Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Edward Galvez
Hi everyone,

I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
now published!

This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
members across
four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
or demographics.

The report is available on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report

For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
results to help improve their work to support you.

The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
you can read.[1]

We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
Hope to see you there!

Feel free to email me directly with any questions.

All the best,
Edward


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc


--
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation

--
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

saidkassem
unsubscribe


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
> now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across
> four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
> Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
> us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> or demographics.
>
> The report is available on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
>
> For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
> results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
> their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> results to help improve their work to support you.
>
> The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
> What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
> share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> you can read.[1]
>
> We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
>
> All the best,
> Edward
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
In reply to this post by Edward Galvez
Hi Edward,

Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
lists.

After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
Research-l.

Have a good weekend,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
> now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across
> four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
> Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
> us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> or demographics.
>
> The report is available on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
>
> For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
> results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
> their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> results to help improve their work to support you.
>
> The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
> What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
> share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> you can read.[1]
>
> We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
>
> All the best,
> Edward
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Edward Galvez
Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.

"Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
progress (gender on the projects). And perhaps some aren't even on our
radar. I think many teams are still working to understand what are the
problems and possible levers that can help us to bring change to these
measures.  Some of those teams include Contributors/Audiences team,
Anti-Harassment Tools, Trust & Safety and Community Resources. Each of
these teams bringing their own strengths and angles to the problem. I
invite you to read the team reports
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report/Team_Reports>
.

The research team is also working on finding a way to capture demographic
data as well this year. While we gather this data through CE Insights it is
not the most optimal way to measure demographic data. There was also the
recent email by Erik Zachte about language diversity (Email subject:
"Wikipedias, participation per language") Always to good to start to
measure what you want to change.

I also invite you (and perhaps everyone on this list) to reflect on: what
numbers are most concerning for you related to diversity? What could you do
to improve diversity on the projects? And decide how you would like to take
action.

Hope this helps!
Edward


On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities
> is
> > now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across
> > four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers,
> and
> > Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> > Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> > community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also
> helps
> > us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
> > or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once
> the
> > results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them
> understand
> > their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> > results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> and
> > share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
> > you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


--
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Edward Galvez
>
>  others I am not uncertain whether we put a lot of attention (Education &
> Age),
>

Oops - meant to say "I am not certain.."
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
In reply to this post by Edward Galvez
Hi Edward, I'm surprised that this thread only appears in my email under
Research-l, but I can see in the WMF mail archives that you sent the email
to other lists also. I wonder if that happened because you used bcc. Maybe
there is a bug in Gmail. On the topic of diversity research, thanks for the
link to the team reports. I'll put those on my list of things that would be
good to browse.

