Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 6 July 2012 (→Update: d'oh!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the frustration with editors is obviously the way that blocks are handled, which is confusing at best. Often one admin blocks where another would not. I don't think we will every get real parity, but a bit more consistency is needed, and I think we need to develop a consensus to be less quick to block in 3RR situations in particular. Dr. Blofeld attempted a policy that required notification before blocking at the pump, and while I don't think a policy is going to happen, I do think that having enough admins agree to this can lead to a consensus about the subject. This can be used to notify those that block too quickly, and provide a means to change some minds about drive by blocking. To me, it isn't about assigning blame as much as changing minds, and renormalizing the system to be less reactive when dealing with known editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not just blocks. When I was blocked (validity of which is highly questionable) there was a big rush to put only templates on my user page. But when Will Beback got banned by arbcom, there was this outcry to keep his user page intact, to the point that arbs got involved. Explain the equity in that. PumpkinSky talk 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • One issue at a time :) You are welcome to start a whole different thread on templating, and add that to the front page as a bulleted concern. We have to focus on ONE, singular issue at a time (without ignoring others of course) to keep it focused on possible solutions. Otherwise it turns into a bitch fest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Hey Dennis, just wanted to say that this a great idea. :) If folks weren't aware, there's a similar page specifically about stuff the Foundation is doing on this front. I'll try to make sure we drop a link to this WikiProject somewhere there. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Innocent prisoner's dilemma

Block policy essentially requires that an editor admit his guilt, then explain what he will do in the future to make sure it doesn't happen. What about the times when the blocked person is innocent? This can happen when an admin is acting improperly, or is acting properly and just makes a mistake. For this discussion, I would prefer we assume it was a mistake and simply focus on what the solution should be. When it isn't an innocent mistake, then we have two problems, not one, so limiting the discussion to the one will keep it on topic. First reading the article Innocent prisoner's dilemma is required to get a full understanding of the problem here. The ideas proposed here are just rough ideas, and I wouldn't suggest running off an proposing them anywhere too soon. The purpose of the discussion is to try to find solutions and work out the bugs before proposing changes, to give a higher chance of reaching a consensus. Keeping arguments on topic and pithy is also helpful

A few facts

Currently, when a person is blocked for policy violation, they only have access to their talk page and to ask for an unblock. WP:UNBLOCK states: ...the blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked. as well as Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

Third party assistance for unblocking isn't covered specifically in policy, and acceptance of third party requests are inconsistent.

While it doesn't specifically state this (and perhaps it should), if an editor makes multiple requests for unblock, a different admin should review the unblock each time. The only exception would be if one of the previous declining admins decides to accept and unblock.

It should be obvious that no "justice system" is perfect, and that means that sometimes, innocent people ARE getting blocked, just as innocent people are convicted of crimes in the judicial system. What is needed is a system to allow review, but won't be used primarily as a source for abuse.

Since sometimes good admins make mistakes in blocking, we have to create an environment that doesn't attack the blocking admin when they are wrong. Accountability is important and should be part of the system, but we have to allow that mistakes will be made in good faith. In order to get admins to freely admit a mistake, you have to not bludgeon them for that occasional mistake, and encourage self-review.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Depends on whose version of the truth you want to believe. What's civil? What's incivil? Depends on your background, beliefs, and culture.PumpkinSky talk 19:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the first time the word "civil" is used on this page, so at a loss as to what you mean. I'm trying to start conversations in singular, digestible chunks. Of course, I can't control where the discussion goes, but I try to keep it focused on ideas for solutions, and put different problems in their own full thread, all on the same page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• I like the idea in theory, but in practice how do you handle those admins who are not amiable to self-review? Admins are human, too, which means there will always be those who do not feel that they make mistakes or bad calls. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• There is a key to it over on the block pol discussion page, that slab someone put up mentioning the last 500 blocks, now that editor we need, That editor can write, and write well. Sure, people didn't agree with them, makes no difference, they could be lured and forced to do our bidding :) No, but seriously, that editor has the gift of the gab.

Now the point was the last 500 blocks, and the analysis thereof, separating the manner in which unblocking is handled by breaking it down into groups is very important. Throw away socks, (oh btw there is a sock investigation request for me right now, :) quite an earnest well-meaning editor opened it, unfortunately the docs are such a complete mess, he/she has found how to request a check with great competence, without the legitimate uses of socks policies being placed in his/her path.) Throw away socks, their blocks, and unblock requests, and the requests of long-time editors in good standing need to be handled differently. There is little investment in explaining a block to a throw away account, because there is little investment in making them, so admins are constrained by math to be brief when encountering those accounts. Investigating the block as part of a review would need the blocking admins input because of the time cost in writing down the reasoning, it couldn't be done n the first place. So the admin has to be involved. For longtime editors who have been blocked, the resource constraints are inverse. The faster the admin makes the block, and the less information that is given at the time, results in more time consumed later by editors over the block. The quicker they are with old editors, the worse the block, and the more time is consumed down the road. One size doesn't fit all, not in the block, and not in the unblock pol.

