Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Wikipedia and the editor who is differently able

I am reproducing here the item I posted here initially with very little response.

I'm sure you have come across this before. Indeed you may have read, for example, WP:AUTISM. If not I commend it to you.
The reason I'm seeking to interest you in this area is best highlighted by a brief visit to my talk page where I asked for, and received help. We, by which I mean Wikipedia in general and as a community, are not skilled at coping with including differently able editors into the family.
Are you able to give this area some mindspace, perhaps considering some form of inclusiveness initiative?

It seems to me that WER is an excellent place to explore this, and hope it catches your interest. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle Faddle, I agree that WER is a good place to talk about this sort of thing, but would appreciate some concrete examples of things that you think we could do differently to make this site more attractive for people with disabilities. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point. The macro level answer is that I am not sure. However I have some ideas and present them as a brain-dump, in no particular order, and without thinking too hard.

A small taskforce who can and will mentor this special group
People who will ensure that deletion discussions go smoothly
Ambassadors for differently able editors
Project and talk space for differently able editors to air their particular issues
Admins who specialise in intervening for the differently able editor and their issues
Accessibility programmes. Example, "AfD" has no meaning to many users. We need to ensure TLAs(!) are translated for this area as a matter of course
Some sort of WMF initiative embracing these folk
Recognition that communication requires care and clarity with this group who often display considerable intellectual abilities yet have communication challenges whcih make them hard to understand and make 'us' hard to understand in return
I despise positive discrimination as much as I despise negative discrimination. We need, somehow, to ensure that neither exists for them

This list is by no means exhaustive. I place ut here to inspire people to consider carefully and add other areas and act on that which is sensible. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of this is more complex than other bits. Firstly when it comes to jargon translations usually exist or can be created - wp:AFD itself is a redirect to Articles for deletion. Now I don't dispute that we sometimes get cliquey sounding conversations - every organisation develops its own jargon. But every bit of jargon we have should be easily searchable. Where we embed it in templates we should have it linked and can usually fix that if need be.

As for communication difficulties, a lot of the regulars here are used to communication problems - we have a very high proportion of editors for whom English is not their native tongue, and of course the occasional mix up from different variants of English. To make progress we need specific examples of things that are difficult to understand.

Smooth running of deletion debates is an awkward one. Deletion debates are an inherently confrontational process, and they are subject to dramatic change - if an editor finds a reliable source for something it can completely flip a deletion debate and keep the article. I'm not sure how one could make them smoother without gravely weakening the ability of editors to save articles that we actually want. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am at the "Something Must Be Done" stage, without giving much real thought to the mechanisms. Much of this requires complex and expert thought, some is simple. Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you got the cold shoulder over at Jimbo's Place. But, I think you have come to the right place. I'm sure this discussion will evolve into some form of action. Lets give it time and see where the "WER Wind" takes it...a sandbox or a sub-page maybe. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

These are the questions which come to mind to me.

1) How do we identify such people? Honestly, the only way I can see that being workable is if people self-identify themselves as autistic, or maybe OCD, or whatever. Even if we have very strong suspicions, like I do with a few editors here, regarding their possibly having characteristics which indicate some sort of possibly seriously limiting condition, we really can't do anything without some real concrete statements from them.

2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility was more or less created with these ideas in mind, although I haven't been checking to see its' current status. There might well be help there as well.

3) This project was, so far as I can remember, more or less made to help ensure that we keep longtime editors around. To the extent that such is true, I hope most people can understand that some of us might already suspect strongly that an editor of long experience might not think the way the rest of us do, for whatever reason, and I think in at least a few cases that is actively considered in discussion of any sort of disciplinary measures.

4) Maybe, and this is just a maybe, considering I don't keep up with such how frequently new editors are giving this link lately myself, maybe adding a line to one or more of our welcome templates to the effect of "if you have a condition which might cause you some problems as an editor, please feel free to introduce yourself at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or with one of the editors listed (at a page listing editors who have indicated they would be willing to help people with one or more specified conditions, which may not exist yet I dunno).

That's about all that occurs to me right now. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had to deal with this issue in real life (in the higher education class room) thanks for opening the discussion FiddleFiddle. But we need to be very very clear about what we're trying to do (as John says above) WikiProject Accessibility and the Teahouse are already here. Maybe one thing we can to is to promote links to these places.

Also as WP:AUTISM says Wikipedia actually has a lot of ppl on the spectrum working really well here (better in many cases than some so-called neurotypical people ). Sometimes though there can be social-textual issues (missing nuances in communication ... something frankly a lot of neurotypicals do too). It needs to be said loudly though that we volunteers are not all equipped to deal with this. WP's social tools are blunt. If an editor gets to the Penyulap stage of creative and persistent frustration, then all we, as a community, can do is block them.

In real life people are specially trained for years to help those on the spectrum. Both from the point of view of best practice for the users in question and the volunteers trying to help we need to recognize our own limitations. Randy in Bois is not the go to guy here. Sysops with experience, ambassadors and a specific task force is a good idea but for sake of retaining editors on the spectrum who are in distress it does need to be a group of people who have some competence with helping the differently abled. I know that mightn't be popular but Randy can do more harm than good and when we're dealing with real people some ethics need to be considered. A WMF initiative would be the best option given the need for responsibility, accountability and training--Cailil ^talk 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea of an initiative from the Foundation sounds like a really good idea to me, although I don't know how it might be started. One of the things that might also help with is, maybe, and I hope no-one takes this the wrong way, some of these tendencies can be very useful in some areas, while, maybe, less so in others around the WMF. One idea which comes to mind, for those who have difficulties in some areas but might not in translation or proof-reading, is to go through some of the incredible number of reference sources on commons, in various languages, and maybe turning some of the more substantial, and thus presumably important, articles from some of those PD reference works into articles on WikiSource, which could then, presumably, presumably be used to help develop content in the various wikipedias based on that material. WikiQuote could use a lot of input of that kind as well. And, for some time now, I have been thinking about ways we might be able to get some of the rational, defensible OR material we sometimes get on the pedias into content of the Wikiversity in some form or other, particularly content which might, for instance, relate to comparative religion or comparative philosophy or some forms of pseudoscience. Now, I know that there isn't necessarily any good reason to think that many or most non-neurotypical people would necessarily be better than average on a lot of these things, but I also think that if they are even of average ability in a lot of these matters, and some like one Cailil mentioned were really of above average ability in a lot of fields, there probably would be less conflict or contention with activity at some of those other entities. Also, given the comparatively lower levels of development many of those other entities have, what they might do there might, ultimately, do more good than a similar level of effort on some of the sites which greater levels of input. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we identify Differently Able Editors? Most important is that we create or nurture an environment that, once an editor self-identifies, some sort of protective umbrella is initiated. This place can be mean. And...sometimes normal functions are mis-interpreted as mean. We "nerotypical editors' may think we can identify Differently Able Editors (and sometimes it DOES become obvious to any observer) but, most times its doubtful and problematic. Extreme protective care needs to be taken because our words are so eaily misunderstood.
And just to clarify, this project is designed to retain editors from the newest to the oldest. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the editors who are particularly in need of an initiative (call it what you will) are likely to self identify. The editor I've been trying hard to assist recently would, I am sure, be one such.
In terms of different editors being good at different things, I think every editor acknowledges that in a broad way. One can help editors choose the area they intend to specialise in. Fiddle Faddle 09:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How might we attract additional discussion here? I think there is broad agreement that "Something Must Be Done", and no real idea of how to achieve that goal. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I had not seen WP:AUTISM prior to today, but had run across WP:NOTTHERAPY some year, which is somewhat like point-and-counterpoint... except they both agree on the basic facts. One, folks that do not happen to be typical neurologically speaking are sometimes *awesome* wikipedia editors, hard core old-school uphill both ways in the snow wicked *good*. Two, failure to be neurologically typical is *no* excuse for either lack of WP:COMPETENCE, or for getting a free pass on Pillar#4's civility-n-respect rules. Unlike some other folks here, I don't really think anything all that special is required.

in which I describe exactly something not all that special: the wiki-hero mission-assignment kiosk

We already have several WP:RETENTION folks that are working with existing editors who have self-identified. Simply by making those examples stand out for their excellence, we will attract future examples. Word of mouth is the best advertising; no need to blast our offering all over the place, or try and cajole wikimedia funding for something which already comes naturally to us anyway. If you build it, they will come, as the old saying goes. We don't need to build much, methinks.