Regarding the topic of harassment that the person with the email
"80hnhtv4agou" raised, I think that it's good to ask what more could and
should be done. My view is that WMF shouldn't be directly intervening in
community activities, but WMF support for community self-governance is
welcome with actions such as developing better moderation tools and
providing financial support to affiliates and community members who want to
develop evidence-based training modules. Sydney Poore is on the
Anti-Harrassment Tools team and I'm pinging her here to invite her to add
any comments that she has.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:45 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
> Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.
>
> "Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
> program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
> and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
> lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
> progress (gender on the projects). And perhaps some aren't even on our
> radar. I think many teams are still working to understand what are the
> problems and possible levers that can help us to bring change to these
> measures.  Some of those teams include Contributors/Audiences team,
> Anti-Harassment Tools, Trust & Safety and Community Resources. Each of
> these teams bringing their own strengths and angles to the problem. I
> invite you to read the team reports
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report/Team_Reports
> >
> .
>
> The research team is also working on finding a way to capture demographic
> data as well this year. While we gather this data through CE Insights it is
> not the most optimal way to measure demographic data. There was also the
> recent email by Erik Zachte about language diversity (Email subject:
> "Wikipedias, participation per language") Always to good to start to
> measure what you want to change.
>
> I also invite you (and perhaps everyone on this list) to reflect on: what
> numbers are most concerning for you related to diversity? What could you do
> to improve diversity on the projects? And decide how you would like to take
> action.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Edward
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Edward,
> >
> > Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> > the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> > subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> > lists.
> >
> > After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> > answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside
> and
> > outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for
> years,
> > and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources
> are
> > being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> > that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> > presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> > Research-l.
> >
> > Have a good weekend,
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities
> > is
> > > now published!
> > >
> > > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > > members across
> > > four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers,
> > and
> > > Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
> > > Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
> > > community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also
> > helps
> > > us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community
> health
> > > or demographics.
> > >
> > > The report is available on meta:
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report
> > >
> > > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once
> > the
> > > results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them
> > understand
> > > their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
> > > results to help improve their work to support you.
> > >
> > > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> > well!
> > > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> > and
> > > share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog
> that
> > > you can read.[1]
> > >
> > > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600
> UTC.
> > > Hope to see you there!
> > >
> > > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > > Edward
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
> > > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Edward Galvez
> > > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > > Learning & Evaluation
> > > Community Engagement
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > --
> > > Edward Galvez
> > > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > > Learning & Evaluation
> > > Community Engagement
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Pine W
It comes as no great surprise to me to see these survey results show very little change in matters of some concern (e.g. diversity, community health). Quite simply, if you don't change the system, then don't expect the outcomes to change. I can't speak about most projects but I don't see any change on en.WP in terms of how it operates since the last WMF strategic plan published in 2011. We had a non-diverse toxic culture then; nothing changes; culture remained the same. Our active editor numbers go down, the number of articles to be maintained goes up, do the maths and see the long-term problem. Admin numbers are also declining.

One big potentially positive change was the Visual Editor. WMF built the Visual Editor specifically to open up editing to a wider ground of users and, as someone who does training for new users, it is a game changer for making it easier for new users. However, en.WP didn't change. VE is not the default for new editors on en.WP. It is not enabled for en.WP talk pages, project pages, or even the Teahouse, or any forum where new users might report problems or harassment etc. Almost any how-to help page gives information only for source editor users. Commons has blocked new users from using the VE to upload own-work photos (and no useful error message is provided to tell them what to do - just something generic like "server error" is returned because Commons just "fails" the upload and doesn't pass back a reason to the VE).

The old adage "praise in public, criticise in private" remains inverted in the world of Wikipedia. Everyone can see reverted edits and the criticisms on User Talk pages. Meanwhile "Thanks" (our lightest weight way to praise) is effectively private (yeah, I know there is a public log, but at most it tells you who likes who). And what the public log does show is that most people never thank anyone anyway, which again speaks volume about our culture. We are all for transparency except curiously when thanking for a particular edit. Transparency leads to a lack of privacy that comes with it is a turn-off to some new users. I know from training some new users don't think it's OK that everyone can read their User Talk page or that their entire contribution history is visible to all. They generally believe that if they were to misbehave, then of course someone in authority (admins in our world) should be able to look at such things for the purposes of keeping the place safe and functioning effectively, but they don't see why just anyone should be able to monitor them, which is a means by which you can stalk someone or wikihound them on Wikipedia.  Interestingly pretty much all of those who raise these concerns are women, who are, in real life, the most common victims of privacy invasions (think "up-skirt-ing" vs "up-trouser-ing", think Peeping Tom vs Peeping Tomasina) and stalking. So should we look at trading off some transparency in order to get more diversity?

Vandalism. Many years ago, when I questioned our very soft policy on vandalism (it takes 4 to allow you to request to block an account), I was told that "yeah, there is a lot of vandalism now but Wikipedia is new and once people realise its value and that vandals get blocked, it will stop happening over time". Sadly nobody told the vandals this, as, based on my watchlist, they are still very active and still mostly IPs. I note we have not changed our IP policy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain as non-real-world accountable as always. As many online newspapers and other forums are turning off comments as they have learned that anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to completely unproductive name calling, defamatory comments, and not the constructive civil debate envisaged, yet at en.WP we persist in believing that the same approach can create a positive collaborative culture, which clearly it has not.

There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change the culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of its own accord.

However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying the WMF livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am here in Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East diversity by shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
To: Wiki Research-l <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Hi Edward,

Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those lists.

