| Revision as of 01:47, 4 July 2014 editMark Miller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →Discussion of merging barnstars: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:33, 14 November 2024 edit undoIntothatdarkness (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,313 edits Restored revision 1242599018 by Cewbot (talk): Test edit?Tags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Tabbed header}}</noinclude> |
|
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Tabbed header}}</noinclude> |
|
{{skiptotalk}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|counter = 36 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|wp=yes|WT:WER|WT:RETENTION}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-04-22/WikiProject report|writer= ]| ||day =22|month=April|year=2013}} |
|
{{WikiProject Editor Retention|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-04-22/WikiProject report|writer= ]| ||day =22|month=April|year=2013}} |
|
|
|
|subject = WikiProject |
|
{{archives |
|
|
|
|author = Tom Simonite |
|
| image = File:Nuvola filesystems folder games.png |
|
|
|
|title = The Decline of Misplaced Pages |
|
| style = background-color: white; border-color: #aaa |
|
|
| index = |
|
|date = October 22, 2013 |
|
| auto = long |
|
|org = MIT Technology Review |
|
|
|url = https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ |
|
| bot = MiszaBot II |
|
|
|
|quote = In July 2012, some editors started a page called WikiProject Editor Retention with the idea of creating a place to brainstorm ideas about helping newcomers and fostering a friendlier atmosphere. Today the most vibrant parts of that project’s discussion page have gripes about “bullying done by administrators,” debates over whether “Misplaced Pages has become a bloody madhouse,” and disputes featuring accusations such as “You registered an account today just to have a go at me?” |
|
| age = 30 |
|
|
|
}} |
|
| search = yes |
|
|
|
{{Notice |One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the idea of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. No one who discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is completely against our entire mission, and will neither be endorsed nor tolerated.}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Editor Retention}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them== |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 11:12, 27 May 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2000805138}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) ] (]) |
|
|
|
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied. |
|
|
|
|
== Kudpung == |
|
|
|
|
|
Many have been worried about Kudpung as he just disappeared 3 months ago. I talked to him a few minutes ago on Skype, 3am his time (oops...) and he is fine. He is taking an extended break but all is well. That is about all the news I have, but there is no need to worry. ] | ] | ] 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Great, thanks. ] (]) 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Good to hear, thanks.--] (]) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank you!--] (]) 00:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Thank you all for your concerns. I am back, but only very sporadically for the time being. I may throw in the occasional edit such as blocking persistent blatant vandals I catch on the fly on my WL, or an occasional edit to an AfD, or RfA etc, but I cannot for the moment get involved in issues that would require my undivided attention, or participation in anything over a number of consecutive days. --] (]) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Glad to see you back, even if only occasionally. The Nomination page missed you. :~) ```]<small>]</small> 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Leaflet for Wikiproject Editor Retention at Wikimania 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
Hi all, |
|
|
|
|
|
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London. |
|
|
|
|
|
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g: |
|
|
|
|
|
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film |
|
|
|
|
|
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers. |
|
|
|
|
|
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____ |
|
|
|
|
|
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost |
|
|
|
|
|
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
'''' |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
] (]) 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just commented over at ] but I discussed this with my partner last night, and editor retention and providing a better Misplaced Pages experience for newbies is something I am ''strongly'' supportive of, so I might be able to draft something up. ] ] ] 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I've parked a draft at ], but since the deadline is tomorrow, feedback will need to be quick. ] ] ] 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Only one real boo boo, fixed. I added EotW note as well. Feel free to reword, of course. ] | ] | ] 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WIkiGnomes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I had a good offwiki conversation with {{u|Dank}} the other day (so if this is a bad idea, he can share in the blame). One of his concerns was about gnomes, and it got me to thinking. We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. What we don't have is enough gnomes doing real maintenance, people to clean up citations, fix obvious little problems, find