One suggestion that makes sense to me is that we should probably try and use the buddy system, to use the swimming analogy, or if you prefer, pairs programming to use the engineering analogy. Makes sense that this could be a RefDesk function (finding a currently-available editor to act as buddy/reviewer/collaborator/partner/sidekick/whatever). This would be useful for more than just autism and asberger's, of course -- anybody serious about learning the ropes on wikipedia could sign up for an editing-buddy. Once paired, the two can go off and edit some article they both agree would be interesting, helping each other out via talkpage chat, or maybe something more direct like IRC (even voice chat if that could be appropriately anonymized somehow). If one member of the Dynamic Duo needed to sleep, eat, attend to Real Life, or otherwise disengage, the remaining person could continue on their own as a solo wiki-warrior... or if they wished, return to the Buddy Kiosk and select themselves a new partner-in-crime.

One thing that might make sense, to improve the number of people that will be able to have a buddy, is to transform the idea slightly, from a buddy kiosk into a speed dating format. You are paired with a buddy, who becomes your friend/companion/copilot for the next fifteen minutes. When your time is up, you shake hands (maybe hug), and part ways, perhaps exchanging IP addresses for some future date. Possibly the folks at the refdesk or the TeaHouse will not be interested in running a super-hero-sidekick service, let alone a matchmaker service. If so, maybe we can just offer the service via the list of WP:WER editors-willing-to-lend-a-hand. All that is really needed is a set of instructions: visit this website (TBD -- prolly one exists on the internet already) and generate a random number between 1 and the number of people in the WP:WER project-member-list. Find the talkpage of the person whose number came up. Leave them a message, asking if they would like to partner with you (now | in an hour | tomorrow). If you do not receive a response, perhaps they are asleep -- go to step one, and begin again. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that wikipedia already has an (informal only methinks) mentoring system, and in particular WP:ADOPT. My suggestion is something distinct. With WP:ADOPT, or with a mentor, the relationship is defined to be 'as long as they mutually agree' which is theoretically a brief time... but consensus meaning of those English words suggests something more like marriage proposal. If you get married in Las Vegas, and stay married for 36 hours before splitting up -- regardless of whether you make it official with divorce papers -- then you experienced a Failed Marriage. Similarly, if your mentor dumps you after fifteen minutes, you can hardly call it mentoring. Along the same lines, if you get returned to the adoption-agency the next week, you might not even think you were ever actually adopted. Plus, and although this is more subtle I see it as a huge failing, mentor/mentee and adopter/adoptee and all similar relationships assume a power imbalance, a wisdom imbalance, and a worth imbalance. The idea of the speed-buddy or the superhero-dating system is to pair up folks who are *assumed* to be equals, albeit with different skills. Superman paired with Batman is fundamentally distinct from Batman adopting the Boy Wonder as his sidekick. Actually, I realized that I even used the word sidekick in my description above... that was a mistake on my part. This is intended as a superhero-mission-kiosk, not a sidekick service.

The helpdesk and refdesk and other Q&A-style services have the opposite problem: *too* brief, *not* intimate enough. But my main concern is that all the things I know about which exist are socially-hierarchical: the refdesk is an employee-customer relationship (even if wikipedians are supposed to keep in the back of their mind that most 'employees' of the desks are volunteer editors just like them). That makes for non-intimate relationships: no shared editing adventures, in particular. There is also backlash, when beginners show up to a desk demanding prompt service, like it was the drive-up window at Burger King, and complaining if the service does not meet their usually-impossibly-high standards, plus of course never leaving a tip. But the backlash is not better: besides tending to involve WP:BITE, it also tends to be along the lines of 'desk folks are superb admins and wizardly editors' with the undertone of 'unlike sad N00Bs like you coming to beg for their help'. Which puts us back at the mentor-better-than-mentee problem outlined above. Speed-dating-for-wiki-heros kiosk is intended to be complementary matching with a partner for your wiki-adventuring, not ring-the-bell-for-service.

p.s. I'm using the cross-genre-superhero-parterning-metaphor and the gender-insensitive-speed-dating-metaphor because I wanted to convey my concept clearly.

Those are *not* ideal for actually starting and promotion-to-the-wiki-public of such a system, although the Wikihero Mission Kiosk does not sound all that bad to my ears, as long as we make it clear that everybody who visits said Kiosk is automatically from the get-go considered to be a Wikihero (all editors are in the top moral 1% of wikipedia's readers after all :-). Can somebody please suggest an explanative metaphor that captures what I'm trying to describe, without diminishing it in promotional-value? What is some kind of social interaction between equals that involves mutual learning from each other, mutual journeying/adventuring/building, and working together on problems? (Please don't say "math homework pooling" if we call it that people will think of wikipedia as *drudgery* when I want them to remember it can be tons of fun. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Afc overload

Dear friendly types: This week at Wikiproject Articles for creation we have been averaging a new submission every five minutes. In spite of the fact that we are having a backlog drive, the backlog is not going down, because there are just so many submissions and we are trying to be as encouraging as we can be while frequently delivering bad news. There is fertile ground here for the encouragement of new editors, because they are having to wait up to three weeks for a review. Any help that can be given so that their submissions will be accepted when finally reviewed would be appreciated. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT caught biting newbies

Could I get some opinions on this talk page conversation involving AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) and the related exchange on the bot's talk page? The action the bot took seems legitimate, but it gave out a misleading error message, edit warred with the user, and when they asked for help, the editor got fobbed off with a bunch of three letter acronyms which describes a different problem the bot also regularly fixes. This just sounds .... well, not very good at retaining editors if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Through no fault of Ritchie333, AfadsBad has left wikipedia for good. The conversation mentioned above is now archived here. User_talk:AfadsBad/Archive2#OrphanReferenceFixer:_Help_on_reversion. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In other bot-related news, I am currently having trouble convincing Dirk Beetstra (who is also a member of WP:WER -- and does very good work) that recent changes to the operation of xLinkBot-fka-SquelchBot are causing WP:BITE. If anyone would like to comment on that situation, the relevant talkpage is User_talk:XLinkBot. See also User_talk:XLinkBot/Archive_7#Afton_Station_Packard_Museum_on_Blogspot. I would also appreciate it if somebody wants to help me handle the confused editors that come to complain about xLinkBot reversions; many of them are trying to cite sources, and think xLinkBot is telling them not to do so, others are confused about WP:COI and WP:EVERYTHING. These are just the folks that have bothered to manually comment on the xLinkBot talkpage; there are undoubtedly also editors that were too busy/nervous/etc to do even that. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed two newbies who have not been welcomed at all - not by an editor (see old discussion at wer-talk) and not by a BOT. They both posted on talkpages and no one reacted? X Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman

Chris troutman has said he's stepping away from Wikipedia for a while; it may be for non-wiki reasons, but it comes immediately after he had some frustrating experiences with GA reviews, most recently with a user who was systematically quick-failing nominations. [1] Chris has been a great editor--somebody I'd been thinking about nominating for Editor of the Week, as it happens--and I'd hate to see us lose him. Would anybody join me in leaving Chris an encouraging note? -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Khazar2. I am away from Wikipedia to care for a terminally-ill family member. Consider me encouraged. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry to hear that, Chris. Wish you all the best for a tough situation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I understand this very well Chris. Comeback when you are ready. I am still on and off dealing with a death in the family. I am truly sorry that you are going through this.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Persons who have deaths in their families always have my full sympathy, as you two do. Twenty years ago I lost my sister to cancer and we had been close thru her life. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

design of the project-page off-putting to beginning editors ... as is wikitext itself

"Mark: I did not use a template HTML" Well okay -- if you say so -- but perhaps that means we're just speaking of different specific meanings for 'template' jargon here? If one visits WP:RETENTION and click edit at the top, one cannot change the goals-paragraph. That is all that I intended to imply, and it is still true today, at least, true by my definition of templating -- perhaps you would prefer server-side-includes? Here is the current main-page-content, roughly:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/header 
'''Editing goals''' Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Goals
'''Project overview''' Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Ways to improve retention
'''Work groups and discussions''' Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Groups and discussions
'''Tools''' Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Tools
'''Continue to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Page 2|Page 2]]''' WikiProject status
WikiProject Footer

Now, for somebody that is used to dealing with includes-slash-wikitext-templates, this is a fine page-design. But for a beginning wikitext person, who has trouble manually signing their pages, and remembering the difference between single-square-bracket-links and double-square-bracket-links, this is an impenetrable wall of complexity. As for university-level nature of wikipedia, the encyclopedia anybody can edit, I will pretty much guarantee^{[citation needed]} that if we were to randomly select ten full professors over the age of 50 from the departments of History, Theology, Literature, and Sports Medicine, at least half of them would be unable to perform the simple editing-change I made. Ditto if we were to randomly select ten eight-graders in the USA (as opposed to a poor but officially-English-speaking nation such as Nigeria), although I bet the percentages of successful eighth-graders might beat the percentage of successful full humanities profs. Point here is not that kids are smarter than PhD theology profs: point is that expert server-side-include wikitext skillz do not correlate with value of the editor to wikipedia.