After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years, and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on Research-l.

Have a good weekend,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia
> communities is now published!
>
> This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> members across four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers,
> Program Organizers, and Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us
> hear from the experience of Wikimedians from across the movement so
> that teams are able to use community feedback in their planning and
> their work. This survey also helps us learn about long term changes in
> communities, such as community health or demographics.
>
> The report is available on meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Rep
> ort
>
> For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions.
> Once the results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help
> them understand their results. Most teams have already identified how
> they will use the results to help improve their work to support you.
>
> The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
> What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> and share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a
> blog that you can read.[1]
>
> We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
>
> All the best,
> Edward
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4
> 000-community-members/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
>
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> --
> Edward Galvez
> Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> Learning & Evaluation
> Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
I am a bit more optimistic than Kerry, although I agree that wider support
for VE and more publicity for the "thanks" feature would be good.

I agree with Kerry's concern about our labor supply being too small for the
demand. Related to this is the difficult situation with our diversity
statistics for content contributors; I would hope that if we could improve
our diversity that we could do so in a way that created a net positive for
the labor supply.

I would not trade down transparency for other possible benefits, and I
believe that *off-wiki* WMF and its associates like AffCom should be more
transparent about problematic situations and bad news.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that vandalism on ENWP is a huge problem. It's
a problem, but I don't think that it's going to overwhelm the encyclopedia
soon. However, I do think that it's a nontrivial timesink for experienced
users and ambitious users who want to protect the quality of the
encyclopedia. It would be interesting if there was research that estimated
the amount of time that good-faith editors on ENWP spend on cleaning up
vandalism and handing out blocks.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:56 PM Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> It comes as no great surprise to me to see these survey results show very
> little change in matters of some concern (e.g. diversity, community
> health). Quite simply, if you don't change the system, then don't expect
> the outcomes to change. I can't speak about most projects but I don't see
> any change on en.WP in terms of how it operates since the last WMF
> strategic plan published in 2011. We had a non-diverse toxic culture then;
> nothing changes; culture remained the same. Our active editor numbers go
> down, the number of articles to be maintained goes up, do the maths and see
> the long-term problem. Admin numbers are also declining.
>
> One big potentially positive change was the Visual Editor. WMF built the
> Visual Editor specifically to open up editing to a wider ground of users
> and, as someone who does training for new users, it is a game changer for
> making it easier for new users. However, en.WP didn't change. VE is not the
> default for new editors on en.WP. It is not enabled for en.WP talk pages,
> project pages, or even the Teahouse, or any forum where new users might
> report problems or harassment etc. Almost any how-to help page gives
> information only for source editor users. Commons has blocked new users
> from using the VE to upload own-work photos (and no useful error message is
> provided to tell them what to do - just something generic like "server
> error" is returned because Commons just "fails" the upload and doesn't pass
> back a reason to the VE).
>
> The old adage "praise in public, criticise in private" remains inverted in
> the world of Wikipedia. Everyone can see reverted edits and the criticisms
> on User Talk pages. Meanwhile "Thanks" (our lightest weight way to praise)
> is effectively private (yeah, I know there is a public log, but at most it
> tells you who likes who). And what the public log does show is that most
> people never thank anyone anyway, which again speaks volume about our
> culture. We are all for transparency except curiously when thanking for a
> particular edit. Transparency leads to a lack of privacy that comes with it
> is a turn-off to some new users. I know from training some new users don't
> think it's OK that everyone can read their User Talk page or that their
> entire contribution history is visible to all. They generally believe that
> if they were to misbehave, then of course someone in authority (admins in
> our world) should be able to look at such things for the purposes of
> keeping the place safe and functioning effectively, but they don't see why
> just anyone should be able to monitor them, which is a means by which you
> can stalk someone or wikihound them on Wikipedia.  Interestingly pretty
> much all of those who raise these concerns are women, who are, in real
> life, the most common victims of privacy invasions (think "up-skirt-ing" vs
> "up-trouser-ing", think Peeping Tom vs Peeping Tomasina) and stalking. So
> should we look at trading off some transparency in order to get more
> diversity?
>
> Vandalism. Many years ago, when I questioned our very soft policy on
> vandalism (it takes 4 to allow you to request to block an account), I was
> told that "yeah, there is a lot of vandalism now but Wikipedia is new and
> once people realise its value and that vandals get blocked, it will stop
> happening over time". Sadly nobody told the vandals this, as, based on my
> watchlist, they are still very active and still mostly IPs. I note we have
> not changed our IP policy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain
> as non-real-world accountable as always. As many online newspapers and
> other forums are turning off comments as they have learned that
> anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to completely unproductive name calling,
> defamatory comments, and not the constructive civil debate envisaged, yet
> at en.WP we persist in believing that the same approach can create a
> positive collaborative culture, which clearly it has not.
>
> There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change
> the culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of
> its own accord.
>
> However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying
> the WMF livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am
> here in Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East
> diversity by shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to
> participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia
> > communities is now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers,
> > Program Organizers, and Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us
> > hear from the experience of Wikimedians from across the movement so
> > that teams are able to use community feedback in their planning and
> > their work. This survey also helps us learn about long term changes in
> > communities, such as community health or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Rep
> > ort
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions.
> > Once the results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help
> > them understand their results. Most teams have already identified how
> > they will use the results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> > and share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a
> > blog that you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4
> > 000-community-members/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Kerry Raymond
Pine, I would absolutely disagree with you about off-wiki transparency. Why should a woman have to publicly disclose the contents of a thoroughly disgusting sexual email for public entertainment because they reverted some guy's edit. Why should a women be expected to provide details of an physical unwanted contact at an event for other men to pontificate about?  That's what transparency would mean.  The right of the 90% of Wikipedia contributors who are men to get to decide if a woman has the right to be offended by these things. Let's put it all out there in the open so everyone can get involved.

