Architecttype’s somewhat trite response is, I think the correct one. I think making it easier to stay comes down to working with the resources we have.
for any new editor, there are probably several editors in their field, who would probably engender mutual respect and collaborate with the new user better than a randomly selected editor.
once someone has a few friends here with whom they are collaborating likemindedly, the experience becomes more bearable
the current system of page reviewing and AfC reviewing virtually ensures that a person’s early contributions probably aren’t going to be reviewed by an aforementioned friend or peer and may get straight into the hands of a reviewer without the person making the submission having had any discourse with persons working within their field. I’m going to call this the architecttype paradox, because experiences of this nature are the archetype of the experience which set this user into a spiral of discontent.
Therefore the most logical course of action, given that we already have assets (people) in place, is to devise a method for connecting people with peers within their field so that they at least have someone with whom they feel they are working alongside before an unrelated reviewer turns up out of the blue and (usually rightly) shreds their work to pieces because it’s full of policy bugaboos.
Hello new user, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thanks for your contributions. This is your talk page. Take a moment to share your interests and let me know the areas you’re interested in editing or creating.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
Above is our standard welcome template. With a couple of modifications
First ask the user what they are interested in - in the briefest possible way, and try to elicit a response.
Having acquired this. Take five minutes to arrange a few handshakes for the new user. I think if this could become a habit and/or become automated to a certain extent, the effect on retention would be great. Whether or not we actually propose modifying the template, I think the step is important.
In any other collaborative effort, companies, charities, clubs and educational facilities go to great lengths to orientate users by introducing them to members of their team. Wikipedia does this in the most crude and perfunctory fashion, leaving it to editors who are so inclined to seek out collaboration, to do so for themselves. Unfortunately not everyone is so inclined and we may be losing some of those who by working alone, run into editorial criticism and feel that it’s them against the community from a very early stage. Edaham (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a greeter at the front door. There have been a few discussions at WER over the years about creating a new welcome. I'll do a little searching in the Archives and see what I can find.―Buster7☎21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talk page of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you.
This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes (~~~~) or by pressing or in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.
There is the Adoptee's area, which has a link to a list of adopters that describes their interests. I suggest opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user if you want to discuss a potential initiative where you more actively seek new users to suggest potential adopters. Provided the new editor is receptive, helping them find a guide and ally is invaluable. A clean up of the adopters list will likely be required, and new adopters recruited. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Adoptees Area is interesting but what pops up to me is "Who is going to step up and do the work". I've been a member of WikiGuides and other recruiting endeavours over the years and, sad to say, the results never match the labor. Much the same is mentioned on the Adoptee's Area talk page. I'm not against something new. I just know that if it (whatever that is) requires work, it won't last. The onus for secondary contact (after a Welcome) is on the new editor. ―Buster7☎00:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree the track record for prolonged engagement isn't great for most English Wikipedia initiatives. There are many editors on Wikipedia, though, who spend time training other editors, at editathons or other events. Perhaps some of them can be persuaded to sign up as adopters. Or maybe we can have designated days, once or twice a month, where editors will be online to help. If Edaham or anyone else would like to champion the cause, while I caution that expectations be tempered, I also encourage them to work on a plan and move forward. I look forward to seeing the results! isaacl (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Thanks for keeping the debate open but isn't it time to start acting professionally. A marketting professional would be critical of these attempts. A few points.
Every editor is different and this means every new editor is different- the only thing they have in common is they are new and have pressed Publish changes
The template is far too verbose- death by exhaustion! Even the font size has been reduced to make it fit
Is it a welcome message? No one is expected to read the whole of the Koran in one sitting (Book of Mormon, or the Old Testament) in one sitting. A welcome message should make the new user welcome, and increase their confidence- not overwelmed by their own inadequacy.
A welcome message should be no longer than a tweet.
The welcome message can either trigger a 'greeter' by pinging them- and 7 days later trigger a bot that will post a simple page that give the twelve options. Or two posts that give two sets six options. (The tutorials and the penal code)
The Commons File Upload Wizard does it right when it comes to design.
The editor is an individual- we can use a bit of intelligence to target information. If he starts by editing on a school in Lincoln, we can see from the article talk page that it a school, and he probably needs to read advice from WikiProject Schools- from Lincoln we can suggest the active Wikimeetup Cambridge]. Other projects could be handled in similar way.
The policy documents are comprehensive- but often too complex for most editors to assimilate- thus not appropriate for links from here. Its the same problem- the lust to say everything on the same page irrespective of the end user.
He’ll be back when he knows he has a new paradox named after him. Wow, Buster. You must have been around for a bit. It’s nice to know adoption and mentoring initiatives have existed in the past. I think we can streamline a new one. The past initiatives look like quite large systems, which fail if experienced users who join up aren’t willing to give sustained commitment.
What we really need is a system, which doesn’t rely on committed mentors or adopters, and also doesn’t need any maintenance. Here’s some more ideas with those points in mind.
AGREE with Clem
Objective: Put one new user in touch with one Wikipedia in a related field. Keep the objectives realistic and don’t define the role of one of the persons as a mentor. Just say: This is a person whose been around a while and they’re working in your field. I’m sure they’d love to help. Or something like that. Let them work out their own interactional dynamic.
Find out (automatically - by bot) Who has been posting welcome templates and design a template for them. It should read something along the lines of: Hi wikipedian, I noticed you’ve been active in welcoming new users, please consider the following
Ask new users about their field of interest
Put them in touch with another Wikipedian in their field.
If Wikipedians who have receive this template welcome new users a number of times, have automated thanks sent to them or give them a handshake for continuing with the scheme, thus identifying and logging people who are actually doing the job rather than people who think meeting and greeting is a good idea, sign up for an initiative and then don’t actually do anything (that’s a me thing right there, I do shit like that).