sources, etc. The kind of people we try to celebrate with the Editor of the Week. I started out gnoming years ago but there isn't any project that really assists gnomes, or none that I know of. We have lots of categories of articles without citation, or that have various tags, but I don't know of any centralized place that lists them all. These are all templates and categories, so I don't think that organizing or maintaining them would be incredibly difficult, but it seems that a simple, central hub of "articles that need attention" would make gnoming easier and could serve as a good place for newish users to learn and practice what they know. A '''"Gnome Dome"''' that links to all the areas that needs gnoming. In my opinion, this would be inline with our goals in editor retention, and would give us a place to direct new (but not too new) editors looking to make a difference. Any thoughts? ] | ] | ] 15:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Great idea - no one should have to be "Gnome Alone". ] (]) 16:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::''We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed.'' - maybe so, but I watchlist "pagan" Roman emperors and notables such as Marc Antony etc precisely because of high levels of vandalism and just about every day I catch some vandalism in those articles that has slipped past the bots and vandalism patrol.] (]) 19:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not trying to diminish our vandalism patrolling, but there are a lot of resources in that area and lots of people patrolling recent changes and new articles. I'm just saying we should consider adding resources for gnomes, who tend to work quietly on their own, aren't interested in GAs/FAs/DYKs, they just fix things. It is more complicated to locate and list most of the articles that need gnoming, but still very possible. As we get more and more articles, this becomes more and more of a problem. Since people come here to read articles, I'm curious what we can do to make gnoming easier to do. ] | ] | ] 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wholehearted agreement that gnomes are indispensibe and that they would merit some sort of central discussion board and links to "gnoming" resources. "Gnome of the Week" probably merits separate consideration as well - maybe so do some of the other fauna. How to start such might be the biggest problem as lots of gnomes don't necessarily self-identify as such and might even object to any such identification. ] (]) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't want to say "build it and they will come", because that is too cliche, but I think if you build it and direct new editors to it, you will find the natural gnomes (which I'm guessing is a fixed percentage of us all) will find it useful. Using categories, it would be self updating. Adding some additional help and how to would be beneficial as well. Very simple stuff for getting started. Gnomes with even a moderate amount of experience already know how to figure stuff out. I don't think this is a "huge" or time consuming thing to do, or at least doesn't have to. In a way, the Editor of the Week program is a Gnome of the Week. We generally avoid people with multiple FA/GA (although there is no bar against them). Probably half are truly gnomes. I'm thinking of a way to help editors with 1000 or less edits by giving them tools that make it a bit easier and more fun to gnome. Again, I'm just throwing stuff out here, I want to hear different ideas. This is how the Editor of the Week program was started, and for that matter, how I ended up starting this project. I like to gnome, so even I would want to use a simple page that linked all the "needs citations" and "has bare urls" cats together, so I could go do what I felt like doing today. In a way, I'm wanting to scratch my own itch here. ] | ] | ] 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}ok, now my gears are moving. We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff. I can picture a page with pretty icons for each, you click, you see all the articles in that category (ie: it is just a link to that cat). It also has links to help, some essays, some policies, etc. A "homepage for gnomes" kind of thing. I would use that. Not sure how to break it all down, but something along these lines. The Gnome Dome: all your gnoming needs under one roof. ] | ] | ] 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:All Roads Lead to Dome. When new members join our community, we can't be sure where they are going to live and work. After they have been here awhile and they get their "sea legs" they will have the urge to settle in somewhere. Providing us (WER) with another interesting place to suggest to them is a great idea. It's kinda like building a new shopping mall in Downtown WikiWorld. ```]<small>]</small> 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::"We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff." - ]. Before you start dishing out "Gnome of the week" awards, you may want to bear in mind that a number of people are likely to be offended at having a stranget pitch up at their talkpage describing their work as "gnomish" - the whole "]" schtick is an in-joke which large numbers of users find patronising at best and offensive at worst. ] (]) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See ].