"Couldn't it just have been a friendly hug?". "So did his hand actually tweak your nipple or just brush part of your breast?" And so on.

And of course anyone in the world with a web browser could watch on too, such as the women's partner, her parents, her children, her colleagues. And of course IPs and new accounts could come along and join in the conversation and get involved too in the interrogation. "How lowcut was your dress? Did you have a bra on?"

Transparency would not work off-wiki and I don't think it works on-wiki for harassment issues. You might think it does because I suspect a lot of stuff doesn't get reported on the public forums. The folks in private process (such as oversight) probably see a lot of ugly stuff that the rest of us don't, or the woman just walks away from Wikipedia because they don't know there are private ways to report problems or they think it's easier just to walk away.

If you want to address diversity, I think you have to address the need for privacy in complaints processes. Although I have only outlined issues relating to women here, I am sure there are similar issues for people of other races, other religions, other cultures and so on.

Kerry




_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Pine W
Vandalism used to be dealt with entirely manually, then it became semi automated with tools like huggle, nowadays much of it is rejected by the edit filters without the vandals managing to save an edit. So while it is still a problem, it is much less of a problem than it used to be. Far less gets through to need human attention, and far less is actually seen by the readers. If it is rejected by edit filters or held up by pending changes then it isnt seen by the readers, we could do better, the German language Wikipedia has a much better system called flagged revisions. But vandalism is much less of a problem than it once was.

Against that we have an issue with IP contributions that newspapers and others don’t have. We recruit our editing community by being easy to edit. One theory of Wikipedia recruitment is that a large proprtion of new editors make an IP edit or two before deciding to create an account, and that closing down IP editing would reduce our recruitment of new editors. Of course that has to be balanced against the possibility that we would get rid of lots of vandals. But here we have to remember another theory, that  vandals and trolls will do the minimum registration necessary to do their vandalism or trolling, but people who were going to be helpful and point out a typo are easily deterred. Perhaps someone on this list would fancy doing a research project on this, but I am inclined to assume that the trend amongst news sites is to drop comments sections entirely rather than merely restrict them to those who create an account, and that this implies that the model of restricting comments to those willling at least to create a throwaway account keeps more of the toxicity than it does of the goodfaith contributions.