The above system works (theoretically) because it doesn’t have a central hub, which requires maintenance and it lets experienced users work out what mentoring means to them, without a strongly defined definition. It also sends out thanks where it’s due and pulls useful Human Resources into the fold when they actually become useful Edaham (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It certainly is, and we should take these ideas there. I’m glad the conversation started here though, because editor retention, as we can see from Architecttype, is often reliant on a strong foundation and initial experience. Saddle them up well and they’ll want to stay on the horse. (Mixed metaphors there, sorry about that. Take a moment to imagine a foundation galloping)
Additonal, I want to strongly agree with Clem above in trimming the welcome message to address only the most important points of the welcoming experience. One single link to a policy page like 5p or another age with a wealth of info is totally sufficient for a welcome message. The idea being that the shorter and more simple the message is, the more human it appears to be. Edaham (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Whereas I agree it's a good idea to trim this welcome message, I don't believe it's a high value item to pursue, since I don't think anyone uses it. Working with the welcoming committee will likely have better dividends. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Some quick questions in that case: Based on your experience, what would be a good ice breaker over there? Do you think the idea of pairing editors up and/or arranging handshakes is a good idea? Is it a valid point that this doesn’t happen at present as a matter of routine? Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any experience with the welcoming committee; Buster7 used to welcome editors so perhaps he might. I suggest going through the archives to get a feeling of past discussions and activities. Also given the longstanding nature of the project, be aware that many ideas will have been thought of and possibly tried, so try not to approach your suggestions like they're completely new. Chances are they've been considered and even might have been put into effect at one point. Lastly, hope for volunteers, but expect to take on a lot of organizing work, particularly in hunting for participants and, should you find them, getting them to participate consistently. Helping people find fellow collaborators is always good; pointing people to WikiProjects might also help. However the big constraint is time. Most people apparently haven't found this type of mentorship relationship sufficiently rewarding to engage in it over other tasks, and most WikiProjects are stagnant, too. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I like your ideas, Edaham, and your energy. Saddle them up right and they'll stay on the horse. You have awakened my long held interest in changing the Wikipedia environment that a new unaware editor steps into. I searched my history and found Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users#View from User:Buster7. Its like finding an old diary with unaccomplished challenges. At some point maybe we can start a seperate sub-project within WER. ―Buster7☎23:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
arbitrary break
Isaacl That is absolutely sterling advice. You seem to have gotten to the core of everywhere I've gone wrong when making suggestions in the past. I think going there with an opening salvo of questions along the lines of, "Dear fellow editors, I'm trying to learn if this has been done yet? and did it have a useful impact?" Is probably the right move. I'll do the digging first and try to make sure my questions are on point and move from there Edaham (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also joined the welcoming committee and had a look at the users in category "help me". There was one entry. A COI editor who wants to build a page about their window cleaning business. I left what I thought is a good welcome, which utilizes the question I am proposing, to find out more about the user and invite discussion. you can see it here User_talk:RyanRo04#WELCOME!Edaham (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
That a nice message you left, but you forgot to sign it. SineBot should get it if you don't go back and do it yourself. Perhaps there's a way to have some one create a template of basically what you posted which would add a link to the welcomer's user talk page and also automatically sign the post just in case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
huh??!?!?!?! you're right - I did edit it a few times and was having problems with a useless keyboard with a shift key stuck down - excuses excuses. I probably cropped it off at some point. Anyway its signed now. Thanks for pointing out that! Edaham (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, what was discussed above was more personalized, short initial welcome messages, in which case a template isn't needed. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't particularly think {{Welcome-COI}} is any less friendlier or less welcoming that what Edaham posted. Maybe it would better to try and figure out a way to incorporate what he posted after "Phew" into the already existing welcome templates. Perhaps there's a way to create a template just for that bit (or something similar), add a parameter to the existing welcome templates (maybe |phew=) and then give those using the template the option of having it transcluded into the welcome template by simply stating |phew=yes or |phew=no. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes the bit after the phew is the important part. Let me welcome someone else who isn't a COI editor as a better example and get back to you. The good thing is we can actually welcome editors without using templates at our leisure, so whether or not the community agrees to modify a template we can still advocate for and aim for putting editors in touch with each other in our welcome messages.Edaham (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:AAU already exists, but perhaps you're aiming for something less structured when you say put "editors in touch with each other". Do you mean directing them to possibly relevant WikiProjects or actually trying to find someone whom the new editor might consider to be a peer? The former is probably fairly easy to do, but the latter seems quite hard and quite dependent upon how you and the new editor each define "peer"; for example, a new editor who has a Ph.D in Physics might not consider those in WP:PHYSICS to be a peer, even though the members of that WikiProject might be fairly knowlegable about not only physics, but also how to write/edit Wikipedia articles about physics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm less of a fan of trying to get a template modified. I can visualize a lengthy discussion with a lot of push back. What I'd be more in favor of is
identifying wikipedians who frequently apply welcome templates
sending them some advice on welcoming new users if they meet a threshold (possibly someone's going to start yelling at me for even suggesting this)
having a page somewhere, which endorses the "phew" statement, asking editors about their area of interest and offering to put them in touch with folks.