—] (]) 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The one thing I might add might to a central page might be a smallish noticeboard or similar for discussions of specific interest or relevance. ] (]) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That is what I had in mind, but it could be a subset of WER, the talk page of the main sub page would be fine for discussing. Again, I'm open to ideas. The current backlog isn't exactly user friendly, particularly for newer users, and most of that would just be confusing, which is why a single interface for newish users would be userful. I had forgotten about that list (thx Wavelength), which is lacking yet overly complicated for newer users. Since {{u|Alvin Seville}} appears to maintain that page, I will ping him. Arbitrarily, I'm thinking 12-18 areas that are good for newish users with <1000 contribs, although not fixed on that number. Plus a short "how to" for each written in plain English. If there is a larger group that maintains the backlog, we want to coordinate with them. I'm guessing they would be interested if it helps reduce backlogs in time. Once put together, I would want the Teahouse in the loop as well, as a place to recommend to newish editors. As for the name "gnome", I've never had a bad association with it, but would encourage larger input before marrying in to it. I like it, personally. ] | ] | ] 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} Assuming for the sake of argument that you're a user unfamiliar with the "WikiFauna" meme and a stranger turns up on your talk calling you "a gnome", can you see a single definition among the many listed at ] that you ''wouldn't'' consider a personal attack? ] (]) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, I really don't. I was always called one, and even self described as one at my own RFA. At every point, there will be links to what all this means. I have a bunch of young nephews and their friends who all into gnomes, elves and such. If anything, I figure it will intrigue more than offend. This is particularly true once we define and elevate the definition of "gnome" to its rightful place of high esteem here. BTW, I'm working on a list in my ]. Everyone should feel free to jump in, add, remove, add notes free form, etc. I'm not very WP:OWNing about stuff like this so don't be bashful. It is just a scratch pad to see if this is even feasible or wise. We are still in the beginning idea stage. ] | ] | ] 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(e-c) So link directly to ] and ] instead. Having said that maybe developing a similar grouping based on fictional characters might be useful.] (]) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Name wise, being a "WikiGnome" is way cooler sounding than being a "maintenance oriented editor", which is why the names exist in the first place. Seriously. ] | ] | ] 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*Is ] (which is transcluded onto ]) not pretty much exactly this? I mean granted, you have to know exactly where to look for that to find it, but it's there nonetheless. Perhaps just work to make it more visible? ] (]) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
**It may very well be, {{u|Fluffernutter}}, thank you very much for the heads up! I will look at it closer tomorrow, but at a glance, it looks '''very''' much like what I had in mind, but better in some ways as it is autoupdated with very specific ideas. If someone has already done the listing methods and such, then yes, I would be very interesting in promoting and helping out with that. The key would getting WER, Teahouse, Opentask and others working together, each doing what we do best to get the best use out of it. I owe you one. ] | ] | ] 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
***Adding, now that I have more than a few seconds at the keyboard: I found that Community Portal to-do list a while back, and then kept losing it again because it's just such a not-forward-facing place to look. But it would be so great for drawing people in who want to poke around, if only they ever came across it! I'd frankly rather have that (or an abbreviated version of it) on the mainpage than some of the stuff that gets space there now. A newbie editing TFA is going to get smacked down oh-so-fast, whereas a newbie editing "Today's article needing copyedit/translation/referencing" or something...man that would be useful. I wonder if there would be any traction for getting something like this on the front page... ] (]) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
****It sounds like there are a few good pages that already exist to help with the goal here. Maybe we need a simple easy directory page that points to these other pages, and advertise THAT page, work with the other projects to steer newish editors to it. Then we let each of the individual projects do their own thing (offering to help where we can, of course), and we just catalog all the good, existing programs and help the editors get to them. ] | ] | ] 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*There is so much to learn about Misplaced Pages that some really good tools need more publicity. I only learned about a couple of weeks ago. —] (]) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
**Dr. Blofeld turned me on to that some time ago. Yes, very good tool! ] | ] | ] 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*** The 1.x version of RefToolbar, which can still be ] will autocomplete a cite books reference from a Google Books URL in much the same way.. and it is the only way to fly. It also manages autocomplete for journal articles by DOI and NYT article references by NYT URL. Friggin' magic, I tell you. --]] 01:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See ].—] (]) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:—] (]) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: To add an idea to the list, there is a bot (or an automated tool, I do not now) who fixes disambigs, and in the edit summary it has a link to a page (which says "you can help"). Generally, one just needs a list of easy tasks. If I have time, i may compile it here at the level of ideas later today (while waiting for the airplane).--] (]) 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I found ] and ] in ] in ]. |
|