I have seen plenty of sites that have restricted comments further by requiring new accounts to disclose an email address, and that step might be one that deters a larger proportion of badfaith users than goidfaith ones. But I can’t see Wikimedia making such a drastic step in reducing openness, especially with 2018 looking like a year of declining editor volumes with the rally of 2015/16 having ended.



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Wiki-research-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of Pine W <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 3:05:00 AM
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

I am a bit more optimistic than Kerry, although I agree that wider support
for VE and more publicity for the "thanks" feature would be good.

I agree with Kerry's concern about our labor supply being too small for the
demand. Related to this is the difficult situation with our diversity
statistics for content contributors; I would hope that if we could improve
our diversity that we could do so in a way that created a net positive for
the labor supply.

I would not trade down transparency for other possible benefits, and I
believe that *off-wiki* WMF and its associates like AffCom should be more
transparent about problematic situations and bad news.

I'm not sure that I'd agree that vandalism on ENWP is a huge problem. It's
a problem, but I don't think that it's going to overwhelm the encyclopedia
soon. However, I do think that it's a nontrivial timesink for experienced
users and ambitious users who want to protect the quality of the
encyclopedia. It would be interesting if there was research that estimated
the amount of time that good-faith editors on ENWP spend on cleaning up
vandalism and handing out blocks.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:56 PM Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> It comes as no great surprise to me to see these survey results show very
> little change in matters of some concern (e.g. diversity, community
> health). Quite simply, if you don't change the system, then don't expect
> the outcomes to change. I can't speak about most projects but I don't see
> any change on en.WP in terms of how it operates since the last WMF
> strategic plan published in 2011. We had a non-diverse toxic culture then;
> nothing changes; culture remained the same. Our active editor numbers go
> down, the number of articles to be maintained goes up, do the maths and see
> the long-term problem. Admin numbers are also declining.
>
> One big potentially positive change was the Visual Editor. WMF built the
> Visual Editor specifically to open up editing to a wider ground of users
> and, as someone who does training for new users, it is a game changer for
> making it easier for new users. However, en.WP didn't change. VE is not the
> default for new editors on en.WP. It is not enabled for en.WP talk pages,
> project pages, or even the Teahouse, or any forum where new users might
> report problems or harassment etc. Almost any how-to help page gives
> information only for source editor users. Commons has blocked new users
> from using the VE to upload own-work photos (and no useful error message is
> provided to tell them what to do - just something generic like "server
> error" is returned because Commons just "fails" the upload and doesn't pass
> back a reason to the VE).
>
> The old adage "praise in public, criticise in private" remains inverted in
> the world of Wikipedia. Everyone can see reverted edits and the criticisms
> on User Talk pages. Meanwhile "Thanks" (our lightest weight way to praise)
> is effectively private (yeah, I know there is a public log, but at most it
> tells you who likes who). And what the public log does show is that most
> people never thank anyone anyway, which again speaks volume about our
> culture. We are all for transparency except curiously when thanking for a
> particular edit. Transparency leads to a lack of privacy that comes with it
> is a turn-off to some new users. I know from training some new users don't
> think it's OK that everyone can read their User Talk page or that their
> entire contribution history is visible to all. They generally believe that
> if they were to misbehave, then of course someone in authority (admins in
> our world) should be able to look at such things for the purposes of
> keeping the place safe and functioning effectively, but they don't see why
> just anyone should be able to monitor them, which is a means by which you
> can stalk someone or wikihound them on Wikipedia.  Interestingly pretty
> much all of those who raise these concerns are women, who are, in real
> life, the most common victims of privacy invasions (think "up-skirt-ing" vs
> "up-trouser-ing", think Peeping Tom vs Peeping Tomasina) and stalking. So
> should we look at trading off some transparency in order to get more
> diversity?
>
> Vandalism. Many years ago, when I questioned our very soft policy on
> vandalism (it takes 4 to allow you to request to block an account), I was
> told that "yeah, there is a lot of vandalism now but Wikipedia is new and
> once people realise its value and that vandals get blocked, it will stop
> happening over time". Sadly nobody told the vandals this, as, based on my
> watchlist, they are still very active and still mostly IPs. I note we have
> not changed our IP policy or our pseudonym account policy; editors remain
> as non-real-world accountable as always. As many online newspapers and
> other forums are turning off comments as they have learned that
> anonymous/pseudo accounts lead to completely unproductive name calling,
> defamatory comments, and not the constructive civil debate envisaged, yet
> at en.WP we persist in believing that the same approach can create a
> positive collaborative culture, which clearly it has not.
>
> There's no willingness even to experiment with anything that might change
> the culture and I see little likelihood that en.WP's culture will change of
> its own accord.
>
> However, there is one easy win for diversity at WMF. Start diversifying
> the WMF livestream times. Every WMF livestream is usually between 2-4am
> here in Australia so I'd like to see a bit of support for the Global East
> diversity by shifting the livestreams so everyone gets a chance to
> participate live. One small step that WMF could take ...
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2018 1:52 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Thanks for this publication. This research is likely to be of interest to
> the WikimediaAnnounce-l (and by extension, Wikimedia-l) and Wikitech-l
> subscribers, so I suggest that you cross-post this publication to those
> lists.
>
> After reading this report, I have a question which may be challenging to
> answer: what should we do to improve our diversity? Many of us, inside and
> outside of WMF, have wanted to see progress on diversity metrics for years,
> and I get the impression that while significant attention and resources are
> being given to diversity, our progress has been disappointing. Perhaps
> that's a subject that can be discussed further during the video
> presentation, but I'd also be interested in hearing your comments here on
> Research-l.
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Edward Galvez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia
> > communities is now published!
> >
> > This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
> > members across four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers,
> > Program Organizers, and Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us
> > hear from the experience of Wikimedians from across the movement so
> > that teams are able to use community feedback in their planning and
> > their work. This survey also helps us learn about long term changes in
> > communities, such as community health or demographics.
> >
> > The report is available on meta:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Rep
> > ort
> >
> > For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions.
> > Once the results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help
> > them understand their results. Most teams have already identified how
> > they will use the results to help improve their work to support you.
> >
> > The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as
> well!
> > What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report
> > and share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a
> > blog that you can read.[1]
> >
> > We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
> > Hope to see you there!
> >
> > Feel free to email me directly with any questions.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4
> > 000-community-members/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.