I'm not sure how to do number 1. I know you can try and work backwards using "What links here" on the template pages, but that seems really time consuming. Maybe it would be easier to try and examine newly created user talk pages since sometimes that happens when someone adds a welcome/warning template. Number 2 seems like a good idea, but the threshold part might be seen as exclusionary and subjective. Number 3 seems to be the most pluasible as a WP:ESSAY or as a subpage of WikiProject like this. Some users have even created their own guides as a user subpage to help new users. As for figuring out who's interested in what, maybe there's a way add something like that to Special:CreateAccount where a new user answers a few general interest questions while they are actually signing up for an account. Maybe there could be a pull-down menu listing all of the currently active WikiProjects or something, and the user could select the ones they are interested in. Maybe WP:WC can then get a list of these new editors and then work from there. Most likely this is all something which has been discussed before and maybe even tried, so my bad if it is. It seems, however, that the best place to try and get this type of info from new editors is when they are actually registering for an account. Of course, that means IP accounts might be left out, but it seems that the primary focus here is retaining registered editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The success of what we are creating will be measured one editor at a time. We want to create something that existing knowledgeable editors can plug into and plug out of. We want to stay away from a welcoming process that needs to be managed. The less procedural it is the more chance it will have to succeed.―Buster7☎07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is to start working on these ideas on the welcoming committee talk page rather than here, to take advantage of any expertise or previous experience available. The project seems pretty quiet over the last few years, but hopefully there are still editors watching the page that can help. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
ok, let’s do that. At the very least the few of us who have been active on this thread know that it is there. I’ll be a bit busy these next few days FYI. Edaham (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Phew! aka Project Handshake will be eagerly waiting for developments. No rush. 06:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I just stopped over at WP:WC_talk to have a looksee and noticed that User:Primefac was a player there recently. He has been very helpful in the past with the Eddy Hall of Fame and other technical solutions for WER. Also, the last thread, Welcoming at WP:AFC, looks like an open door for us to knock on. ―Buster7☎06:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As a community, at Wikiproject welcome and elsewhere, we have lots of different welcome templates currently or formerly in use and very strong diverse opinions as to whether they should be long, short, policy based or, my favourite, exercise based. But little research, apart from a study a few years ago that welcomed editors were more likely to stay. From my marketing experience I suspect that our longest welcomes are too short for women and possibly too long for men. We have the technology to measure retention/conversion rates by welcome template and while I don't know which of our current templates would turn out to be the most effective, I am very confident that running such a study would establish that some templates were much better than others. ϢereSpielChequers09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Another long term content creator retires
User:Hijiri88, who commented on this page a lot recently has quit in frustration and gives reasons on his user page [1]. I don't know how many times I have seen this happen now. The focus of this project is entirely misplaced imo, the concern seems to be with new editors being driven away by others being mean to them, I haven't actually ever observed that unless they are pushing a clear agenda and in that case who needs them. Much more of a real problem is long term content creators quitting. Maybe we should start a "content creators support group".Smeat75 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Please ignore. I got the timeline wrong and thus the real reason has to be something else.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not at all clear that Hijiri88's description of events gives us the whole story. He says that Wikipedia "sanctioned the victim in a harassment case". See:
This is not to say that other parties in the dispute didn't behave as bad or worse.
Bottom line: Hijiri88 (along with the help of some willing opponents) made Wikipedia his battleground, and made the decision to keep on fighting after recieving an interaction ban. I don't consider that "sanctioning the victim in a harassment case".
"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
There have been a lot of posts over the years on individual long-term editors leaving, and the "Reasons editors leave" section on the main page is full of reasons applicable to experienced editors. As for focus... it's been a struggle to get participants to focus on achievable goals. There are a lot of structural issues with Wikipedia (which I've discussed before), but they can't get resolved here: a broader discussion has to take place in a more visible venue. In theory, approaches to address these issues could be discussed here, but the very same structural issues have hindered that, too: Wikipedia's tradition of allowing conversation topics to be selected by consensus means these type of working group discussions can get diluted by people introducing too many digressions, and this has happened a lot. I think many people watching or who used to watch this page care about the problems faced by all types of editors, but English Wikipedia's decision-making tradition (straw poll with multi-branching discussion threads and no moderation) stalemates progress.
I still think there's an opportunity to find places to make a small difference that don't require broad consensus to proceed, and to work on that. I know this will probably only have the tiniest bit of influence on editor retention as a whole, but any step forward is good. If you want to create a content creator support group, more power to you! Set some goals, create a page, and solicit editors to join. I look forward to the results! isaacl (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Buster7: I would appreciate your retracting or blanking the above comment. I consider it a personal attack; if I changed my mind about retiring that says a lot less about the circumstances that drove me to announce my retirement than about my own commitment to this project (or perhaps a mental block preventing me from leaving: the "draw of the wiki", if you will). You have not posted to ANI since 28 September 2016, so "while pursuing something else" seems like a weak excuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Just because I don't comment at ANI doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what goes on there. I don't remember which editor I was vetting for the EotW but, to be clear, I was not stalking you. ―Buster7☎06:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I also rarely edit the incidents' noticeboard. I trust no one will assume that it is unlikely I will have read something at the noticeboard for that reason. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding indef blocked members
I've discovered that some of the members here have been indef blocked since they joined. Is it necessary to remove them from the member pages, or just keep them as is? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say not necessarily, but I would advocate revoking "Editor of the Week" honours from such editors. Anyone can join a WikiProject for whatever reason they want, so having blocked/banned members doesn't actually hurt the credibility of the project as a whole; granting awards to people when they wind up getting site-banned a few months or years down the line for essentially the same behaviour we awarded them for definitely does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As we've discussed before, Editor of the Week was deliberately set up as a low-key thanks in recognition of some good work done; it's just a slightly more fancy barnstar. If by some chance I end up blocked someday, I hope no one would go to my talk page archives and scrub them clean of barnstars. Editors typically aren't all bad or all good; I think people understand that someone saying "thanks" in appreciation of task A is not an endorsement of later behaviour B. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm talking about those cases where we thanked someone for (a questionable interpretation of) behaviour A (not a specific task) and they were later banned as a result of a more thorough investigation of behaviour A. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC
As always, editors are invited to comment on the nominations before they are awarded. But like Buster7 said before, these aren't Nobel prizes. Unless there's a dramatic increase in the numbers of editors regularly involved, and an increase in the desire to vet the editors, the recognition is going to continue to have a low threshold for being awarded. By design, being recognized is a feel-good moment for the recipient and the nominator(s); it has very little effect beyond that. This keeps the whole thing low stakes, reducing the risk of unhealthy competition for a shiny bauble. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Meh. I seem to recall it being treated, around here, as a big deal that a past recipient had stormed off the project in a huff after enough folks realized they were a NOTHERE POV-pusher who had added fake citations to dozens of articles. Maybe things have changed since then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been here since the beginning and don't remember this, but maybe there was some incident that some people thought was a big deal. Truthfully, Editor of the Week is not; it's basically an encouraging word. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It's an issue that any WikiProject faces; I think a general cleanup of inactive members may be warranted, rather than targeting specific ones. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The editor mentioned received the EotW way back in the middle of 2014. It is completely unreasonable to expect either Issacl or I to monitor the actions of over 300 individual editors so that we could retract the award if they were later determined to be "naughty". ―Buster7☎08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't put words like "I expect you or Isaacl to monitor 300 editors", "later determined to be" or "naughty" in my mouth. Moreover, please don't go back into the page history to harangue me about an already retracted comment. Just drop it and leave me alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Editor of the Week: as we discussed two years ago, if someone would like to craft another recognition with more vetting, or that retroactively removes awards, I encourage them to do so. Initiatives work best when managed by those who have invested the most time in them. I think it would be more suitable for a bigger-deal award to be created separately, rather than trying to change the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Concerning disruptive editors...