|
::—] (]) 15:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm about to leave for a week with only my smartphone, which is inadequate for working on this. Of course, I'm not required for this to proceed, but I just wanted to let you my absence is from necessity, not a lack of interest. Like everything we do here, if someone feels they can take the lead and understands the consensus (and can accept that others may pick it apart and rearrange it), I encourage them to be bold. WER is certainly not a bureaucracy. ] | ] | ] 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think anywhere where users can say "I really enjoy this particular aspect of the project" we should have task forces, WikiProjects, tools, etc. for them to work together, encourage each other, learn from each other, etc. This is presuming they actually want to collaborate with others; some of the comments above suggest many gnomes prefer to work in isolation. The caveat is there has to be enough editors with an interest to gain critical mass, so that we're not building ghost towns. This only fosters disappointment when someone raises a relevant issue to a WikiProject or board and only get tumbleweeds in response. ] (]) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think we need to be more relaxed about asynchronous cooperation. Yes there are some parts of the wiki that are hyperactive, but there are other quieter bits where an editor can find some hints and source lists left by others, and maybe a bunch of suggestions and queries. That mode of cooperation may not suit everyone, but for some it is empowering, the wiki can sometimes seem like a very closed community with few openings for new editors, but anyone who wants to can revive a moribund project. The time to worry is when the important and urgent boards start looking quiet. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] and "downcasing" imposition == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am wondering whether anyone has looked at the effect of blind imposition of ] guidelines on the retention of knowledgeable editors in a project like ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
For a bit of background: This is all about the naming style for bird names for which many sources and bird authorities use a capitalisation style like "Red Robin" but MOS insists on "red robin". The wikiproject dedicated to improving the bird articles has long used the former standard (from the projects inception as far as I know), but recently it has been decided by others that these must all be changed to lowercase. |
|
|
|
|
|
The merits of either approach are not what I want to rehash. But it is the effect upon this dedicated community of editors that I am dismayed to see (I am not a member of the project, but do often edit articles about NZ birds so are sort of on the periphery observing the effect). Most members just want to improve the bird articles and are not into wiki lawyering or fighting whatever you want to call endless brow beating arguments from people who apparently have no interest in content creators, but only trying to achieve a standardised look. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of places 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." |
|
From this small community we've already had one editor leave citing this as the final straw, and another about to leave suggesting the creation of a separate wiki where they can continue contributing their knowledge without arbitrary 'standards' imposed. I expect that some will continue to belittle members by characterising this as "people throwing their toys out of the cradle". The group as a whole isn't going to do a mass walkout, but I expect this is just one more niggle that will prompt them to spend a little less time here, and wonder why they bother. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
For me the loss of even one experienced and dedicated editor over a matter like this is depressing. It is not about the merits of either argument, but how the result is being imposed and how the views of project members have been dismissed. Volunteers don't ask for much in return, but they're not going to bother if their experience, knowledge, effort and views are not appreciated. --] (]) 07:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*] |
|
:I agree that the MOS crowd are out of control—it's the tail wagging the dog. An RfC was held ], but MOS is run by highly verbose and domineering editors who made a discussion of the underlying issues impossible. Any benefit from all names being in lowercase does not justify forcing difficult-to-implement requirements on editors who have built excellent content and who know how bird names are written in comparable documents. No doubt the MOS wizards are working on a proposal to make all words the same length, and we will be informed in due course. ] (]) 11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Involve new editors to cite unsourced articles == |
|