--

Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
allegations.

On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
haven't worked out.

We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.

--

Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers-2
Instead of putting down every idea as not being able to work without the benefit of an experiment, let's reverse the question.

Researchers, forgetting for a moment whether the community would accept it, if you were asked by the WMF BoT to make recommendations on experiments to run on en.WP to try to make it more attractive to women (since that's the aspect of diversity on which we seem to have the most data and the most research), what changes would you suggest for the experiment and why?

Let's at least get the ideas onto the table before knocking them off.

Or do we genuinely believe this is something that cannot be solved?

Kerry



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Pine W
Thanks Pine,

In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone doesn’t mind wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.

Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.

I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses of my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which promising lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.

One where we might have more agreement is over the default four warnings and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block edit warrers for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till a fifth offence. I know that the four warnings and a block approach dates back to some of the earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to bet that it wasn’t very scientifically arrived at, and that a study of the various behaviours that we treat this way would probably conclude that we could reduce the number of warnings for vandals, whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material. Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t generally have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block, the same isn't always true of others.

The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails to improve the behaviour of some who would comply with stricter civility enforcement. It would be really useful to have a study one could point to when that argument next recurs.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Wiki-research-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of Pine W <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
To: Wiki Research-l
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.

--

Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
allegations.

On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
haven't worked out.

We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.

--

Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Jonathan Morgan
(Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
to increase gender diversity)

Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to
without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with
enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and
hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and
review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
social/software system.

I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
Wikipedian.

Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once
the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile
wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these
kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall
impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important
precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to
new editors.

The Community Health
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_health_initiative> team
just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online
harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since
they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this
list, and will point out this thread.

Jonathan: This study <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145265> is the
one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y> (expansion?)
that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short
but powerful enthnographic study
<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702514>. And this lab study
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216306781> on
the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by
now--former contributors survey
<https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results>,
which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people
leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point
that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.