Hi, all. I've dealt with quite a few chronically disruptive users in the past, some of whom are de facto banned for their behavior. However, if a disruptive editor has had too many sock puppets to create further disruption, is it necessary to implement community bans to prevent it? If not, what’s the best possible approach? If they do reform and get unblocked, should they go to this WikiProject? I'm thinking about some possible precautions. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.
There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!
Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)
Perhaps it would be wise to wait for ∼ 100 days, at shortest, to determine whether is he retired sensu stricto. People upset due to contests over power don’t usually quit wiki projects – they might move to some alternative site, or dumbly undo the “retirement” afterwards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
He is one of many retiring over the Fram case, already the largest mass resignation that I know of in my time here. Possibly the largest since the Spanish community split away to form Encyclopaedia Libre in 2002. At the least I would wait a week or two to see the WMF and ARBCom responses. It is entirely possible that a compromise might still be hammered out that reunites the community. ϢereSpielChequers14:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
At the moment, WSC, a few of us have the ears of the ED and she's responding. So I've left a mention of this on her talk page [2], but don't let's now pile on there with a lot of additional comments - she's now under a lot of pressure, and I mean a lot, over 30,000 words of it there already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
I appreciate that many editors are unhappy who no longer want to contribute directly to English Wikipedia or participate in the retention of editors, and I wish all of them well. For anyone who is interested in continuing within the English Wikipedia community, as I mentioned last time this subject was discussed, the best legacy would be to start work on new initiatives. Real systematic change is too big to be driven from this project given its current audience, but I think that one-person tasks can be completed which will have an effect on individual editors. This will at least boost the camaraderie of those involved. Ideas for one-on-one initiatives are welcome! isaacl (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Reason WP:FRAM?
I noticed that the last editor of the week award was for June 23, 2019 and that the reason specified for no listing for each week afterwards is WP:FRAM. I'm just looking for some clarification on context - has there been no new nominations since WP:FRAM or have there been no new nominations because of it? Or is it something else I'm not thinking of? I'm trying to understand whether or not this project has been affected by the editing strikes. Clovermoss (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest @Clovermoss:. My level of participation at WP has decreased over the past few months due to what I consider an affront not to a single editor but to the whole Wikipedia community. The awarding of the "EDDY" has been put on hold till something is resolved. Until it resumes, feel free to make as many nominations as you wish. Honestly, I didn't expect at the time of going out in a supportive strike that it would last this long. But once committed.... ―Buster7☎06:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The actual highly negative impact on the morale of the community needs more exposure. It's a very serious issue but neither the WMF nor its head seem to think so. But what can we unpaid minions do against a $300K salary that leaves everything up to a chaotic ensemble of 'managers' - or is it a question of the tail wagging the dog? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Eventually the dog gets hungry and has to eat, has to return to what it loves doing. In this case it is editing WP and dispensing a weekly award of goodwill to deserving candidates. After a 10 week hiatus the EDDY will be awarded next week. ―Buster7☎05:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
I've been heavily editing Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers, trying to give fairly concrete and evidence-based advice, and it occurs to me that there are some experts here. I'd appreciate any criticism, commentary, or contributions. HLHJ (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Comments welcome on designing a new semi-automated tool functionality to increase editor retention. If you use semi-automated tools, or are a new editor, your views could be especially useful. If you don't have a phab account, feel free to read the page linked from the box, and comment here (please ping me by adding {{u|HLHJ}} to your post). HLHJ (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Creating a WikiProject
I would like to create a subpage for this WikiProject called younger editors. I would like to start a WikiProject that helps younger editors become productive editors. I believe that younger editors are an important part of Wikipedia because they can do great things for the project. However, some potential young editors get blocked for various reasons. The reason why I am proposing this is because I feel that younger editors are often overlooked when it comes to editing Wikipedia. We need to be sure that they can understand the way Wikipedia works. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Interstellarity (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This could possibly be a sub-group of this project, I've often come across enthusiastic young editors who might benefit from some sort of a temporary adopt-a-user scheme. Are you thinking of a project similar to CVU or something like a centralized adopt-a-user? – Thjarkur(talk)13:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: In the future, please ping me. I'm not sure how the WikiProject should be structured, but I'm open to anything. I don't really care if it's like CVU or Adopt a user. I would to see a group of editors working together to help our younger editors. We certainly don't want young editors to be blocked just because of their age. Interstellarity (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Well done to Interstellarity for taking the initiative. This proposal stems from this ANI thread, and this subsequent discussion with DESiegel, especially in relation to possible high-functioning autism, and the perceived ease with which young, bright new editors seem to manage to get themselves indefinitely blocked.
I believe there is potential for creating material which more effectively supports younger and possibly problematic editors. But I would not wish to rush things. (My COI declaration is that I'm an 'old bloke', with little knowledge of the special needs of editors with autism/aspergers, yet a strong desire to help and support new and younger editors to contribute here; one of my recent adoptees was a teenage school/college girl.) So, I would ask:
what evidence is there that younger editors are a problem requiring a particular solution, or that admins could deal with young, problem-causing newcomers in a more understanding manner?
what are the needs of younger editors? what do they find unhelpful or unfriendly in the way more experienced editors treat them? how do we get their input? (pinging @Thegooduser and DannyS712:
do new editors with high-functioning autism face particular problems, and are we too ready to block them, rather than guide them?
could we improve or extend the guidance we provide to younger editors? see WP:YOUNG for the only resource I'm aware of.
are admins and helpdesk contributors equipped to deal with problems specifically relevant to young editors? Is additional training needed?
what other resources are available that are written by and for younger editors WP:TheWikiWizard How can they join in?
can a new editor test their understanding of Wikipedia's rules and procedures in a fun, non-threatening way?
are we doing all we can to ensure that younger editors stay safe and don't reveal too much about themselves?
might this be a project which could benefit from WMF input and support?