I know full well of several people who have glanced at discussion like the MOS one linked here for about ten seconds and concluded "I will not edit Misplaced Pages - it is full of jerks" and walked away. Personally, however, I generally ignore MOS and take the line that it's either common sense and I do it anyway as it's something I learned from school, or a bot or gnome will make the change for me and I will accept it. ] ] ] 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The MOS is full of idiosyncratic and unexplainable choices that are the result of complex compromises. If some style choice is not exactly "what I learned in school" I just ignore it and move on. It's a small price to pay for not having to argue style choices over and over on every article. —] (]) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just made a new proposal to ] and I afraid that this might have a chilling effect to new editors who are looking to join Misplaced Pages, because this would set the standard for contributing Misplaced Pages even higher than it is now. How can we make sure that we would stop biting newcomers? Improved mentoring program for new editors? Ban generic/templated warnings asking people to cite sources? I don't know. Feel free to write about your wildest proposals for retaining new editors here, I'm all ears. ] (]) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Discussion of merging barnstars == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Courtesy ping: ], ]. ] (]) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
As this falls under our scope, it is hoped that editors here will be interested in a discussion that has begun about merging some redundant barnstars at ].--] (]) 01:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Ooh, I've become courtesy ping worthy when it comes to brainstorming. :) You have no idea how excited this makes me. I'll probably have grander thoughts sometime later but the first thing that comes to mind is that we have a serious ] problem when it comes to what people see when they actually click edit. This isn't really something the average wikipedian can control but I do remember seeing an interesting pilot project from someone involved with the WMF that would encourage people to cite sources when they added content. It had prompts that would exist while someone was actually editing. I remember seeing it and thinking it was a gamechanger, it was honestly really nice and something we should have had ages ago. I hope it's still in-the-works and that I can get to see it in action someday. :) |
|
|
::To get a bit more on track though, given that new editors typically edit in draftspace until they're autoconfirmed and these articles rarely get moved to mainspace by experienced AfC reviewers if they're completely unsourced... I'm not sure this will actually raise the bar that much for contributing to Misplaced Pages. I think something to be more concerned about from that angle is how there tends to be a backlog of thousands of drafts and new editors with potential aren't nessecarily getting quick or personalized feedback. Like many areas, we have the problem of a few volunteers trying to do what they can to make sure that these processes get by. When we're just focusing on getting by, it makes it a lot harder to thrive and go that extra mile, because it's easy for people who are involved in these processes to become burnt out. If we had better editor retention, this would be less of an issue because the overall workload would be more sustainable... so I think this does becomes somewhat of a vicious cycle. ] ] 07:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This this this! Editors on wikipedia loves to assume that new editors would have done ] and read everything on the banners, when in reality nobody cares about them. I think one of the ways we can improve is to simplify these banners, such as {{tl|AfC submission/draft}} and {{tl|AfC submission/declined}}. That banner is so long that I just feel sorry for any new editors who have to face with this banner... Maybe we should make a checklist of requirements that an article have to achieve before it will not be deleted under AfD? ] (]) 07:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Ok, I have an idea. What if we create an operation for teaching newcomers to cite articles, as part of the mentorship program at ]? Maybe we could establish a program under WikiProject Editor Retention, in a similar minimalistic style like ], and encourage new editors to practice working on one aspect of editing Misplaced Pages. This month we might want to work on citing articles, the next month working on typo finding, etc. By doing so, we would merge all editor retention efforts to a single program, and new editor will have comrades to talk to and feel validated by experienced editors. What do you think about this? ] (]) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think this echo the sentiments at . People don't edit Misplaced Pages because it is a significant time investment. The more convenient we make for new editors to join in to our efforts, the better. ] (]) 07:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: It sounds like you're suggesting a "]" idea, with a specific emphasis on welcoming newcomers to try these new things? I can see something like that being worth brainstorming as it can give people a sense of direction and guide people to areas where they can make a measurable difference to said backlogs. I remember when I was brand new, I was super excited to do things but it felt like everything was going into a void. It's part of the reason I like some of the new features that are being designed nowadays that show things like "your impact". But newbie me did come across the ] and find people looking for help at ]. There is also the ] which is a similar concept of "this is stuff you can do", but I wouldn't say it's that very well known. |