The greater the investment an editor makes in the community the more they expect in return, argue all you want with me there, you'll just be wrong, it's elemental human nature. Editors of long standing expect to be treated fairly and expect to have their say, and expect 'due process' a proper fair show. If there is no show to be seen, and a long time editor is blocked and reviewed the same way as a 5 minute sock you lose ten editors at least for every one editor you block (counting editors who stay, but become a ghost in the shell, disillusioned and no longer motivated, counting them as lost, so you can count 20 half hearted editors as 10 lost). The long time editors have community ties, and cannot leave unnoticed. 100 bad blocks for editors with 10 edits, and nobody is going to care less when they examine them, well, they will care, proportional to the likelyhood that it was a gf newbie, but not nearly as much trouble is caused when they look at the 10 edits and the admin says sock or something like that,

For a long time editor, all doubt must be erased from the minds of onlookers, and the block has to be properly explained and open to review, otherwise, it's just a matter of onlookers thinking 'when is it my turn to be (mis)treated that way'

For the shortie newbie block, admin required. For the longtime editor block, there is always going to be the question of conflict, there is always going to need to be little or no doubt left, and face the facts, there are always going to be a lot of editors involved with it. So many that the original admin is more of a hindrance to the process than an asset. There is going to be so much input either for or against that the participation of the original admin will be problematic, and the amount of influence the original admin has over the outcome of the review, the more damage is done, and the further apart from the community the admins are pushed. Independent reviews have the opposite effect, the community has more trust in the decision, the more reviewers involved, the greater the trust in the decision. Greater the trust in the original admin also, it is easier to have faith in someone whose mistakes can be corrected, someone who is happy to rely on the community or colleagues to 'fine tune' the block, then a dictator, where the only thing the community is asked to do is trust their dictators whose decisions can't be questioned. So unblock reviews need to be handled differently, how to do it is down the line, but that is the initial analysis. Oh I read that report on people who had left, I haven't ever seen such a report before, that's brilliant. Everything in it came as no surprise except for one thing, and that was the influence of the editor interface, I never really thought about the interface that much, it's one of the smallest things, but it is significant. The remainder of the report was all very simple. Penyulap ☏ 06:08, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

What report are you referring to? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap is currently blocked, so can't reply. I would expect it's among some of the links below (in the "Further Research" section. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Right now we have a situation (I'm not being specific as this is part of a larger, general problem, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about) where a user has been offered reprieve from a two-week block in exchange for "a credible inclination that his problematic behaviior has stopped". Obviously this isn't going to happen, as the user honestly feels his behavior was not problematic (other than a minor issue to which he has admitted and said he would have redacted if given the chance). So, unless an admin with balls comes along, and says, "whatever the case, this block has served its purpose", this user will remain needlessly blocked, unable to improve the encyclopedia, for the full of two weeks. We have admins with balls; lots of them. It takes quite an incredible amount of testicular tissue to do some of the things I've seen admins do as of late. If only this chutzpah could be used to bring us together. I've seen many an admin display a userbox stating, "this administrator can and will make difficult blocks, if necessary". How about difficult unblocks? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasons editors leave