Personally I suggest dropping or at least de-emphasizing the questions about high-functioning autism or other placements on the autism spectrum. We do not generally know if a person does or does not have such a condition; attempts to diagnose or detect such a condition from merely written communication have high error rates and are potentially offensive; questions about such conditions are intrusive and may be offensive, so any such recommendation would really only apply if a person stated that s/he had such a condition. Moreover, even in that case, there is Wikipedia is not therapy. I also think soem people are fsar too ready to see as autism/Asperger's what may be merely high enthusiasm and limited attention span common to many young people, and quite a few not so young people. If this focuses much on such a diagnosis-based approach, I would not participate, and would urge others not to either. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Helping young editors become productive Wikipedians is a laudable goal. (I found this thread after seeing the linked discussion at ANI & related posts, and wondering if there was a way that that could have gone better.) I'm not sure, though, that a WikiProject is the best way to go about that. As far as I understand, young editors are strongly discouraged from identifying as such - WP:Guidance for young editors says never give out any personally identifiable information (name, age, location,...) - and when an editor explicitly states that they are a minor, that information is usually redacted. Creating a WikiProject for young editors is implicitly encouraging minors to share that information, and by the very fact of its existence, it's unfortunately likely to attract bad actors - predators and trolls.
But there are other ways that the learning process for young editors could be improved. Looking at WP:GFYE, I notice that it spends a lot of time telling young users what not to do. And there are good reasons for that, of course. But I think the best way for young editors - or anyone - to learn to edit is, well, to edit, and to that end, it might be helpful to create something like Wikipedia:Community portal, but explicitly geared towards younger editors. I imagine a structure similar to the community portal, but focusing on simpler tasks that don't require too much nuance or understanding of policy, and with clear explanations of what to do: for example, "Here's a list of articles that need images. To find images, go to Wikimedia Commons and type the name of the article, or related words, in the search box. If you find a good image, add it to the article by copying and pasting this:" and so on. One of the issues in the linked case, and which I've seen before with other users, is that young users often focus too much on the social and meta aspects of Wikipedia - I assume this is because many young people are familiar with social media and forums, but not so familiar with writing encyclopedic content. So I think that a process that introduces young users to article editing in an easy to understand way would be very helpful. There are many ways this could be done, of course, and my idea is just an example.
I do think that the focus on autism is not really appropriate for the reasons outlined above by DES. It's prudent to keep those issues in the back of one's mind at times but we shouldn't be attempting to diagnose people over the internet or pushing people to disclose that information about themselves. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
How about this for a start: Revive Adopt-a-user and redo its confusing layout. Allow people to sign up for short-term adoptation, maybe by a small group. Currently people have to find adopters by contacting them personally which is confusing. (Is anybody monitoring Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted?) Have a page there with plenty of pointers about easy yet constructive things one can do. Rather than advertising it as being for younger editors, it would be open to everyone but we might encourage seemingly young editors to sign up. – Thjarkur(talk)01:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Reviving Adopt-a-user requires a group effort. It requires editors who are willing to revive it. There have been editors that adopted other users, but stopped doing that. Would you want to consider adopting a user? For redoing the layout, have a go at it yourself in your sandbox and ping me when you have your proposed design. I will take a look at it to see if it's reasonable. Interstellarity (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about that WP:AAU is the place to start a project to engage young editors. A couple of years ago I put a lot of thought into how best to revive and remodel Adopt-a-User, and started to redesign its content and focus, but real world commitments stopped me taking anything forward. My view then, as now, is that AAU is no longer a suitable means of supporting total newcomers. Nowadays we have far better instant means of guiding brand new editors -young or old - via our various help fora, such as the Teahouse and IRC chat, whereas AAU ought to focus on supporting and guiding those relatively inexperienced editors who have already demonstrated an obvious commitment to sticking around and supporting the Project, but who now would benefit from longer-term help and guidance. The Teahouse and AAU ought to work in parallel. Passively putting an 'Adopt me' template on one's userpage is more likely to lead just to disappointment and disillusionment, and offering to adopt totally new users is more likely to be attractive to those who come here merely to create one POV page before disappearing, never to be heard of again. There needs to be a long-term commitment from both sides to adoption, so I'm not convinced that's the best place to start supporting younger editors. Any Project aimed at supporting young editors probably needs a wider approach than mere mentorship, as well as input at the discussion and planning stage from the youth contingent of our editor base, plus some research input to help us understand what lessons have already been learned about the special challenges or obstacles those people encounter, what their needs and expectations are, and to provide a voice for their impressions and experiences of how they view the Wikipedia experience. By way of just one example, something like The Wiki Wizard needs to be supported and targetted towards that userbase. Pinging @Clovermoss, Thegooduser, and Qgil-WMF: for their input here.Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. Here are some of my thoughts:
In WP:Guidance for younger editors, the only real wikiproject mentioned is Wikiproject schools. This has potential privacy implicaions, and there aren't any alternative Wikiprojects offered. I think one of the best ways to help newcomers to Wikipedia, young and old, is to help engage them with their interests. I think that when it comes to young editors, giving a bit more guidance is crucial. There's a maze of things to learn here, so matching tasks with skill level is important. Each individual is unique and should not be underestimated, but most people are probably going to have an easier time adjusting if they start doing something like fixing typos and move forward into progressively more difficult editing.
Don't make assumptions about an individual's age. Everyone likes to be taken seriously, when interacting with a younger editor, keep that in mind. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" applies everywhere but it's particularly revelant to younger editors as well. If an editor is acting in a way that prompts you to believe that they are young, start a discussion in a non-confrontational way with the ultimate goal of helping.
