit that a recent bad experience had put me off from editing. But your kind words have made me think again. Thank you." Editor retention happens one editor at a time.

Visit the Editor of the Week Hall of Fame

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• WikiProject Editor Retention articles