"Mark: If you want something easy, I suggest using another site."

I agree! Wikipedia definitely needs to be upgraded, so that we can stop using the old creaky difficult technology, and start using a future wikipedia, which is actually easy to edit. (Or is that not what you meant?) Perhaps you've heard of the wildly unsuccessful VisualEditor project, which ignored math syntax and table syntax, as well as beta-testing input from folks like WSC? I did not try to edit the project page using *that* tool, because it is currently yanked from being available by default. Maybe the VizEd automagically de-server-side-includes such pages? But the old-school wikitext editor does not, so I have to guess and fiddle a bit, before I was able to perform my edits. Not that hard, as long as I don't have a PhD in the humanities distracting, or any difficulty with touch-typing every punctuation-glyph on the keyboard, or any concern for WP:BITE.

TLDR: using server-side-includes for our meta-wikipedian project-page WP:RETENTION is arguably a bit offputting to beginning editors... but not *nearly* so offputting to beginning editors as requiring the use of wikitext in mainspace. The second problem is vastly more important to the goals of WP:RETENTION, than the first part. I'd rather discuss how to get a working VisualEditor, than whether to revise Mark's current design of the project-page... because in my view, a really good VisualEditor would provide a 'deep editing' feature that could automagically handle the current server-side-include design of the project-page, without Mark needing to change his page at all. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to run out the door for a moment, but I wanted to say...OH. I see what the issue is here. Every section of the main page was set up (by me) to have a little button to "edit this page". You can see this on the other sections. It appears that was lost when I last updated the header. I can correct that when I return and continue the discussion on Mark up (Wiki-text) for beginners and whether or not that is a consideration for our project. Be back.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

""Mark: I did not use a template HTML" Well okay -- if you say so -- but perhaps that means we're just speaking of different specific meanings for 'template' jargon here? If one visits WP:RETENTION and click edit at the top, one cannot change the goals-paragraph. That is all that I intended to imply, and it is still true today, at least, true by my definition of templating -- perhaps you would prefer server-side-includes? Here is the current main-page-content, roughly:"

OK, perhaps this is simply a "Jargon" issue. Here is what I find when I look for a definition of "Template HTML: "HTML Template is a set of files ready to be published with the Internet represented in a code format, which can be easily edited"

For Wikipedia Mark-up (yes..coding) we have a transclusion mark-up that is simply {{}}. Put the name of any page within those types of brackets and the entire page is trnascuded to the page it is placed on. It isn't a template, but works very similar to how we use templates on Wikipedia, but is not under the template namespace such as {{Template:Ancient Roman Comitium of the Republican era}} which when placed on an article displays as:

Now, when I just wrote that I had to add code to keep the template from transcluding to the page and just display the actual text. That is, I have to add, before and after that template code, another code to wrap around it <nonwiki></nowiki> so that the text appears (if you look at the edit box you will see I had to wrap that text with the same code to show).

So, yes I wrote the pages with Wiki-mark up that is similar to HTML code, but I am afraid that is indeed how the internet reads and displays content. Now I, for one, took a great deal of time to study Wiki-mark up coding in order to get the basics of how to achieve a more graphically pleasing look, that many of our pages have gone to in the project space. So you are correct in that the set up of our project uses Wikipedia name space subpages that are transcluded onto our main page. But, I made sure they were assessable with editing links. Now, back to your main concern and what I believe you are referring to now in your discussion. First, many editors believe different things when it comes to accessibility is. A very long and detailed discussion took place on the verifiability talk page about references being accessible and that it need not be easily accessible just accessible. in other words, payment, for or availability to, need not be easy, just eventually accessible.

Now, for our project, we may well want any new editor to be able to edit our pages. But...how do we determine just exactly what level of understanding we are to assume new editors to have? We already have a strong consensus that even non member editors may edit our pages. But that consensus, as always determines content. While I see you have done much work looking into the history of our project, I will not assume you have seen the most recent history of the last edit to out page. As I stated I already tried to return the project to the simple plain text format. it was reverted and rightly so. Even the author of the pages needs a consensus to make the changes. When I made the original graphic changes with coding and mark-up it gained consensus. After a slight edit war with another, it gained even stronger consensus even though the discussion also made I clear we want anyone to be able to make changes within consensus, just that we will not limit editors to our member list.

I don't know exactly what you desire here and what your own idea of what a new editor would expect, but I will say that depending on how simple you want things, there is indeed a simple English version of Wikipedia if that interests you. Yes, it appears to be a simpler way to use Wikipedia, but you may be wanting to see even the main English Wikipedia vastly simplified. I don't know that I would ever really support that. We already have Visual editor for those that don't wish to use mark-up, but is that enough. Thoughts?.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, appreciate your detailed response greatly. You make a false assumption here: "have done much work looking into the history of our project" ... which is wrong, I am actually very lazy, sorry, and did not do so. The reason I found you folks, is that I was flailing about, trying to re-create a very similar sort of project essentially from scratch, and Kudpung took pity on me and said 'perhaps you have never heard of WP:RETENTION'.... which was the case, so I hurried over here, and nigh-immediately was WP:BOLD and added some changes to the goals, to more align them with what *I* came here for. It was intended to provoke discussion, which worked, but was misunderstood at first due to my poor choice of title-word. Anyways, I've deeply studied the problem of retaining editors, because I'm terrified it is a symptom of very deep-set problems in the wikiverse, that one day might turn fatal to wikipedia's viability. But I have not even done a cursory study of the history of WP:RETENTION as a project, and as you correctly did-not-assume, I also made no review whatsoever of the edit-history of the mainpage before diving in and doing a partial rewrite. :-) Not very solicitous of me, perhaps, but that *is* the wikipedia way, is it not? Bushido is the way of the warrior, and beboldo is the way of the wikipedian. (I did have the courtesy to skim this talkpage... though not the talkpage archives... to make sure that there was not *already* an open ongoing discussion of the goals-paragraph, so I had *some* courtesy. But consider even that optional, philosophically speaking.) HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that we know each other a little better.... "Mark: I [re-added] editing links." Gracias. That is helpful. And yes, making the page graphically pleasing is *much* easier with transcludes-of-subpages like the header and the footer (believe that is the correct jargon -- which I'm calling server-side-includes above), for folks doing the page-layout-design.

in which the subject of transclusions-as-a-mechanism-for-SSI will be expounded upon

The only downside is, the approach is a bit ad hoc, right? *You* have to remember to include the edit-this-section link. Sometimes it gets lost, by accident. Over in mainspace, articles in wikipedia usually do not use transcludes-of-subpages (I would say 'always' rather than the vague 'usually' but have not (yet) edited all four million pages... is there a taboo against transclusion-of-subpages in mainspace... written or unwritten rule... or do some mainspace pages, e.g. the enWiki homepage, transclude-subpages and I've just never seen one over there as yet?). If there is a policy/guideline/taboo, presumably the point it makes against transclusion-SSI would be this: because the click-edit-at-the-top and then use-plaintext-wikitext-syntax approach makes it complex to "drill down" into transcluded-subpages, so as to edit their text, it is useful to reduce editing-complexity, so as not to WP:BITE, and to keep the low end of the WP:COMPETENCE bar in the not-insurrmountable-range.

So, I have a mild suggestion that we here at WP:RETENTION, in order to follow the usual mainspace tradition, should not make our project-pages use transclusion-for-SSI. The pages here look good, graphically, when rendered... but when the beginner, who was prolly sent here by some helpful admin that noticed them floundering in mainspace, clicks on the edit-at-the-top button to figure out how we made our project-page look good, they are hit with a wall of complexity. Even if the beginning editor in question 'understands' how to use the simpler sort of transclusions, it is a conceptual leap to go from a magic black box like {{citation needed}} {{done}} {{collapse top|caption}} {{collapse bottom}} {{weasel words}} along with super-simple HTML like <s></s> and colonIndent hashsignNumberedLists and such which beginning-editors do *not* see as something they can 'edit' the internals of, but instead merely something they can 'use' as a magic black box, to improve their editing.

But the majority of wikipedia editors, perhaps the vast majority, do not think of editing the "internals" of something like the citation-needed-tag, although of course they could. Advanced editors, with some programming skills, or at least HTML_KODER_SK1LLZ at a minimum, actually *can* edit the innards of the citation-needed-transclusion. This is not general knowledge, though. If there was a spelling bug, and the cn-tag was printing ^{(sytation needed)} instead of ^{[citation needed]}, the median wikipedia editor would not be able to correct the spelling problem. Editing the innards of a transclude is more difficult than editing a flat-page-layout... both in terms of the mechanics, as well as conceptually. You have to think of the curlies as being used for transclusion-of-subpages, or for server-side-includes, or for templating-system-dynamic-parser-instructions, or whatever jargon you wish... but you cannot think of them as Magic Black Boxen Which Can Be Used But Not Changed, which is how I submit all beginning editors see the curlies.