This is just some stuff off the top of my head. I'm going to do a bit more thinking, which will hopefully result in a bit more nuance. Clovermoss(talk)10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Clovermoss and Interstellarity, I agree that getting younger editors involved with existing WikiProjects is a good idea. WP:WikiProject Video Games, for example, is a topic that appeals to younger people, and has an active userbase, plus easy to understand guides to reliable sourcing and article writing. WiR might be a good choice too - while it doesn't specifically appeal to younger people, the project has friendly users, good resources on writing articles, and lists of probably-notable topics to write about. There could be a page along the lines of "Getting started for younger editors" with a list of appropriate WikiProjects, articles needing easy maintenance tasks, and help pages (simple ones, e.g. I think it would be better to direct young editors to Help:Citation tools instead of the long and complex Help:Referencing for beginners, or Wikipedia:WMN10 - which is applicable to pretty much any biography, not just women's - over a bunch of BLP policy pages.) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely against the idea of a wikiproject, but I do share some of SpicyMilkBoy's concerns. Since we're talking about editor retention, specifically aimed at helping younger editors, maybe a Wikipedia namespace page could be started? I was thinking something along the lines of Wikipedia:Interacting with younger editors. I think that some of the ideas I expressed above could be good for something like that. It's also something that once written, could be added to see also sections of other help pages - like WP:DBN and Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers. Clovermoss(talk)10:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Another thing to keep in mind is even though every individual is unique, the difference in age that counts as young can be signifigant. I signed up when I was 16 and now I'm 17 - I've changed as a person, but I've noticed that many things have stayed fairly consistent as I've gotten older. The difference between 12 and 13 is more of a difference though. When we're talking about younger editors in general, it might be more helpful to clarify what we mean by that. Guidance for younger editors is aimed at editors who are much younger than me. It might be helpful to clarify that more in the page itself, because I didn't realize that until Nick Moyes pointed it out to me. Clovermoss(talk)23:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: I agree with you. I would say the age range for our younger editors this should target should be editors under the age of 16. I would expect a 16 year old to know how to properly edit here and act like an adult on this website. What are your thoughts on this? Interstellarity (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Maybe it could be something like a teen-friendly space? Not in a way that would be counter to WP:NOTSOCIAL but something that supports and encourages young adults. If we're going with the Wikiproject idea, it could be called something like Wikiproject Young Adults. It would be welcoming to teenage contributors, but also focus on topics of interest to the encyclopedia. There could be a section that would highlight different areas where anyone could help out. This could involve a variety of things - but YA literature is one example of what could be included. Clovermoss(talk)23:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@SpicyMilkBoy: I think an idea like that could work and that's it more likely gain more support from the wider community than an independant Wikiproject for young adults would. I think discussing varying possibilities and deciding on what is the most feasible and helpful option is the best path forward. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the Wikipedia:Interacting with younger editors idea? Or how we might be able to update Guidance for younger editors? Clovermoss(talk)01:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Let me take this opportunity to welcome you all to the Editor Retention Project. This growing conversation is as welcome as the Sun rising in the morning. WER has been relatively dormant for too long a time. In the early years this talk page was a hotbed of ideas and possibilities. Some were given flight and some died on the branches. In more recent years the only thing keeping the project alive was the Editor of the Week program. This project stayed alive in the hopes that a new group of concerned editor would arrive with new idea and a willingness to act. Again welcome from User:Buster7 and User:Isaacl.
Thank you for the welcome, Buster7 and Isaacl. I'm certainly interested in the goals of this Wikiproject beyond this thread. Editor retention? Count me in. Anyways, I thought I should let you that this page has been on my watchlist since yesterday and I'd more than willing to participate in future discussions. :) Clovermoss(talk)04:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to create a wikiproject for this, however I do want to point out a couple of concerns I have when it comes to this:
Younger Editors may not understand or be able to read an overwhelming amount of information or list of instructions given to them by other editors, so if a wikiproject is started, it might be a good to ask the folks at The Simple English Wikipedia on how to write words or information in simple English so younger editors can better understand what is going on.
Younger Editors (Like me) are always busy with schoolwork, homework, etc, so we might not be as active as others, so at times the WikiProject may be inactive.
We can't just give a list of rules to younger editors and expect them to follow it, because they might not understand everything, so it is very important that we take the time to better explain things to them in simple english.
Encouragement is key, most younger editors may want to be come Wikipedia admins, but can be overwhelmed by the size of the English Wikipedia and the huge list of rules, it is important for us editors to always be there to guide them through out the encyclopedia at all times and explain the any rule to them if possible in less than a paragraph. They may want to become admins too, but we should not discourage them by saying it takes thousands and years of editing, as they will think it will take a long time, instead we need to tell them what they should edit and do to have a higher chance of a successful request for adminship.