Not sure how these were chosen, but from my personal experience pov editing and personal attacks are as important as the 4 listed (I'd list the top 3 as edit warring, pov editors and personal attacks, but obviously other people's experiences differ). Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• updated. You are free up update it yourself, as well. The project is only a few hours old, so watch out for wet paint and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think that "Suspicion of admin cliques" is a major, or even minor reason. And I hope this isn't going to be part Admin bashing. I think Admins make mistakes, but I think the main thing is lack of Admin action in fields such as pov editing and editwarring. Various reasons for that ranging from lack of knowledge/stamina etc, lack of community support at times, etc. Boredom is another reason people leave, or an interest only in adding one article. An incorrect understanding of Misplaced Pages is another - people start to edit thinking it's like writing an essay or a place where they can tell the world something new, and find that they are expected to add references from reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of people who do think that admins are part of the problem, and the perception alone is part of the problem. Often problems are due to a lack of clarity in policies, leading to inconsistent results from admins, meaning we need to clarify the policies. As I stated early on, my goal is to get other admins like myself to join and bridge some of the misunderstandings. This should be a solutions based project, and bashing wouldn't be tolerated. I've tried to make that clear from the start, this is about positive changes, not a place to point fingers. At the same time, you have to acknowledge that frustration with admins IS one problem and where we can find solutions, like better engagement and policy clarification, we should seek to do so. The goal of retaining quality editors should encompass all methods toward this goal. Seeking out quality editors that never get noticed and finding ways to reward them is another, as encouragement is a beneficial tool in retention. And there are hundreds of great ideas out there that I've never thought of, but at least we can have one place to discuss them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• To add one more point about admins: I'm new enough that I've screwed up a few blocks and perhaps made the problem worse for an individual or two. Not bad blocks per se, but I've removed talk page access through ignorance or accidentally at SPI and those are problems as well. It doesn't make me evil, but it was mistakes that I would like to see the next new admin not make if we can find ways to add clarity to the new admin training, etc. From my experience, most admin "mistakes" are due to simple mistakes or not understanding policy on a point, not malice. I'm only 2 months into the mop and often find it frustrating that when I do have to block, it isn't always clear what is and isn't appropriate. These can lead to frustration that I would like to see reduced, just based on my own experiences. I don't want to be bashed either, but it would be nice to be better educated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I hope this discussion is not merely for admins but open to all contributors. If it is for admins only, feel free to remove my edits. Reasons why editors leave :

1. Administrator problems (some, not all) : abuse of powers, rudeness especially in edit summaries and talk pages, assuming bad faith, revenge edits, threats (e.g. do as I say or I will block you), abuses of blocking policy, etc.

Solution : Better vetting and examining past history especially how they deal with people they have had problems with before being made administrators. The editing practices of current admins should also be evaluated and those who breach Wiki policies should have actions taken against them. Action must be seen to be taken against those admins who abuse their power. Normal editors sometimes feel like they have to "pussy foot" around admins even when they are in the right. This must be erradicated in order to make Wiki more inclusive and equal place.

2. Deletion of new articles especially those contributed by new editor.

Solution : Wiki needs these new editors. They must have been passionate about the subject to write about it. Nominating for the deletion of their article they had spend a long time writing is disheartening and discourages them. Wiki has too many rules and these editors may not be familiar with them. From my experience as an inclusionist, I find that in many cases, had the new page patroller done proper checks they could have established the notability of the subject and add the necessary sources themselves rather than adding a AFD/Prod tag. The problems, defensiveness and negativity in the AFD talk page could have been avoided had the patroller done that followed by a quick message on the editor's talk page of how to do things next time. This encourages and educates. Once we loose new editors we loose them. It will take a special editor not let that affect them and continue editing. Experienced editors know that they should not take the deletion of their articles personally. However, we should not expect new editors to feel the same way. All they see is that the article they spent a long time writing is not considred important enough to be included in Wiki. We should be very careful.

3. Also linked to the above, do not be too quick to assume lack of notability just because you cannot find much on the internet. A small typo in the name or a variation of spelling e.g. French, English or the local language may explain for this. A short message to the editor's talk page to verify the spelling or add all the possible variations can sometimes establish notability. Assume good faith. Tamsier (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Tamsier for your useful contributions. I especially appreciate your suggestions in regard to new editors. It might be possible to set up a list of experienced editors willing to assist newcomers as mentors. They could be supported by a facility providing access to recently deleted articles from newcomers (or those threated with deletion) allowing them to review the articles and the reasons for deletion so they can offer assistance. Maybe there should also be safeguards against immediate deletion of articles from new editors for at least an initial period of a month or so. Bots could also be reprogrammed so as not to pick up newcomers' articles such as biographries for deletion just because they do not contain references. On notability, I also agree that many of Misplaced Pages's checks are suspect. They do not take account of the vast amount of published literature which is not accessible on the internet or of newspaper or journal articles which are purposely restricted to paying customers. Nor do they appear to take sufficient account of Misplaced Pages articles on the same topic in other languages. What we need is a safeguard mechanism for newcomers which is just as efficient as the methods now in use for negative criticism and deletion. - Ipigott (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A few comments.