Verbose explanation (see above) as to why WP:RETENTION should consider transclusions-of-subpages as currently off-putting to beginning editors aside, in the long run ... by which I mean, in the long run of the WP:RETENTION project and project-pages, as well as the long run of the rest of wikipedia ... I would much rather upgrade our editing-tools, than downgrade the fine work you've done on the project page. Some of the folks that hang around the WP:RETENTION talkpage were involved in the Visual Editor, earlier this year. WereSpiegelChequers in particular was a beta-tester, and filed a lot of bugs, which were not heeded.

To follow up with my mild suggestion that WP:RETENTION folks ought to consider avoiding transclusions-of-subpages, so that our project-pages are useful as an example to beginning editors of typical-practices over in mainspace, I have a Very Strong Suggestion that folks interested in WP:RETENTION ought to become way more involved with the design and implementation and testing of VizEd. Partly because I want the VizEd to be able to grok our project-pages (and by extension... to permit transclusions-of-subpages to become non-taboo in article mainspace), but mostly because I think the current design of VizEd is *not* aimed at editor retention. There are a lot of complaints about how VizEd cannot handle tables (at all -- not just obvious features like ability to easily relocate a column -- just plain at all), how VizEd cannot handle math-syntax, how VizEd singles out the n00bs for ridicule, and so on. (My complaint that VizEd cannot drill down through the transclusion-barrier to edit the contents of the transclude are minor compared to those things.) So, my question is, who here is involved -- or was involved but became discouraged -- with VizEd? Who else thinks the VizEd is a big opportunity to either vastly improve WP:RETENTION, or vastly screw up WP:RETENTION? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As to one of your specific questions. "I don't know exactly what you desire here"

beware all ye who enter, the culture of insta-reversion is herein bewailed

My short-term goal is to improve wikipedia's tools, such as the awful VizEd (but I also have other vast changes in mind), as a means of improving editor-retention. In particular, we get about a thousand new editors per month... and we *lose* about a thousand editors per month... so my primary focus is on those numbers. I want to see a net gain of at least 100 beginning editors per month, every month from now on indefinitely, and right now, we are driving them away with our difficult tools, our rudely-worded template-spam, and our reverting-is-not-a-slap-in-the-face culture. We have forgotten the true meaning of Assume Good Faith, not to mention The Encyclopedia Anybody Can Edit. So, fixing the tools is actually not enough... I also want to shift wiki-culture from deletionism, back over to friendlyism.

Like most folks here, I'm also interested in higher-level wikipolitical caste-system battles. I dislike bans. I dislike the poison of the RfA process. I foresee a day (if we are not already there) when ArbCom will rule wikipedia with an iron fist in a velvet glove, like the aristocracies of old. Wikipedians have slowly become dependent on WMF, for permission, for funding their every desire, as a hammer to destroy the opposing clique... gag me with a spoon. However, although I have strong opinions about how to run a railroad, I really and truly see all the problems with admin-retention, and retention of subject-matter-experts, and many other things as small potatoes. Not because they don't matter. But because I see newbie-retention as a silver bullet.

Why do we have a rude wikiCulture? Because there is not enough time for admins to waste holding the hands of n00bs. Why is there such a rush? Because there are too many vandals and spammers, now that wikipedia is a top-ten site. There just aren't enough admins to go around. But... solving the newbie-retention problem solves the lack of admins, the lack of vandal-fighters, the lack of arbcom-fairness, and a great many other problems. (I realize this is overstating the power of the silver bullet... but not by much methinks.) If we double the number of active editors on enWiki from 30k to 60k, then surely we will also roughly double the number of admins. If we go from 30k to 300k, we'll have roughly TEN TIMES as many admins as we do now. *That* will mean that admins will have more time to handle their duties, and be nice while they do it... because that 300k is a paltry miniscule proportion of the hundreds of millions of unique site-visitors wikipedia gets every single month.

So that is what I desire here, as a n00b member of the WP:RETENTION project: to convince folks that WP:RETENTION should have a strong focus on being friendly, and a strong focus on specifically being friendly to newbies, because doing that leads to more active editors (who we trained to be WP:NICE), and more active editors leads to more admins (also WP:NICE ones), which in turn becomes an unstoppable virtuous cycle, opposite of a vicious one. The next obvious question is, what should we do to attract new editors? Mark seems worried that I want to lower standards, and suggests that maybe SimpleEnglish is the place for me; he is against seeing the main enWiki overly-simplified. No worries, that is not my goal. Quite the opposite: I want to see the main enWiki have more polished grammar, more complex transclusion innards, and other upgrades. I don't want to lower the standards of grammar, intelligence, and so on. I do want the *interface* to the main wikipedia vastly simplified, but that just means, by building better tools that better handle the inherent complexity for us.

I want wikipedia to stop repulsing editors that *do* satisfy our wp:competence and intelligence standards. (Grammar is less crucial... some other editor that enjoys the wikiGnome profession can always clean up awkward grammer and spelleng foolishnessing of an otherwise-decent-contribution.) So my current goal is deceptively simple: I want nicer wording in the template-spams, wording that *really really* assumes good faith. I want to start building wiki-tools in a way that encourages high-competence high-intelligence editors to show up and stick around, by ('merely') refusing to repel them. I think that is enough, although we may hear arguments why I'm wrongheaded. Anyhoo, apologies for the WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from now, and where I'd like to go. Ping my talkpage if I don't respond promptly enough. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

|}

WP:CLUEWALL considered harmful

You mentioned a discussion about verifiability of sources. Some people think weasel words are okay, and some people think wikipedia should link to journals behind a paywall. I'm not either of those people. That is a spiral of destruction, that will eventually consume all CC-BY-SA slash GFDL content, by tainting it with proprietary binary blobs without which it cannot survive. See also, the GPU of the Raspberry Pi, for computer nerds that like open hardware to go with their open wiki, and hate somebody locking away their ability to *get* that content. Sources behind paywalls violate the basic foundational premise of wikipedia: the sum of human knowledge, available to anybody for reading, and to everybody for contributing to the increase thereof. Paywalls subvert that

Metaphorically, there is a similar phenomenon with putting wikipedia itself behind a clue-wall. Some people think it *should* be hard to edit wikipedia, as an intelligence test. (Mark, I'm not sure whether you fall into that camp or not, but there is a User:slakr that I'm currently arguing with -- over friendlyism in a bot of which they are the botmaster -- who believes something like that. I'll ping their talkpage just in case they want to respond to my clumsy-doofus-mangling of their actual position.) I'm absolutely positively not one of the people who believes we should purposely deploy crappy-interface overly-complex tools, just to act as an obstacle course, a barrier that keeps out the riff-raff, and prevents them from editing unless they first read five bazillion manpages. Instead, editors that are not WP:COMPETENT enough to edit without supervision, should either be throttled/topicBlocked/banned (but doing any of those is absolutely a failure of our wiki-culture of friendlyism and should be the last resort), or far better, paired up with a buddy. See my scheme for a wiki-hero-kiosk, up above in the section concerning autism.

This is a key question, related to the above philosophical issue. "Mark wrote: how do we determine just exactly what level of understanding we are to assume new editors to have?" I have some commentary, but I'd like to see what others say, given my pretty plainly-stated (albeit unfortunately over-verbose) explanation of my wikilosophy, in talkpage-sections above. So how do we set the bar, over which all new editors must hop? How do we decide what features belong in our tools, and whether they should cater to the lowest-common-denominator, or instead focus on maximizing the power of wiki-experts? I know *my* answers, and they determine my goals. What do others answer? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(update: 74-whatever has made some potentially-blasphemous changes, in THEIR opinion of their very own changes) to the goals (just fine as they were no offense intended) of WP:RETENTION

(update: Hello folks I have made some potentially-blasphemous changes to the already-just-fine main page. My apologies to Mark, the word in the title did not refer to you, but to myself!)

Just in case anybody wishes to edit or WP:BRD my changes, here is the relevant page to visit:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/header

I was able to figure out how to get to the paragraph I wanted to modify... but might I suggest, in the spirit of WP:WER, that constructing pages out of templatized HTML is not the most beginner-friendly practice? I fully realize the value of template-oriented construction in a general website, like for a corporation or a department or whatever. But for wikipedia, we want every page to be editable, and using the template style seems to be only something that a server-side-programmer will instantly grok. Maybe I'm missing something: is there a straightforward way to edit a particular portion of a template-constructed page? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Thanks for starting WP:RETENTION. I think it looks very valuable.