I'm starting a new thread for this so it's easier to navigate and keep similar discussion topics together. Pinging SpicyMilkBoy, Nick Moyes, Interstellarity, Þjarkur, and DESiegel since you all have participated in the prior thread. So, if we make this an idea into a reality, what would we need to make that happen? I have a vagueish outline in my head for what could be included, but maybe there should be a bit more of a plan/discussion? As for other topics included above, we can continue to discuss them all or start seperate threads dealing with each idea indivdually. Clovermoss(talk)05:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
One specific issue if an initiative were specifically targeted at minors is child protection concerns. Personally I would be uncomfortable in asking editors to reveal that they were minors. I would prefer initiatives that can help editors of all ages and instead target specific needs that editors are looking to be met. isaacl (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl: This idea was more along the lines of an essay not an initiative. Maybe the title I had in mind could be changed to make that more clear? Like an expanding list of some of my thoughts (specifically the first comment) above. Like an advice page, not direct interaction. Protection concerns are obviously super important, and if this page is created, a section that includes information about emergency contacts/instructions and to email oversight for personal information that younger editors might accidently reveal about themselves would be a wise idea. Clovermoss(talk)06:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl: As for not encouraging minors to share personally identiable information, that's something already in WP:Guidance for younger editors and it should stay. The page used to include more emphasis on Wikiproject schools and I'm glad that there's been some edits to reflect some of the privacy implications. I still think it'd be preferable to offer alternative wikiprojects and cater to individual interests instead of just mentioning Wikiproject schools. I also agree with Interstellarity that the page focuses a lot on what you should not do - and while all of these nots are important to follow, what can be done to encourage new editors on what they can do? Clovermoss(talk)06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Issacl: Also, sorry for yet another ping. I just have so many ideas right now that I need to spend much more time thinking about how to present them in a coherent manner. I think that in general, I'd like to focus on general editor retention initiatives. I think that it's a good idea to reexamine many different facets of making it easier to contribute as a newcomer here. Topics like how can resources be informative yet concise? Topics like how can we help create a welcoming atmosphere that is inclusive? There are so many different things that could be addressed on this talk page. I also wanted to revive the discussion that I was pinged for and see if maybe any of these ideas that have been thrown around could be turned into something less abstract and more concrete. Again, I'm sorry for being verboise. I'm going to have to work on being more concise. Clovermoss(talk)06:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
There may be some ideas in the early drafts of the "Guidance for younger editors essay, which I wrote, that could be useful here. My original draft has been rewritten pretty thoroughly, partly because it was considered too complicated from the audience, but after about a decade someone should take another look at it and maybe add back a couple of the more positive suggestions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for adding your input. It just occured to me that maybe the place to discuss improving Guidance for younger editors would be to start a talk page discussion on the complementary talk page? Anyways, I've already said a lot tonight in this discussion. I'll wait for more people to participate and add their two cents. Clovermoss(talk)07:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks — it wasn't clear that you were only following up on the idea of advice for editors looking to assist. My personal preference would be to refer to characteristics rather than age itself, such as inexperience, impetuousness, intemperate behaviour, and so forth. I appreciate, though, how this may be a more challenging approach. Just as an fyi: there's no need to ping someone multiple times in consecutive posts since they'll see all of them when visiting the section. For me specifically, there's no need to ping me for posts on this page. Also, your last ping went to some other user. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
A lot of work was done here at WER ago, years ago, setting up pages that, to be honest, never bore fruit. Revisiting them now may be a good springboard of action. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retain new editors is one. Newyorkbrad's essay another. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Groups and discussions another. There are many many more. The archives are rich with ideas that were never brought to fruition. The first thread, Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them, on this page lists some of them. My point is that some skeletons exist that need to be awakened. I have been involved with many other efforts of new editor education and nurturing; Adopt-A-User, WikiGuides, The Welcoming Committee for WER and personally welcoming at least a thousand new editors. Sorry to say but None of those efforts were successful over the long haul. Not to besmirch my effort. I'm sure 100's of the thousand stayed. When I came to Wikipedia 12 years ago I was greeted by an editor. For the next months I followed him around like a puppy dog watching what he did, where he did and how he did. Of the thousand of editors that I welcomed over the years I can't recall one editor that asked for mentoring. I put the water in front of them with a good solid informative Welcome but it was up to them to drink from it. Whatever comes about thru this effort should be low maintenance. The onus is on the new editor to investigate, learn the ropes, and get to work. ―Buster7☎06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised you didn't get any inquiries from your welcome messages (or maybe I'm overestimating what you're thinking of when you say "mentoring"). I did ask a question of the editor who left a welcome message on my talk page, but never heard back... All the same I think having a welcome, even if it seems pro forma, is useful in providing an initial person for new editors to start their network of contacts. The Teahouse is probably now the most prominent place where this role is fulfilled, though it can only do so in the context of asking specific questions. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I strongly agree that Welcomes are a valuable tool in creating a good strong platform to start a Wiki Career. I'm sure I exaggerated a bit by saying none. WikiGuides did create some initial contact. And I don't regret the time spent Welcoming new editors. It might be interesting for me to research my welcomes to see if the editor stayed on and became productive. ―Buster7☎19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I can say that my welcome was welcoming. It was nice to notice that someone else noticed me. That someone else was User:Nick Moyes. He also answered my questions at the Teahouse and eventually became my adopter inAdopt-a-User. I started editing in September 2018 and I think I've learned a lot since then. Anyways, I'm curious what Wikiguides is. Is it a sister project I haven't heard about or some kind of wikiproject/intitiave? Clovermoss(talk)20:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikiguides. As for mentioning the username, I usually do do that, but with Nick Moyes. I was trying to take isaacl's advice about not pinging someone multiple times in a single thread to heart, which is why I didn't do so. Clovermoss(talk)03:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues should be followed, so that people seeing the RfC in listings will know what it's about. It's not clear to me, though, that it's really necessary to reopen this specific RfC after the usual comment time period has elapsed, given that there hasn't been any new comments for nearly a month now. I suggest closing the re-opened RfC and moving forward with one or more of the specific ideas. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: This is an invalid RfC; if your question is "why did Legobot do this?", see the first entry at WP:RFCNOT - but to answer the question, it was done because Legobot removes the {{rfc}} tag if the next timestamp is more than thirty days in the past, in this case it was 13:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC).