• 1) First, it would be very useful, if possible, to identify editors who are primarily or exclusively POV pushers of some sort or other. Regarding content about such things as religions and/or other "belief systems", like maybe communism, atheism, socialism, political liberalism, conservatism, and maybe specific aspects of the paranormal in general, and such. I think we have now and have had a number of editors, including some who have been around a long time and have gained some respect from their colleagues, who are, basically, here to push their POV. Such editors when forced to face their POV pushing will, at least sometimes, blame other editors for their situation and leaving, accusing those other editors of being POV pushers and forcing them to leave as a result. This allows them to see themselves, and perhaps have others who seek to misuse wikipedia in the same way see them, as being "victims" of other established POV pushers. I have seen several editors falsely accuse others of POV pushing, and in some cases retire, at least in the short term, from editing on such bases. This misrepresentation of some other editors, including admins, probably helps contribute to the perception of evil admins. Perhaps establishing some sort of more active, perhaps informal if necessary, admin conduct review board where such retiring POV pushers' claims could be examined, and, if found baseless, rejected, might contribute to the general level of respect for admins who haven't engaged in misconduct.
• 2) A greater emphasis on creating "child" articles, like perhaps on books and individual theories, would probably be very useful. Again, working primarily in religion, paranormal, and other related fields, there are a number of theories out there which are certainly notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia as individual articles, but whose acceptance or respect in the relevant fields is perhaps such that they are not significant enough to be included in the main articles on the topics, where supporters of such theories seem to very often consider to be the first and primary place material about those theories should be placed. This seems to be particularly common in hotly debated issues about controversial topics. I don't know how to address this, but I think if we could help promote creation of these child articles in such topics, that might help a lot.
• 3) Again, in religion and other articles about belief systems, paranormal, and the like, there is and I think has been for some time a disagreement about which sources are considered most reliable. Does perhaps the most recent book on a given topic count as the most reliable, even if it is clearly presenting a fringe or minority opinion, as many books do? Bart Ehrman said in I think Newsweek? that the way many academics quickly establish themselves today is by at a comparatively early stage writing some book or paper promoting a plausible, if not likely, sensationalist idea. On that basis, they get invited to several talk shows, TV documentaries, and the like, and their names become known. Unfortunately, many people who know little if anything about a topic can be predisposed to believe in some sort of "conspiracy" about it, and accept these often ludicrous ideas right away. The DaVinci Code comes to mind here. Providing better, clearer, indications of how to deal with such questions, and where to find the more respected and accepted sources, would help a lot.
• 4) One specific idea which maybe could be directly acted upon. I think we should very much encourage all editors to enable e-mail. Many editors of some standing will retire when they are faced with POV pushing or other misconduct which for whatever reason they personally cannot effectively work against. As a "last chance," I would hope to see some sort of way that after announcing a retirement a editor known to them, whom they might respect, could contact them and see if they could somehow deal with the issue which caused the retirement.
• 5) Finally, and he is shutting up now, I would like to see maybe, perhaps even in the welcoming templates and new editor pages, some sort of clear indication of some kind of "reunion" period once or twice a year. I'm thinking here of college students and the like who write articles because, basically, they wrote them in school and wanted to share the results of their research with others. If they had e-mail established, and they kept it active, we could notify them of the times of such "reunions" in their topic areas, and maybe, if nothing else, get them back for a short time once or twice a year to help improve the articles they already developed and/or work on related articles. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. This last idea is even to my eyes maybe the weakest and most easily exploitable, which is why I myself have serious reservations about it. But, maybe, perhaps with editors who have been active for some time, editors who specifically request it, and/or as a regular event, such as perhaps every two or three months, we might have, either at ANI or elsewhere, the equivalent of a morbidity and mortality conference regarding editors who have either formally retired or otherwise left active editing. One of the editors I most miss is User:Pastordavid, who left because his wife had just given birth to their first kid. I can imagine few better reasons to leave. Others, just as highly thought of by several remaining editors, like User:Hiding, left for I think different reasons, not all of which I know, but some of which might relate to problems he and other editors may have had. Some sort of M&M meeting might help find any recurring problems that might exist among such editors as Hiding. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Increase retention of quality, experienced editors at Misplaced Pages

I certainly welcome this initiative which I interpret as an attempt to keep good people involved in Misplaced Pages. I think, however, that it is equally important to make sure that reasonably new editors who show interest and ability are given the encouragement they need to continue working with us. I constantly see new editors frightened away by all the templates plastered on their initial attempts or indeed by good contributions being deleted on technical grounds (e.g. lack of properly presented references). Misplaced Pages's many bots are often play a part here. Now that young people are increasingly happy to spend their time on Facebook or Geocaching where they are likely to get immediate and usually positive responses to their contributions, Misplaced Pages by contrast often unintentionally creates a feeling of mistrust, incompetence and even hostility. Even for some of the more experienced editors, this can lead to disputes which in turn provide grounds for blocking and then socking.