Yeah...uhm, I created the pages you are referring to and I did not use a template HTML. If you want something easy, I suggest using another site. As for your changes I will look to see if they should be reverted. We have consensus for our pages and any changes need to be agreed upon by our community.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted you. The template you are speaking of was an edit made to improve the page when it was (at one time) located on the Community portal. It was an improvement and I added it to this page. In the future, if you wish to make major changes to our main page, it would be best practice here to make the suggestion first. While this is not a requirement, it may save you some grief.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And using the term " Blasphemous " is not at all within the spirit of our project. Just saying...you may want to tone down you rhetoric.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, is "If you want something easy, I suggest using another site" really where we want to be coming from, here? Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Score another home run for editor retention!—Kww(talk) 05:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please. If someone wants to make claims using such outrageous language and you question my simply stating the fact tat if you are looking for easy, Wikipedia may not be for you. This is a university level site and takes a good deal of time to learn and understand and just changing the work that many other people have put into the page to make it the way it is, and then call the wording Blasphemous in the title....yes, this is where I am coming from here. Being nice is not the goal. Helping is. If someone wants to be less than civil in a thread I don't think that statement was at all out of line. I really don't.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh...and by the way. I had reverted the main page back to its easiest form some time ago, and it was reverted immediately as not needing to be done as it is the consensus of editors to keep it the way it is. Now, if anyone wants to change the main page, any simple graphic changes that only change the look, probably wouldn't need consensus, but changing the wording really should be discussed first if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"This is a university level site." It is? What does that even mean? I don't have a college education, is it still OK for me to be here? What about high schoolers? As to "blasphemy", is that really so upsetting to you? Are you an Old Believer or something? The Wikipedia is mostly edited by an undifferentiated mass of heathens -- we even have iconoclasts and whatnot. If being accused of "blasphemy" is going to get to you, what's going to happen if someone accuses of being a schismatic or, God forbid, a heretic? Are your religious sensibilities really that delicate? Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to berate me over this issue than just exactly who has defeated the spirit of WER? If you think that our very project must be simplified to allow editors that do not know how to write HTML code, than start the discussion. As I said...I changed that and it was immediately reverted. If there has been no further change in that consensus than there is no reason to change it now unless our consensus changes. So...change the consensus and not just bitch. The language used was uncivil, regardless of your definition. --Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this before, but it must be said. I stand firm. Herostratus, the policy here is to welcome folks to be wikipedians, from age 8 to 800, but we do not welcome those responsible for burning down one of the seven wonders of the world. Begone, ye ancient vandal of surprising longetivity! There may not be a written policy saying that, exactly, but you are above the age-limit. So buh-BYE! (Readers please note this entire comment is considered humorous or perhaps humoros if you omit redundant leters in words lik colour. Kidding, jesting, fun-poking, not-seriously-shunning, thanks.) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, good to see that my contribution was noticed, within a day or thereabouts. Albeit not yet really the sort of discussion that I might have hoped to generate, may I point out. :-) Plus, nobody pinged my talkpage, to let me know? Tut tut. Some points, in no particular order:

the word 'blasphemous' in the title of this section was intended to refer to my new changes (since reverted), Mark -- not your changes at some earlier time, or anybody else's changes at any time for that matter. This was an attempted -- failed -- use of self-deprecating sarcasm on my part. In the future, it is probably best (not just for myself but as a general rule) either to avoid sarcasm entirely, or to make that sarcasm perfectly clear. After that title, my very first sentence should have been this: Hello folks I have made some potentially-blasphemous changes to the already-just-fine main page, please WP:BRD if you would like to discuss them. Anyhoo, please accept my apologies Mark, for writing in such a way that caused you to take offense. I did not intend any, but I see how it can be read that way.
I did/do consider my changes to be major changes, and to the main page... btw I hope you include me, when you speak of " our page" but I would appreciate if you would ACK the truth or falsity of that hope
I am happy to enter the third phase of WP:BRD here on the talkpage, about my goal-alteration, and will open a new section which show the current language, and my suggested changes, for civil discussion by all & sundry.
I am also happy to open a discussion of whether HTML know-how (or at least wikitext which is somewhat less complex) ought be a requirement for editing wikipedia. See WP:COMPETENCE in this vein.
Part of the reason I followed the official wikipedia policy of being WP:BOLD, was because I wanted to see what would happen. Mark did very well, in my book. He assumed good faith, made a comment on the talkpage beforehand, and took some time to review my changes despite my anon IP, rather than just reverting me immediately with "rv inapprop" or even worse "rv vandal", which seems to be the norm in mainspace nowadays. He was unhappy, because I failed to convey my meaning, and he thought I was calling his work blasphemous. This misunderstanding was not Mark's fault.

Now, if he had left me a message on my talkpage, in addition to here, I prolly would have come back before people started berating him over it. In fact, nobody came to my talkpage, to see if I'd even read Mark's comment, which would have nipped this in the bud. But here I am now, and no harm has been done, I hope. Everybody here, give Mark a break, he just thought I was being rude to him, because I failed to clearly convey my meaning. Misunderstandings and communications-mishaps like this happen *all the time* elsewhere on wikipedia. Part of the trouble is our ancient creaky tools... which is not-so-coincidentally the next subject, below, see the section wikitext-itself-is-offputting-to-beginners. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you very much for the above, detailed response. I appreciate your good faith even in the face of my own imperfect comments. Do you know how to "watch" the talk page so that your watch list can keep you updated to changes after you begin a discussion? A very recent discussion that took place on the BRD talk page and the Village pump has discussed whether or not we should be encouraging editors to discuss situations on the individuals user talk page. Some feel it is very intimidating and can escalate situations, so it really never dawned on me to contact you directly, but simply wait for further discussion here.

My understanding is that anons are punished by being unable to have personal watchlists, despite being able to have personal talkpages. Would dramatically improve my life if that is not true. (I keep my 'watchlist' in the form equivalent to browser-bookmarks; not efficient). Anyhoo, even if it turns out to be the case that watchlists *are* possible for folks like poor 74-whatever, once somebody shows them how, the default assumption when working with a beginner -- which I am not but most IP anons are of course -- is that they will not grok even the concept of watchlists (which no website besides wikipedia uses... more on that in another section on another day), so it is always best to reply to them directly on their talkpage, either with a talkback-whisper-template-thing, or with a brief note saying replied-to-you-over-here-httpTheRest. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors on this project have different ideas as to what our core goals are. We really aren't the Teahouse and don't have the same policy or project rule about being "nice" all the time (and many discussions on this talk page bare that out) but we ask to be professional with some additional guidance: Nip aggressive conversation in the bud if it begins in your presence. Be an advocate of collaboration by pointing out adversarial tendencies. Of course, the challenge is not to become adversarial yourself." I would only say, perhaps that was missed with some of the above responses to my post, but then every editor has a different style to get across a message like KWW did. It still got the message across and we really aren't adversaries. I support them a great deal, but we still have our disagreements on many issues. I don't hold that against them or others here.

I did/do consider my changes to be major changes, and to the main page... btw I hope you include me, when you speak of " our page" but I would appreciate if you would ACK the truth or falsity of that hope

No one owns the project or the page, but over time we have formed a consensus over much of what is on the page and how it is set up. One reason is exactly because of the HTML coding that allowed for the more prominent placement of Editor of the Week.

Also, I didn't actually write the passage you altered. It was edited from the original text I wrote at the Community portal. It had some consensus due to the way it was altered to be more accurate to the editor who changed it and seemed reasonable at the time and received silent consensus as I did inform this page of both the addition of the section at the community portal and how to contribute. However...and this was done with no discussion and I consider it a bold edit...I removed our section at the community portal and received no revert back or discussion on the talk page there, so I took that as silent consent. Perhaps we would like to discuss if we want to return that section now that another user seems interested in such editing and also seems more than interested in a civil and helpful discourse on the subject of our project pages.

I am happy to enter the third phase of WP:BRD here on the talkpage, about my goal-alteration, and will open a new section which show the current language, and my suggested changes, for civil discussion by all & sundry.

Yes, please do. Even if we do not agree on all points, I am willing to admit I am not solidly stuck on anything and as long as consensus is for any change I am able to accept consensus.

I have this open in a tab, but have been swamped. I won't forget though. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also happy to open a discussion of whether HTML know-how (or at least wikitext which is somewhat less complex) ought be a requirement for editing wikipedia. See WP:COMPETENCE in this vein.