Hi all. I am writing just to check in. what's the latest status on this project? Also, where do i go if i wish to assist other editors here, in line with the core goals of this project?? I'd be glad to do so, but I'm not sure which page to check. Please feel free to let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The most active arm of this project is the Editor of the Week award. Nominations are always welcome. FYI---User:Isaacl and I have been what you might call "caretakers" of the WER project for many years. Efforts to reawakening the project have always been a desire for both of us but, except for EotW, the status of the project is "Dormant". I am aware of the conversations you have had with Isaacl and I 100% agree with his advice. Editor Retention is something that happens person to person, one editor to another editor. Many broad expansive ideas have been presented over the years. None of them took hold. Many editors have surfaced with momentary energy. None of them stayed. Lets see what happens. ―Buster7☎21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks; things are the same as last month when you inquired. If you have any ideas for small initiatives that do not require consensus to proceed and can be done by, say, one or two persons, please feel free to raise them for discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This weeks Editor of the Week award has gone to the 150+ members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. In the past, some of you have visited the recipients talk page and offered your congratulations and your personal "pat on the back for a job well done". This week you can thank 150 editors all at the same time and place. Let us reach out to this Associate Project and thank them for their efforts and their high standards of expectations from each other. Editing these type of "Hot Topic" articles is not for the meek and mild as we all know. Take a second and reach out to them. ―Buster7☎16:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not around much, and you don't want to be me this month, but I will take the time to reiterate one point, a point that addresses some of the questions above and in the archive: What is editor retention really about? Let me offer a different perspective, a different way of looking at how I see editor retention in general. WER isn't the only effort to retain editors, although we are arguably the most visible project doing that work. There are many other valid analogies, this is just one of many....
WER is a group of farmers. Like all farmers, it isn't a binary job, but rather one in which you do good work and you will get good results. Put a little more effort into it, and you will get better results, etc. Our first focus is on the soil, the medium in which our crop grows.
We try to give Wikipedia better soil, a better environment, so that good things will grow from it. We do this by encouraging policies that help new users, and ones that make it possible for blocked users to come back if we reasonably believe they will be an asset. We improve the soil by helping out in dispute and content resolution, by welcoming new users, and taking the time to help someone. It all starts with the soil, the foundation, the overall environment at Wikipedia. The more people you have working the soil, the better that soil is likely to be.
Editor of the Week and other programs like the T-shirt giveaway (which isn't WER but does the same function) is like fertilizer. it takes existing editors and makes them stronger, more vigorous. This has additional benefits, we have learned, in that it helps us identify new leaders, as we have several admin come from the program.
The crop is articles; the primary product that Wikipedia produces, and the only reason it exists.
Reading is the harvest. The beautiful part is that the crop is infinite. It is literally like an apple tree that never runs out of fruit. Once we have retained excellent editors, and they produce well written and sourced prose, it is available to be enjoyed by 1 person or 100 million. The most important Wikipedian IS the reader, and they reap the greatest reward from a competent editor retention program. Keeping high value talent here means better accuracy and sourcing, more readable prose, all on a well maintained page.
While it is easy to think about the individual editors we try to assist so they can be happy, productive members of Wikipedia, it is important to remember that all our work here at WER, just like all the editing, admin'ing, coding and even the people running payroll at the Foundation, is all about and for the reader.
Sharing a request for feedback made by @MMiller (WMF): of the WMF Growth team, who is working on features to increase new editor retention:
Screenshot of suggested edits module in Czech Wikipedia
Over the last year or so, the Growth team has been piloting features in small Wikipedias meant to increase productive edits from newcomers (such as the "suggested edits module" shown here). As our features become more developed, we're planning on expanding to larger wikis, and so I created this project page on English Wikipedia, looking to gather thoughts from English Wikipedians who think about new editors. I hope some of you can check out that page and leave any of your thoughts on the talk page, so that as we think about deploying features to bigger wikis, we'll take your ideas and concerns into account.
The latest idea we're thinking about is called "structured tasks". The idea builds on our previous work of task recommendations for newcomers, but is geared toward breaking down simple editing workflows (like copyediting or adding wikilinks) into steps that are easy for newcomers to accomplish, potentially assisted by algorithms. We are asking for thoughts and opinions on the project here on the talk page. I hope to see some of you in the conversation! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)"
Let start welcoming new members instantly they join us so that they will know how to edit,use sandbox and our policy inorder to prevent early vandalism. Editor can get frustrated when he/she is blocked and those not know the reason. We have taken it has our job to welcome new editors.Tbiw (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcoming editors at the point of registration, rather than once it becomes evident they're likely to be here to contribute constructively, is a perennial proposal which is always rejected, as it would cause significant disruption. English Wikipedia gets around 4000–5000 new accounts registered every day, the overwhelming majority of which never edit here. (Remember, if someone has an account at another language Wikipedia or at any other WMF project, an English Wikipedia account will be auto-registered the next time they visit an English Wikipedia page, regardless of whether they speak the language or have any intention of editing here.) Welcoming all of them would flood Recent Changes, would confuse the new editors (who in many cases might not realise they were being greeted by a bot and try to ask questions of it), and would take away "redlinked talk page in watchlist" as an indicator of a potential new editor who needs help or of a problematic editor. If a newly-registered account is showing signs of editing contructively, HostBot already welcomes them. The most recent serious discussion (of which I'm aware, anyway) was here. ‑ Iridescent09:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
HostBot is not functioning if he does I would know see it my second main job is welcoming new users so I go there everyday to correct vandal and warn against username violation. Tbiw (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Tbiw Thanks for joining WER and for expressing positive interest in WP's success. Welcoming new users and getting them off on a good start in their WP journey is commendable. But take it from me and User:Iridescent above, welcoming them at their Port of Entry, while a friendly gesture on its face, rarely achieves the intended goal. Better you wander around WikiWorld and acclimate yourself to the editing environment. I have personally welcomed 1000's of new editors (after they had a bit of editing history) with no discernable success. Check out Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for some constructive guidance.―Buster7☎16:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is an inappropriate place to post this. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if this is the case.
I’m a graduate student researcher undertaking a study on how women learn to participate in Wikipedia and factors that enable them to persist as contributors. I’m currently seeking individuals who self-identify as women and actively participate in Wikipedia authorship. Interviewees will be asked to sit down with me for an hour long Zoom, Skype, or phone call. I cannot offer any incentives beyond the opportunity to reflect on your participation and a digital copy of our interview transcript.
Thanks for sharing. I get a 404 error when trying to access the pre-print link; is there another place where the paper can be found? isaacl (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
elcome to Wikipedia WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 34, from WikiProject Editor Retention
or 
in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.
Done. Just because I don't comment at ANI doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what goes on there. I don't remember which editor I was vetting for the EotW but, to be clear, I was not stalking you. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Reducing number of links in the welcome message. Sdkb (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