I would therefore suggest first that we change this goal to the more inclusive "Increase retention of competent editors at Misplaced Pages". Secondly, rather than becoming bogged down in emotional reactions, that we attempt to base our work as far as possible on an objective, statistical analysis of who drops out, after what period of involvement and, if possible, for what particular reason(s). We will of course need to call on the assistance of those who can develop templates able to detect the pertinent data and symptoms (unless such tools already exist?). But for the time being, and before I make any changes to the project page, I would be interested to hear whether there is any interest in following this approach. - Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hesitate to use "competent" only because that is a bit subjective, but that is the goal, to keep good people here and not scare away new users. Personally, I try using hand written warnings or notifications rather than templates in all but the most obvious cases for that reason. And I agree 100% that getting bogged with emotions should be avoided. We do need to objectively seek out the problems and we should calmly and steadily work toward real world solutions, not just complain about them. Sounds like you are right on target with the objectives. I like the idea of the project being a broad one, dealing with anything that is related to maintaining quality editors here, from rewards to removing abuses, and everything in between. Making changes to the front page is encouraged, the project is less than a day old. I just haven't seen a centralized project to deal with retention, a place to discuss policies before attempting an RFC (which often fail due to a lack of planning), and to learn what the real problems are so they can be addressed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "competent" to cover "quality, experienced" but on this basis, unless anyone disagrees, I think we should go for Increase retention of editors at Misplaced Pages. We could perhaps also include collaboration with Wikimedia initiatives such as their strategy for participation and specifically their participation priorities. They also have a recent page titled Growth and Contribution Program/FAQ which may be of interest. It may be a good idea to keep these initiatives informed of this new Misplaced Pages project. - Ipigott (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in wholehearted agreement with establishing a broad based project with the basic building block (Increase retention of editors at Misplaced Pages) of retaining quality editors. Many, if not most, of the troublesome editors self-identify themselves by their actions. One of our primary focusses should be on the new editors that show potential but have gone Up the Down Staircase. To often they are chastised to such an extent that their potential is never realized. They quit and rarely return. Of course, the other end of the situation is just as important; long time quality editors that get tarred and feathered and run out of town. I'm not suggesting that we join the various "fights" and increase the drama. But we do need to be a calming voice that reminds others that losing editors has a cost. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Equality in Enforcement?

One issue that seems to come up with some regularity, and does resonate with me when I consider my participation here, is the question of equal enforcement of policy. The perception that admins (and possibly some established users and/or skilled newcomers who know how to work AGF) can "get away" with behavior that would see lesser contributors blocked or admonished is a powerful thing. Badgering seems to be more acceptable than standing up to those who badger, to give another possible example. I've been on the fringes of a couple those things, and seeing the level of passive-aggressive bullying that can slide under the radar is disappointing. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this concern. --Dirk Beetstra 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why 'possibly' some established users? There's no 'possibly', it happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it does. I was trying to stick with DB's intent and avoid personalizing the discussion. And the same does happen with the perennial passive/aggressive POV pushers. In any case, no matter what group you look at, it tends to fall back on uneven enforcement. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that there are some established users who frankly get away with murder in terms of incivility and "civil" pov-pushing (most of whom in my experience are not sysops but with a few notable exceptions) and as a sysop who takes WP:5 seriously I have found little support from fellow admins (and less from the "wiki-friends" of these established users, and less again from the "teh adminz on whatisitpedia are alz evilz" crowd) for rigorous & equally enforcement of WP:5. For sysops the problem is if we make enforcements against these users they WILL get over-turned and we'll be lashed for trying to enforce policy equally, and then we're likely to reflect on whether WP is worth it. I see a lot of good sysops who are burnt out by this. So I think Intothatdarkness is raising a good point. I honestly believe that a ban on ad hominem (and lying) would solve most of these problems on site but until the community gets on board with actually letting us enforce policy fully we can't--Cailil 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember even some individual-user specific "G---- rules" regarding some editors who shall not be named, who are, or were, even supported by some individual arbitrators. Making a policy of excessive ad hominem and dishonesty would be great, but proving the latter is all but impossible in some cases, and drawing the line on the former is problematic. Maybe, if nothing else, a kind of extremely unofficial "Friends of G----'s targets" group, or group to help defend individuals who ask for help in such situations, to prevent such sometimes newer editors from getting disproportional sanctions to the other side, might be, at least in the short run, something that would keep some editors from leaving when they enter into such situations? John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we see do some research first?