Was this in general for the entirety of Wikipedia or just our project here? If you mean Wikipedia in general the best venue for that is the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). At any rate, thanks again for the response and I am happy to discuss any changes you think are appropriate and perhaps we can even get further input from others. It has been some time since we discussed our policies for the project and maybe...it is time to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, you can call me 74, please. The answer to your question is probably, yes and yes. I have actually never seen a server-side-include (or whatever you wish to call it) on an editable wikipedia page before, so my assumption was that the use of that technique here was unusual. Are there any article-pages in mainspace that work like that? I would not be surprised to find the en.wikipedia.org/ *homepage* did that, but normal articles and talkpages tend to be flat (non-hierarchical non-server-side-include) relatively linear (top to bottom) layouts, with little "special" markup except for infoboxen and tables.

As for wikipedia in general, and other wiki-projects, I am interested in the not-very-successful VisualEditor project, with regards to WP:RETENTION. In particular, the current visual editor is bad at tables, bad at infoboxen, bad at math layout, and I would presume bad at server-side-include-layouts, such as our project-page here. So that is why I'm joining them at the hip, and talking about WP:COMPETENCE... I would like to have a wikiverse where some eight-year-old doing their homework assignment can open up a page with a table about frogs, that uses server-side-includes, and perform sophisticated WYSIWYG edits (like rearranging the columns of the table to put the pictures over on the righthand side of the table for instance) which modify the page *without* the 8-year-old needing to learn wikitext-syntax for tables, nor grok server-side-includes. This would dramatically improve WP:RETENTION, methinks, since it would dramatically lower *technological* competence required to become a wikipedia editor. The rules compliance, source-provision, tone, and ability to survive everything you do being insta-reverted without any talkpage stuff... well, that is another chasm, which no Visual Editor feature can overcome. Hope this clarifies my overall direction I'm trying to send the discussion down, a bit. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

An Idea to help make editors feel appreciated

I fairly recently went thru two AfD discussions for two articles that I created. They were notable subjects, but I failed to list adequate sources. One person tried twice to have these articles deleted, even after I and someone else pointed to valid sources that had not originally been in the articles. To be honest, if either had been deleted, I would not have quit working with Wikipedia, but I would have taken a Wikibreak rather than say things I would have later regretted (although true). Since then, I have run into several articles others have written that are notable, but not properly sourced. I am taking time to properly reference the sources in such articles to keep them off the chopping block. In short, I think helping strengthen articles is a good way to keep writers who may be offended if their articles go thru the deletion process. I at one time provided similar service for the Article Rescue Squadron, but I got tired of some of the uncalled for negative comments I received. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

At some point I guess we all have to ask ourselves just how far we want to go, and how much we see as stressful and if we can't control that, if there is simply another way to do the same things we were before we may have become dissuaded, undermine or just feel bad for real mistakes we make. Just keep trudging through and keep you core ideas alive by doing what you are, still contributing in your own way. You can also help spread you enthusiasm in a friendly atmosphere by asking and answering questions at the Teahouse Q&A board.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't want editors, it simply tolerates them. For now. Eric Corbett 00:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not like this project is helping the matter. See this:

"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 “Wikipedia has become a bloody madhouse,” and disputes featuring accusations such as “You registered an account today just to have a go at me?”"

Well done gang....if THAT was what you were looking for then...goal accomplished. Oddly....it isn't the reason I supported this project.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the entire article to which the above link pointed. You can't legislate behavior on Wikipedia, but I think we have to keep reminding editors that everyone and every article has a right to be respected. Sure, we have diverging personalities and viewpoints, but we all need to attempt to work together. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Wpollard...please stick around. You are very much correct. in the end it does come down to respect.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm 74-whatever, and I bangvote support this message. ♥♥♥ WikiLove ♥♥♥. If we really want to retain editors, we need to focus on, you know, actually retaining editors. That means working on changing wikiCulture to once again be WP:NICE. That means fighting corruption in the higher-castes of the wikiCop society, making sure they remember to serve and protect, not just see every single talkpage spat as a nail best solved via the ban-hammer. That means building tools that make editing easier, faster, more fun, more productive. That means coming to the rescue of pages in trouble, sure... but isn't it more important to try and change the culture of deletionism, to one of friendlyism, so that if a page is on a topic which is obviously notable but needs work, instead of snark-tagging it, and then trying to get it deleted as not truly WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC... maybe the deletionists would *help* improve the article, or *help* find someone to improve the article, or *help* get the article moved to userspace until it was up to the quality standards of mainspace? Rather than trying to *destroy* the article. HTH, and I also welcome Sir Pollard to join our mutual quest, in whatsoever direction we end up taking. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHE, the most useful part of this isn't pictures of doughnuts, it's just using the "Thank" widget for specific edits. It conveys gratitude, conveys agreement and defuses a hell of a lot of arguments before they start. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I catch your drift, so please correct me if I misunderstood. But when you talk about donuts/thanks/gratitude, you are talking about leaving a thank-you note on somebody's talkpage. This is an excellent practice, in some ways, but also can degenerate into WP:WikiPrincess behavior, which I actually see nothing much wrong with... or barnstar-collecting as a means of circumventing the canvassing taboo, which is less than savory. I try to drop in randomly, when somebody does something good I happen to notice, and thank them. But I prefer to leave a personal note, even if only a few words, rather than a picture of a donut, kitten, barnstar, leaping lizard, or whatever. (There is nothing wrong with those of course... just not my style. I'd send editors a fresh-picked flower, if I could, even better than a nice note, but every time I try I just gum up the DVD drive, so I've given up on that scheme until I can get a new laptop.)

Point being: one mean snide snarky comment, one rude template-spam, one WP:NINJA reversion, or one huge bitter nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND argument, even if it does not descend all the way to WP:NPA levels, is sometimes enough to drive away an editor forever (whether experienced or a beginner). And of course, humans being humans, we dwell on the bad sometimes, so it might take fifty pictures of kittens and donuts and such to make us feel better, after just one bad thing happened. Or it might only take two or three expressions of gratitude. But it's not like one thanks will cancel out one YOUSUCK, right?

In fact, they might be orthogonal... I have a theory that most humans have an internal YOUSUCK threshold, and if they get told YOUSUCK enough times, they will leave wikipedia forever, because they won't be able to get the bad taste out of their mouths. Some of us are immune to YOUSUCK comments from the peanut gallery, but that's not important. What's important, if we want to improve retention, is to reduce the number of YOUSUCK moments on wikipedia. Increasing the number of thankyou moments is important... but it cannot alone sustain editors that are being told YOUSUCK elsewhere in the wikiverse. We must strike at the root of the problem, and work to reduce the number of YOUSUCK moments. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this talkpage a good place for holding after-action-reviews?

after-action-reviews and one-page wikipedia survival manual

I have a small -- but rapidly growing -- collection of GRUDGES AGAINST EDITORS.

(Hope that got your attention.)

Actually, I have a small collection of ten or so wikipedia-interaction-audit-trails. Sometimes I'm one of the editors, usually I'm not. I would like to perform after action reviews of these things, in a vein similar to the biz-school case study used by MBAs, or in the use case analysis used by engineers.

Specifically, this is not intended to be a veiled pseudo-psychoanalysis attack-the-victim case study, where we dissect the mental health problems of Other Editors. This is not supposed to be in any way at all anything like group 'therapy', intended to harm. Furthermore, this is not about finding blame, or separating the good guys from the bad guys, or feeling superior cause person-speaking would have done it So.Much.Better-er-est. In particular, we should strive to acquire permission -- or at least, leave a note on the talkpage -- of any 'involved' editors about which we may hold a discussion here, so they can watch it, and make sure we don't mischaracterize them or their actions, plus of course contribute if they wish.

(Maybe this is not enough... it is possible that a better approach, more conducive to keeping these lessons-learned discussions neutral, would be to strip the names, and replace them with 'Editor_A' and also 'Editor_B' and so on. That's quite a lot of gruntwork, however, and all the use-case stuff I'm planning to talk about is straight from the world-visible wikipedia edit-histories, so I hope we can just concentrate on remaining detached and neutral, without needing to redact the names, so as to protect the innocent.)

This idea is about two things. First thing: lessons learned. There are plenty of mistakes that happen on wikipedia, when good intentions go awry. See, for a real-world instance, my lesson learned in my first post on this talkpage. (Hint -- the lesson learned is, do not start off talking about blasphemous changes, unless you are crystal clear immediately thereafter that you are self-deprecatingly referring to your own changes... and better just to not use hyperbole and sarcasm and self-deprecating humor in the first place, because it can easily be taken wrong.) I suggest we make a list of such things, with a link to the details, and then promote the list, partly as a way to get people to join the WP:RETENTION project -- 150 members is not enough for my tastes -- and partly as a way to spread the lessons!