Thanks for raising these questions,

- J

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Thanks Pine,
>
> In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing
> is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy
> with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to
> propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone doesn’t mind
> wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
>
> Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
>
> I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses of
> my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which promising
> lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
>
> One where we might have more agreement is over the default four warnings
> and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block edit warrers
> for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till a fifth offence. I
> know that the four warnings and a block approach dates back to some of the
> earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to bet that it wasn’t very
> scientifically arrived at, and that a study of the various behaviours that
> we treat this way would probably conclude that we could reduce the number
> of warnings for vandals, whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non
> neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material.
> Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t generally
> have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block, the same isn't
> always true of others.
>
> The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that
> the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good editors and fails to
> improve the behaviour of some who would comply with stricter civility
> enforcement. It would be really useful to have a study one could point to
> when that argument next recurs.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Wiki-research-l <[hidden email]> on
> behalf of Pine W <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> To: Wiki Research-l
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
>
> --
>
> Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all, and
> it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my perspective is
> intended to ensure due process for everyone involved. That includes
> ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not callously
> dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been victimized,
> neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would oppose, for
> example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to engage in
> questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with the relevant
> allegations.
>
> On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve itself
> directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or attend Wikimedia
> events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I remain deeply unhappy
> with some of WMF's choices over the years and its lack of apology for those
> choices. I would be more trusting of a somewhat less transparent process
> for adjudicating off-wiki problems if it was led by people who are elected
> from the community, similar to English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
> elections. Arbcom is far from perfect, but I have modestly more faith in
> Arbcom than I do in WMF. On the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and
> over the years I have seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing
> to be stressed; volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a
> precious resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is
> a move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
> difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly skilled
> people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I prefer to
> avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on arbitration
> committees; I feel that identity politics are often poisonous and make it
> very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to balance the virtue of
> diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I
> haven't worked out.
>
> We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
> discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest doing
> so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.
>
> --
>
> Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about blocking
> all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see whether that is a
> net positive. As you noted, the research would be somewhat complicated when
> keeping in mind that the researchers would want to check for positive and
> negative side effects, but I think that it would be worth doing. Would you
> like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Kerry Raymond
I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving 50-50 male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times 49-49-2). Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at domestic tasks than their husbands, even when both are in full-time employment, and clearly less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But still men now do more housework than they once did. (My husband would argue that I have never let housework take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm not typical!). Similarly, we have not yet seen pay rates for women reach parity with men but they are moving closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that might once have been the norm in many occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia is a child of the 21st century; one might expect it to more closely reflect the societal norms of this century not the 19th century.

Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty. But I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.

I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said when there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events that it wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The majority of people who attend my training class and come to the events I support are women. It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't want to do. As you say, it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment to do it in and that's what women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men don't like it either.

What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia written by the most unpleasant people"?

Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations. You tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy program for those who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those who wish to stay and continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will be "managed out" through performance reviews. You run surveys that measure your culture throughout the whole process. Interestingly the cultural change almost always involved being less critical, more collaborative, less micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more self-starting, many of which I would say apply here (except perhaps for being more self-starting, I don't think that's our problem).

En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have years of evidence to demonstrate that.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

(Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments to increase gender diversity)

Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new social/software system.

I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be Wikipedian.

Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to new editors.

The Community Health
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_health_initiative> team just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this list, and will point out this thread.

Jonathan: This study <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145265> is the one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y> (expansion?) that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short but powerful enthnographic study <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702514>. And this lab study <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216306781> on the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by now--former contributors survey <https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results>,
which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.