There have been other discussions about this. I think there was a survey? There are figures about editors produced monthly, recently discussed on Jimbo's page (there was some problem about the figures but there was also a suggestion that the figures were flat, ie not gaining, not losing, recently). Before we do anything we need to see what's been said/researched/done before. If we don't do this first, I don't think this is going to fly. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would check out the tons of research already done on this topic, especially the list below. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Former Contributors Survey Results
2. Editor Trends Study
3. Findings from the Wikimedia Summer of Research
4. and last but not least, the metrics report card that the WMF uses.

Thanks for that Steven, I'll have to get some reading done tonight :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful of 'flat' statistics, they are a lie. If the number of editors remains a constant, then editor retention is extremely bad. The penetration of the Internet into people's homes, the rising population of the earth and so on all point to a wikipedia that is being marginalised if it is not growing beyond the growth-rate of the Internet, as it has not yet reached its saturation point, or if it has reached saturation, we're all screwed like I've been telling you all along :) Penyulap ☏ 06:17, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Procedural suggestion

I know this is all very new, so my suggestion is obviously open to discussion and tinkering. It seems like we are having discussions on different issues all on this Talk page. The issues seem at least partly related to the "initiatives" on the project page and perhaps the "reasons for leaving" list on the project page. I would like to see subpages for each discussion and reserve the Talk page for more global issues connected to the project. I think that would help structurally, and it would also permit editors to keep track of which discussions they are participating in (watchlists don't keep track of topics on a single page).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

well just get started, it's a goer, you can count on that one. If there is one thing that the lot of us can surely do, it's talk for several screen-fulls per day for the first week at least, so there is plenty for the sub pages to get them started. Penyulap ☏ 06:22, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps you, Bbb23, would like to make a start on at least two or three yourself. I think we should also try to develop a better understanding of how these discussions can lead to actual improvements in the situation on the basis of action. So perhaps each of the subpages could be divided in to two sections: discussion and ideas for active follow-up. We could, for example, consider publicizing suggestions for improvement through other WikiProjects and draw up a list of influential contacts liable to assist us in achieving our aims. We could also use Signpost or sites such as the Village Pump to attract wider interest. But there may be better suggestions. In any case, we should guard against simply becoming a talk shop where people can complain about the treatment they've been experiencing. - Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and expected it to happen. I am NOT the best person for formatting, and since we are making rock soup here, I just brought the kettle. Everyone should feel free to just jump in and make changes. This is NOT my project, it is Misplaced Pages's, and everyone who is concerned about all the different reasons we lose good editors. I would absolutely love for someone to format, change and fix my start. My work was to start the process and setup some basic guidelines for the purpose of the project, implementing it is everyone's job equally. No permission is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Demagogues

I won't link to the article as it is in such a sorry state. You'd best be looking to a dictionary.

Pretty good examples can be found on any given hour at ANI, people who enjoy voting just for the sake of voting will tag a +1 according to a 3 second scan of what is going on, so they can say "I was here too", people who vote contrary to what they believe is correct because they dislike the person they are voting against, actually get your own summaries.

The fact of the matter is that wikipedia can't be fixed, the examples that I have created prove it beyond doubt, just as every study given says the same thing. The fact is, your project is well meaning and earnest, however, getting the party crashers out of your house once they are in charge is beyond your resolve. They legally own your house.

Any 3 people can join together and carve a path through the crowds of good editors on wikipedia, removing from the project those that they don't like, study after study has shown as much.

In the playground at school, kids shout 'he's the bad guy !!' and everyone enjoys the chase and the repetitive shouts of who is an indian/cowboy/baddie and the ensuing ruckus. They do not need to grow out of this mentality in order to participate in the process of wikipedia, you do not have any methods available to filter them out, nor any resolve to do so. The school council report, mentioned several times on this page show the percentages of editors who are growing tired of these games and leaving, however as there are no teachers in the playground, the kids are not going to listen to the school council's boring report, and you're not going to explain to the children that shouting 'your the baddie' is not appropriate in an adult environment.

(everyone can skip half of the next paragraph it's not for you)

Incidentally, although you cannot see the success of the example template that I have created for you on my userpage, I'd like to draw attention to the fact of it's success prior to your ability to see that success, you can ask Auntie Pesky why that is, although she needs to keep away from putting words into my mouth in regards to naming the equipment I have, because one of her labels is wrong. The rest of what she says, that we are all on such a scale is fine, but I'm not on the scale for the reasons she may think, and I do tell the absolute truth to you Auntie, but you just don't believe me sometimes, like for the numbers that I give, you said I can't do that, but I can, and the scale isn't indicating the equipment, it's just indicating the shadow of what I have available. Also, you have a recent slab saying we all have the ability to do that for some animals. You know where the link is between the two topics.