Second thing: wikipedia needs a survival manual. We have the policy guides. They suck, quite frankly. Oh, sure, for people like *me* they are fine, I'm used to going through thousands of mind-numbing pages of documentation, only to find out that in practice the documentation is not just incomplete, but flat wrong, the documentation lies about what really happens, and what is really necessary. I assert that the *real* way wikipedia works, on the ground, in the trenches, is not according to the WP:Five_pillars, but purely according to the modern five pillars:

WP:OWN (disguised as WP:CLUE). This completely eclipses pillar one.
WP:BATTLEGROUND (disguised as WP:CRUSH). This completely eclipses pillar two.
WP:NINJA (disguised as WP:BURDEN). This completely eclipses pillar three.
WP:TE (disguised as WP:BRD just without the discuss-part). This completely eclipses pillar four,
WP:TIAC (disguised as 'just the way we do things around here' ... and when that fails proceeding immediately to WP:9STEPS). This completely eclipses pillar five.

Beginning editors that show up here, expecting wikipedia to be kind of like a combination of facebook on the talkpages and geocities on the article-pages, do not grok what it takes to survive. Editors who have been around from the beginning, the WP:WikiDragons of olde, sometimes called WP:exopedians but usually not self-diagnosed as such, can also be trapped in these pits of despair. The idea is to write up a survival guide, to permit editors old and new to survive the current wikiCulture. This is, by definition, going to be a *very* brief set of heuristics. Maybe it would be called something like Twelve Steps To Making Wikipedia Behave. Get Your Changes Into Wikipedia Now With This Five Minute Guide. Wikipedia For Dummies The Abridged Version. But I prefer something more beboldo (see below).

This is absolutely positively not a Missing Manual project. (There is one, already, and it is full of lies and misleading idealisms, which shatter upon contact with real-world wikipedia editing, just like WP:PG does.)

This is a project to produce a Pocket Wikipedia Guerilla Warfare Survival Manual. One printed page, maybe duplex, maybe not... no more. And no cheating by using a five-point-fontsize. I have some ha-ha-only-serious suggestions about how best to propagate such a thing, if we manage to get it written, which I'll save until finding out if anybody cares. So, to answer that question.... Interesting? WP:NOTHERE? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a lot packed into this one big comment!

Regarding a Survival Guide, I'll just share my perspective of going from a casual Editor (since 2007) to a daily Editor (July 2013). I edited for 6+ years without knowing what Wikipedia guideline and policies pages were. I don't think I did any damage because I was correcting typos, grammar mistakes, adding names to lists that had been omitted, nothing that was content-related. It's actually hard to find the policies and guidelines unless you know where to look because you have to go into Advanced Search for any article to appear in a Wikipedia search.

Until someone shares a direct link ("Hey, Liz, you should check out WP:EGRS!"), most casual users do not only not know where to look for guidelines, they most likely don't know they exist. Of course, now I know how to find things but I spent at least a week at the Teahouse and Help asking questions that could be answered by reading Wikipedia articles...but I didn't even know where to go to find the answers I needed.

So, if anything is eventually produced from this effort, please lobby to have a link to it put on the main page navigation. Otherwise, it will exist in a virtual file cabinet because the users who need it, will never stumble upon it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I've seen you before (thanks for making wikipedia better -- I appreciate it). Also, thanks for overcoming my WP:WALLOFTEXT, it is my disease. As for your worry of a virtual file cabinet, fear not, we are more devious than that. Part of the reason for insisting it only be a single sheet of paper is so we can actually, you know, so to speak, *print* it. On dead trees. And hand it out. In the streets. In the schools. At political meetings. At conventions for various industries. Of course, if we make the rules snappy enough, and "edgy" enough, we can actual start a whisper campaign. Each heuristic should fit into a 160-byte twit or SMS. People can email each other, if they wanted to. And may I ask why are you talking about this "please lobby" to get permission, to beg obsequiously to be allowed to put a link to the pocket wikipedia guerilla warfare survival manual somewheres? ~~YOU KNOW THE CABAL DOES NOT GROVEL!~~ Whoops, nevermind that. I'm sure it will all work out.

Quite frankly, Liz, you're acting as if there is no cabal. Which probably means you are quite aware there is a cabal, doesn't it. Hmmm. Well, I'll tell you this, I'm not intending to restart one. And it will not be a guerrilla cabal, designed to take wikipedia over. No way will this non-existent cabal spread the iron fist of WP:NICE, and bring friendlyism to wikiverse. Stephen Zhang did not tell me to say any of this. Oh, and as to your point, there will not be any links to this non-existent guide surrepitously inserted into any locations whatsoever. Doomed to the virtual file-cabinet, so sad, so sad. ~~Muuahhahahaha!!~~ Sorry, ignore that last bit. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"...and now for something completely different"

This weeks Editor of the week is Nishidani. A basic and easy retention task is visiting the Editor of the Week's talk page the day after to offer congratulations. In the time it took you to read this, the task would be done. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the Anne Delong phenomena

I just found out that I created a little monster called User:Anne Delong. She made her first submission on December 24, 2012 but it was not until one week later, on January 1, 2013 that a Wikipedian formally contacted her and provided her with support and guidance (me).

I was able to work Anne through all the intricacies of Wikipedia and set her off her own way in just 10 days.

Nine months later, thanks to my initial guidance, her constant engagement with WP:TEAHOUSE, and the cautious monitoring of WP:WER over her, Anne has become an outstanding contributor. Multiple barnstars, thousands of positive edits, mentoring other editors, working the WP:AFC queue, constant praise from other editors, she has done it all in just nine months. She defines the epitome of the kind of editors that we want to lure, develop, and retain.

It seems that the workflow proposed at WP:OUTREACH seems to be the perfect formula to accomplish this.^{[neutrality is disputed]}

We need to formally research this phenomena and find out what led Anne to be so successful on Wikipedia. WP:WMF must disburse funds and investigate this matter academically. Was it my initial approach that sparked her interest? Was it her own personality that naturally has a match for Wikipedia? Was it the constant engagement with Teahouse? Was it her experience with WP:AFC? Was it the way other Wikipedians treated her due to WP:WER being overzealous over her? Was it a combination of all these? Or was it just chance?

It is time that we start to research these matters formally with the funds held by the WMF. Get WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:WMF on this conversation. Make this happen. We must replicate these cases. We must have more Anne Delong's.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ahnoneemoos: Thank you for your kind words. I think that you will find that there is already a project on the go to do what you are suggesting, organized by Ocaasi, and I was interviewed as part of this several months ago. I expect that he will report when his survey is done. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please join the discussion taking place at User talk:Maryana (WMF)#Motivations behind editing Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would nominate the first couple weeks of Anne Delong's time in the wikiverse, may she live ten thousand years, as a useful topic for an after-action-review. If both she and Ahnoneemoos are willing, of course. See my proposal below, in the after-action-review sub-section.

I definitely disagree that WMF should be funding this sort of lessons-learned investigation... mostly because I don't think they would draw the correct conclusions, due to inherent WP:COI problems, but also because I'd rather the funds be spared for other necessary work, if we can do the necessary lessons-learned investigations ourselves (and boy do I think they are necessary). In particular, if we really want to satisfy the goal that Ahnoneemoos has set for us, that we must have more Annes, and of course if Anne Delong is willing to undergo the first experimental human cloning trials, *that* would be WMF monies well-spent methinks.... :-) HTH — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have said before, I find this whole thing rather embarrassing, but it seems like it won't go away, so I will do my best to explain myself. I had been for a long time a frequent user of Wikipedia. I had intended to become an editor for some time, but just needed the right motivation to take time away from my other hobbies. My adult son is a contributor, and he explained to me in general terms how to do it. The impetus was finding a book of photos of productions of the Toronto Light Opera Association in my mother's basement, trying to look it up on Wikipedia and finding no entry. I visited a library to find information instead. I then looked at the entries for similar groups, made an account and started editing. I was confident that I could figure out how to do this because (1) I have an (outdated) Masters degree in Computer Applications (2) I have created and maintained numerous (although not particularly complex) web sites, dating back to times when raw HTML was the only game in town, (3) as a retired librarian and an active genealogist, I understand the concept of reliable sources and how to format them, (4) I was already operating a simple Wiki in my role as a conference chairperson.