|
|
:::::: As for banner blindness, I think it is worth considering if the editor made templates and whatnot can be simplified and still get the crucial pieces of information that people need to know across, even if it's not quite what I was thinking about last night. ] ] 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Oh, something else! I created a "newbie central" section on my talk page after my experience teaching newcomers at a Misplaced Pages Day event. It was a bit different trying to explain these things in person to people, but something that ended up being a focus was different stub templates that might be within that editor's field of interest. I'm a bit curious on what you think about that. ] ] 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think most editors are quite familiar with banner blindness and how people don't like to read instructions. I think having more volunteer mentors as part of the growth team features initiative would be a good way to help more new editors to ramp up. But... the feedback I've seen is that there aren't many useful questions being asked of mentors, and little follow up. So at present it's not going to be a magic bullet to increase retention dramatically, though I see it as a needed base requirement to support other initiatives. |
|
|
::::I think it's worthwhile trying to try to get people to work on specific tasks. Things to think about, though, is how to get people to know about the initiative, and how to attract them to participate. Banner blindness makes it tricky for projects to get attention. Talk page notices would likely work better, but current English Misplaced Pages culture means that delivering them by default is unlikely to get consensus, and getting a newcomer to signup for a newsletter may be hard. That being said, perhaps we could have a new editors newsletter that gets delivered monthly to those who do signup; it could have a brief tip of the month and pointers to editing ideas. That is something I might be interested in co-ordinating. On the encouraging participation front, I think it would be helpful to have one or more facilitators maintaining a page for each event, to be a hub for those participating, and perhaps maintaining an aggregated tally (I hesitate to have an explicit leaderboard, but there are pros and cons in favour of one). |
|
|
::::For better or worse, editing an encyclopedia beyond typo fixing is a time-consuming activity. If I could get two concise points across to newcomers who already understand Misplaced Pages's mission, they would be the following: adding references to sources for any content you add will improve the likelihood of it being retained in the article, and every page has a corresponding talk page, which you should use to collaborate with other editors. (For those who don't understand Misplaced Pages's mission, the one key point would be that Misplaced Pages's content is determined by a consensus of everyone editing its pages, which may not correspond to what you think should be in Misplaced Pages.) ] (]) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think the pilot project you're referencing, Clovermoss, is Reference Check, which is being developed as part of the larger ] project. I share the view that that has by far the best potential to help with this issue. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Edit check does indeed seem to be what I was thinking of. Thanks for the links, Sdkb, it's appreciated. :) ] ] 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
==Selling the Talk page== |
|
|
Above, ] mentions, "...and every page has a corresponding talk page". Now we all know that every article has a talk page but my experience is that the general public (aka our readers) are unaware that they exist. Another thing I have found in defending WikiPedia in RL is that they, the public and maybe newbies, are also unaware "that Misplaced Pages's content (the article) is determined by a consensus of everyone editing its pages..." I tell anyone interested that many times the talk pages are more interesting than the article they discuss. Reading the talk pages provides a window into the construction, the etiquette of communicating toward a goal, and through the ebbs and flows of discussion and editing, an ever-changing article is put forth. It's the classroom, the hidden secret that needs to be "sold" to the public and to newbies. It's taken for granted that They Know. But maybe they don't. ]<small>]</small> (UTC) 03:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: This Aljazeera article is a good example] of what I mean. It is a very good descriptive recount of what happens. But there is no explanation that the discussions about the article happen on a page that is, in a way, separate and detached from the article. There is no mention of a "talk page". There is no mention that the editors are unpaid volunteers. When I first read it, it gave me the impression that editors were in a room somewhere negotiating terms on what should go and what should stay. We all know how important the talk pages are but as this article shows they seem to be our secret..... ]<small>]</small> (UTC) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of places 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."