I was saying, the ramp-up time on the template, even though I may have set the measuring point a little high for quick success, the duration is the measurement of the resolve you see, it does show that it's already far too late to save the show, even though the example is still a useful success from the future. The equation can't be changed, in years to come you'll see that clearer than you can now. Oh sorry for changing languages in the paragraph above, that was a private chat really. I do that a lot, put private messages in public places like on Richards page, and he issues the CRC check saying message received 100%. It's like the old modems that work on phone lines, the negotiation of protocols available sounds funny, but once established you can change languages mid-sentence to address different sectors of the readership demographic, it's just easiest this way rather than resorting to email. I can't be bothered, I can't be bothered with any of this really and I don't like the condescending remarks that it's set up for me, I see and accept the future(even if you don't) and shortcut my wiki-life, I don't need 200,000 edits to reach the same league as everyone else, my viral art is a faster shortcut to examine with great detail the perspectives of the veterans, one day you'll catch up to the shortcomings of this place, where the endless commentaries, professionally prepared reports from the committee and endless constant examples won't illustrate this for you, reality and alternate projects will. Whatever.

Anyhow after proofreading, I'll clarify that I'm still willing to help predict the success and failure rates of any little mechanism that you like to propose, but only if you want me to do so, and so long as you can pass a basic screening process (instant and painless I assure you, wasn't it Dennis?) then I'm happy to do so by email if you want to keep my lovely vet rep out of it. Penyulap ☏ 02:16, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team

I recently discovered Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team which was a project that seemed to have similar goals as this one. It may be useful to invite members of that project to this one and to look at some of the attempts of that project. One good idea I saw was New Editor mentoring. This could help with retention of new editors who would otherwise quickly leave. I'll be thinking about this idea some more and may draft an initiative proposal of sorts to be discussed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. There is some overlap, but our goals are bit broader here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions

Hey folks! I'm the author of the recent blog post: Kids these days: the quality of new Misplaced Pages editors over time. I'm posting to direct you to some work I'm doing to identify the cause of the decline and test potential solutions. I have a writeup of a multi-method analysis of the English Misplaced Pages's newcomer retention issues. This write-up is a summary of a larger paper (PDF linked in summary) accepted to the scholarly journal, American Behavior Scientist. For your convenience, here is a super brief summary of the results:

• The proportion of newcomers who are trying to be productive has not decreased since 2006.
• The source of the decline is decreased retention of these good-faith newcomers.
• When newcomers have their revisions reverted, they leave.
  • Newcomers are more likely to get reverted (for similar edits) today than in 2005.
• The use of tools like Huggle appears to be exacerbating the revert problem.
  • Getting reverted by a Huggle substantially increases the probability that a good-faith newcomer will leave quickly.
• Young editors (post newcomers, but pre Wikipedian) used to be able to contribute to policies and guidelines, but not anymore.
  • Everyone is writing essays now, but essays are not enforceable.

I'm excited about this WikiProject and hope to work with you guys to try make a dent in the declining detention. --EpochFail 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing, not mentioned above, also comes to mind. For most of the content newer editors would be interested in developing, there already exists a substantial, generally well sourced article, and, possibly, substantial prior discussion regarding the material they want to add, particularly if it isn't news-related. And, yes, with the sometimes incredible amount of archived discussion on some of these most popular pages, it can be really difficult to see if what you want to add has already been dsicussed. I have a feeling that many editors, when they see, effectively, that other editors are saying "Yeah, we old hands already talked about that, and found it wasn't worth including, at least to the weight that you want," will feel, understandably, somewhat offended and leave on that basis. Having said that, however, I'm not sure how to deal with instances of that sort of problem. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

These are all good points but how can we use them to change the status quo? Can anyone come up with viable proposals which have a chance of being implemented? And is anyone interested in pushing them through? --Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that is hidden in the section above this one might solve a portion of this problem. The Teahouse is also made to solve that very issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan Vesey: I have looked at the Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team project. It looks to me as if it is currently doing a good job in trying to make new editors feel more welcome. The Editor Retention project, on the other hand, it more focused on keeping people who are already contributors but who are frustrated by the often hostile treatment they receive. Maybe you could present the aims of this project to the Contribution Team and investigate how we can work together? --Ipigott (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