When I submitted my article about the Toronto Light Opera Association at Afc, there was (of course) a backlog, and while waiting, and frequently checking the Afc queue, I began fixing up spelling, grammar and spacing on the nearby queue entries. This brought me to the attention of three helpful editors, who left messages about help pages, signing my posts, and edit summaries.(User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 1) I also started two more draft articles. After a week or so, Ahnoneemoos accepted the article. At that point he/she did a number of things to attract other editors to the article, notifying Wikiprojects, asking for a peer review, etc. I was somewhat intimidated, but he/she was very helpful in defending my lack of expertise and helping me navigate through the process of contacting and dealing with other editors, who, of course, didn't agree with many of the edits that I made (or with each others' at times, for that matter). The "New Editor on the right path" template left on my talk page was also encouraging. A few days later I received a Teahouse invitation, after which I made a pest of myself with constant questions. At this point Ahnoneemoos pronounced me in good hands, and went off to help someone new. I continued to receive cute and encouraging comments on my talk page for some time. (User talk:Anne Delong/Archive 2)

I would just like to say that, short of blocking me or maybe half-a-dozen sequential messages on my talk page saying "Get out of here", I would not have stopped editing if none of this had happened. However, the help and encouragement I received, both from friendly editors such as Ahnoneemoos and from those who replied to my questions at the Teahouse, meant that I gained skill as an editor much more quickly that would otherwise have happened. Also, their good example gave me confidence to help other new editors in turn. Now I spend most of my time helping at Articles for Creation. Here's the result: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Anne+Delong&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia . I hope this is the information that you need.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How I think about editors who make steam come out of my ears

It is a big help to me to consider this Old Testament proverb: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes."

I also maintain a what I ignore section of my user page, which I review from time to time, and which I very occasionally point out to others. Lou Sander (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I read your what I ignore notes. I think we all have run into persons who fit your examples. I try to ignore these people, but sometimes they seem to gather a following that threatens the contents of articles or even the existence of such articles. At that point you must deal with them, but argue your points rationally and without malice toward them. You must be above pettiness to win such arguments. Bill Pollard (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good advice! I just repeat, over and over, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." It really helps. Lou Sander (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: pairing up editors into teams

Why doesn't the WikiProject reach out to new and inexperienced editors and invite them to contribute to content creation in collaboration with established Wikipedians? This way, they would more likely feel good about themselves instead of neglection. As a content creator, I often feel like somebody could and should take over from me and do the lesser roles of copy-editing and checking sources, instead of doing the time-consuming research that people like me are willing to undertake. I think parties -- experienced content creators and new editors -- would benefit immensely if more of the latter are asked to contribute to the task of writing articles. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"...I often feel like somebody could and should take over from me and do the lesser roles..." Sounds fantastic! Where do I sign up? </sarcasm>. -- 101.119.15.48 (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We try not to fob off work on other editors. When checking s source is as simple as clicking a link and reading, that's really a responsibility that falls to the adding editor, not following editors. There is a WP:League of Copyeditors, however. --Lexein (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, Lexien and 101, don't be so hard on Phil... their idea is a very good one, even if they did put it in a somewhat holier-than-thou fashion, by accident. WP:AGF. And what about WP:REQUIRED? I absolutely fob work off on others. That's the whole *point* of wikipedia, in some ways. But the core of Phil's point is that some 'others' are better than me, they complement my weakness with their strength. Certainly there are plenty of wikiGnomes in the wikiverse, and nobody here thinks they are ethically "lesser" creatures, in the sense of lower-caste. The phrase was ill-formed; Phil should have said fewer-kilobytes-per-edit-roles, not "lesser" roles. WikiGnomes that perform copy-editing and cite-fixing do tend to make a long series of 1-byte and 2-byte and 3-byte edits, fixing spelling and grammar, improving clarity, formatting references properly, and so on. Whereas the content-shock-troops, like Phil, tend to go in and regurgitate several thousand bytes of research-knowledge, in one or two massive edits.

74-the-beginner is a grammar wizard -- see how I was careful to be WP:NICE and not to say grammar nazi? -- whereas somebody with a username like User:Sp33dyphil is obviously not all that concerned with capitalization, spelling, or even the gross intermixing of numerals midway through words -- but we love you too Phil. These folks complement each other, adding strength to strength, to make Voltron. The combination of an article-creator like Phil, plus a mop-up-wizard like 74, is very powerful. In the days of WWII, this was known as combined arms: Phil is the paratrooper with a submachine gun, first to hit the dirt behind enemy lines (closed-source pay-to-read content), and 74 is the sniper who travels in the armored personnel carrier, picking off the un-dotted-eye from a thousand yards (preventing misuse of their they're there). Phil's role is to burst in and spray bullets every which way, while running full tilt. 74's role is to sit comfortably on a broad tree limb, performing careful single-shot marksmanship from time to time.

I had a similar suggestion, up in the autism-thread up above, but it was an impenetrable wall-of-text. Why don't we have a wikihero-mission-kiosk, where somebody like Phil can pay a visit, and somebody like 74 can team up with him? Sometime one person or the other will have more experience, but as long as they treat each other as equals under pillar four, I don't think beginning editors will complain about being given the low-hanging fruit. And hey, nothing is stopping the beginner from leading the way, and being the paratrooper, while somebody more experienced trails along to mop up the pockets of resistance, right? Anyway, I definitely like the general concept. We just have to hammer out the details of how to implement it. See also pair programming. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

((later update... the next two comments will not make sense, unless you replace Anne as the grammar-wizard in the examples above. She protested that she did not want to be used as the example-person here, and although it took some time to get through my thick skull -- thanks to Anne for her patience -- I eventually figured it out, and have redacted here name from the paragraphs above. Sorry to Anne for my mistake, and sorry to the readers about the needless confusion. But I think there is a lesson-learned here: Phil was less-than-super-careful with his phrasing, and accidentally offended 101. Myself, in trying to correct Phil's phrasing, managed to raise objections from Anne. There is nothing inherently evil about fun-wiki-pairing for 30-minute-adventures... but it is very tricksy to explain, and we should pay close attention to whether that makes the project inadvisable. Unless we come up with a good metaphor, that the average wikipedian... and also the average potentially-a-wikipedian... finds inoffensive, this project could easily offend more folks than it retains. Not Good! Anyways, thanks for your patience. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ))

I wish to protest the role that 74.192.84.101 appears to be assigning to me here. Although it's true that I do correct spelling and grammar errors whenever I happen to see them, these types of edits are perhaps 5% of my contributions since joining Wikipedia last December. Following another editor around and cleaning up his or her (deliberately left) messes would be boring, although I don't mind helping out someone who's new and needs some help figuring out what to do. For willing proofreaders, you might investigate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. About pairing up: If people are going to collaborate, they should at least be working on topics of mutual interest, so joining a Wikiproject and asking there for a partner might be a good idea. Also, if someone likes to start articles and find references, but doesn't want to take the time, or doesn't have the skill, to develop the articles in a logical, coherent way, posting a Wikiproject banner or placing a {{Cleanup}} template will usually have the desired effect. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Anne, my apologies ... but the "you" which I am speaking of is the historical Anne Delong of January 2013, a beginner who had made sniper-updates to 15 articles in the AfC queue, while waiting for her own submissions to said queue to be approved. Many beginning editors are ready to play exactly that role, but would be encouraged to be WP:BOLD if they could pair up with somebody experienced like Phil. Anyhoo, I know about your *recent* contributions, which are stellar. I'm talking about when you first started -- I think there are many folks around now, who are much like you once were back in December 2012, and I want to retain those folks. Hope this clarifies, sorry I wasn't more explicit that I meant the Anne-Delong-with-one-month-of-experience, not the Anne Delong we know and respect as an expert today. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Collaborations have unfortunately been dwindling over time. Check out the revision history for the {{COTWs}} template listed right, and how collaborations have continuously been removed due to inactivity. For an example, see this revision history page from July 2007, and compare to the template at this time. Hopefully this project can develop ways to increase collaboration on Wikipedia articles and content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This could partly be a matter of publicity. With a lot of new editors coming on line, many may not know about the above collaboration process, but may nevertheless be working with someone. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Publicity *can* help... but we have to be very careful, cf Phil's original statement here, which was dramatically misunderstood. Advertising yet another project for collaborations (article of the day / adoption / many wikiprojects) is very tricky to do well. Most of them seem to try and 'advertise' by sending template-spam to the talkpages of editors on some list, cf WP:CANVASSING. "Dear $editor, a bot has determined that back in $year you contributed to $somewhatRelatedArticle and therefore we encourage you to visit $projectPage and contribute to our glorious collaboration on $whatever." Very off-putting. I'd definitely want to advertise, but in word-of-mouth fashion. If we make wiki-pairing *fun* then people will want to do it, and will tell their friends, and we won't need publicity, we'll get it for free. That's the exact kind of publicity we want, too: "rumor has it that people are going to wikipedia to, get this folks, have some fun... story at eleven!" We need some way to draw in editors to the pairing process, but methinks it should be organic, not a planned publicity campaign. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Collaborations
Articles
Articles for improvement
Science and technology
Birds Dinosaurs Palaeontology (new)
Miscellaneous
Inactive collaborations Latin music (new)
v t e