While the Contribution Team still has a few new members, it appears to be defunct. I just pointed it out because some of the ideas may be useful. I also disagree with any notion that this project should focus on established contributors. I am of the opinion that increasing retention of new users may be our best shot. I've also talked to Dennis, and I've got another user creating a table from the list of editors who placed {{retired}} on their talk pages so we can contact them to ask them if they are interested in rejoining the project and/or if they have an idea to fix whatever problem caused them to leave. Sorry if I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just butting in here, while I see where you're coming from Ryan re: not focussing solely on established editors I'd echo Ipigott's suggestion, in a slightly different way. In order to help long term retention one thing this project could do is ask users who are reducing their time on WP why so, and what would help restore them to the site (you're unlikely to see much return for your efforts in looking fro responses from those who have already left for good). The reason for this is twofold:
1) if we figure out how to help editors who know the ropes, procedures and policies we can educate new editors in ways that a) help them integrate into WP's community and b) help them stick with it for years (as some of us have). There's no point in retaining new editors for months only to see them catch the same rot & leave.
2) John makes a very good point above. We have nearly 4 million articles written today - WP is a vastly different experience now as to 2006. There are fewer new articles to write. There are an increasing number of featured articles that require a standard of writing and research to make positive & constructive contributions to. We need not only to be nice to new editors but to equip them with an understanding of how to do good research and what pitfalls to avoid.
Many of us on site are education and higher education professionals in various fields. There is a pool of knowledge on how to help ppl learn to research and there are ppl with the skills to deliver that here. Also as Epochfail points out if there are issues with widely used tools (like Huggle or Twinkle etc) we should look at this, get the evidence, and open an RFC on disabling these features in order to retain new good faith users--Cailil 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One small point. There are still a huge number of articles out there which haven't yet been created. I can think of the mind-boggling number of small, but minimally notable, Christian denominations, groups, religious orders, churches, and what all out there - I know of at least several thousand we don't yet have articles on. However, in a lot of cases, it can be harder to find RS on some of these smaller topics, so editors, including some older ones, try to add the material on these less-notable topics to already extant articles, where the material often won't meet WEIGHT requirements. When it gets removed there, they might leave. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles might be a good place to start listings of some of these missing articles, and I am still trying to get together a list of the encyclopedias reviewed by journals on the JSTOR site. When that gets done, we might be able to have some of the WikiProjects on major topics, like for instance Christianity, have lists of articles which are apparently notable enough, and reference works which have material on them to help such articles. That might help a few editors stay around. But, for others, who, for instance, think Elvis killed Kennedy as per some book or other and want it prominently placed in those two biographies, those editors can, sometimes, seem reasonable, but are probably not long to stay here anyway. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

Thanks to John Carter for helping with some formatting. Ryan Vesey is working on getting us a part time bot. Many others have helped on a great many other parts as well. We should have a userbox link on the front page with a few userboxes to choose from very soon. I'm not ignoring the talk here but haven't had time to read everything as I've been trying to tell a lot of people who have an interest and skills that will help us work toward these goals. We still aren't sure what the solutions will be, but soon we can start compiling lists of editors who have left and perhaps we can contact to come back, editors at risk of leaving, and of course we can start working on policy ideas that will encourage people to stay. I've also made it a personal goal to try to find at least a couple of people, typically wikignomes, who have gone unnoticed and unrewarded, and give them a well deserved Barnstar for their specific contributions. All of this is within the goals of keeping great authors and editors here. So pardon the mess and confusion, as we are just now building this house. Thanks to everyone for their patience and shared desire to keep good editors here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As you must know, some of us are waiting on the sidelines, eager to participate but reluctant to get in the way. The foundation looks good and the support beams for the roof and walls look substantial. Whenever you're ready for the laborers/carpenters/etc. to start, just give a whistle. In the meantime, I'll be welcoming new editors, random editing, and dispensing some barnstars...and lessening drama whenever possible. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Helping here isn't about what we say here as much as what we do away from here. Lessening drama, getting involved with new editors is a great way to help, as is finding and recognizing ignored editors. I expect to submit an RfA (d'oh!) RFC in a day or two that affects what we do here, via a change in WP:BLOCK to make it a bit "nicer" and clear up a few things. Nothing major, just clarifying what we all already believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You better submit an RfC. We wouldn't want any Misplaced Pages policies leaving the project after a bad RfA. I mean if WP:V got up and left because it felt like it wasn't wanted anymore, we'd have a bit of a conundrum on our hands.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! No, I've already had one RfA this year, that is plenty. I'm hoping you pass yours Ryan, you know you have my support. If you don't, you will certainly pass in 6 months but I think that Misplaced Pages will benefit more from you having it sooner rather than later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)