Thanks for raising these questions,

- J

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Thanks Pine,
>
> In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP
> editing is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone
> isn’t happy with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then
> feel free to propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone
> doesn’t mind wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
>
> Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
>
> I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses
> of my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which
> promising lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
>
> One where we might have more agreement is over the default four
> warnings and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block
> edit warrers for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till
> a fifth offence. I know that the four warnings and a block approach
> dates back to some of the earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to
> bet that it wasn’t very scientifically arrived at, and that a study of
> the various behaviours that we treat this way would probably conclude
> that we could reduce the number of warnings for vandals, whilst we
> might want a longer dialogue with non neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material.
> Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t
> generally have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block,
> the same isn't always true of others.
>
> The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe
> that the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain
> level of snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including
> myself, believe that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good
> editors and fails to improve the behaviour of some who would comply
> with stricter civility enforcement. It would be really useful to have
> a study one could point to when that argument next recurs.
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Wiki-research-l <[hidden email]> on
> behalf of Pine W <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> To: Wiki Research-l
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia
> survey are published!
>
> I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
>
> --
>
> Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all,
> and it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my
> perspective is intended to ensure due process for everyone involved.
> That includes ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not
> callously dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been
> victimized, neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would
> oppose, for example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to
> engage in questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with
> the relevant allegations.
>
> On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve
> itself directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or
> attend Wikimedia events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I
> remain deeply unhappy with some of WMF's choices over the years and
> its lack of apology for those choices. I would be more trusting of a
> somewhat less transparent process for adjudicating off-wiki problems
> if it was led by people who are elected from the community, similar to
> English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Arbcom is far from
> perfect, but I have modestly more faith in Arbcom than I do in WMF. On
> the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and over the years I have
> seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing to be stressed;
> volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a precious
> resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is a
> move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
> difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly
> skilled people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I
> prefer to avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on
> arbitration committees; I feel that identity politics are often
> poisonous and make it very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to
> balance the virtue of diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity politics is an issue that I haven't worked out.
>
> We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
> discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest
> doing so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.
>
> --
>
> Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about
> blocking all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see
> whether that is a net positive. As you noted, the research would be
> somewhat complicated when keeping in mind that the researchers would
> want to check for positive and negative side effects, but I think that
> it would be worth doing. Would you like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Jonathan Morgan
A recently published report which is relevant to this discussion:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_equity_report_2018/Barriers_to_equity

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:57 PM Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving
> 50-50 male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times
> 49-49-2). Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at
> domestic tasks than their husbands, even when both are in full-time
> employment, and clearly less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But
> still men now do more housework than they once did. (My husband would argue
> that I have never let housework take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm
> not typical!). Similarly, we have not yet seen pay rates for women reach
> parity with men but they are moving closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that
> might once have been the norm in many occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia
> is a child of the 21st century; one might expect it to more closely reflect
> the societal norms of this century not the 19th century.
>
> Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty.
> But I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that
> import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.
>
> I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said
> when there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events
> that it wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The
> majority of people who attend my training class and come to the events I
> support are women. It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't
> want to do. As you say, it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment
> to do it in and that's what women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men
> don't like it either.
>
> What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia
> written by the most unpleasant people"?
>
> Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations.
> You tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of
> acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy
> program for those who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those
> who wish to stay and continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will
> be "managed out" through performance reviews. You run surveys that measure
> your culture throughout the whole process. Interestingly the cultural
> change almost always involved being less critical, more collaborative, less
> micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more self-starting, many of which I would
> say apply here (except perhaps for being more self-starting, I don't think
> that's our problem).
>
> En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new
> culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have
> years of evidence to demonstrate that.
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
> Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> [hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> (Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
> to increase gender diversity)
>
> Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted
> to without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment
> with enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing
> and hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting
> and review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
> social/software system.
>
> I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
> gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
> increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
> increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
> there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
> non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
> policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
> aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
> collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
> Wikipedian.
>
> Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
> outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
> better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once
> the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile
> wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these
> kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall
> impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important
> precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to
> new editors.
>
> The Community Health
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_health_initiative>
> team just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online
> harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since
> they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this
> list, and will point out this thread.
>
> Jonathan: This study <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145265> is the
> one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up <
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-015-0573-y> (expansion?)
> that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short
> but powerful enthnographic study <
> https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2702514>. And this lab study <
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563216306781> on
> the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by
> now--former contributors survey <
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results>,
> which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people
> leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point
> that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.
>
> Thanks for raising these questions,
>
> - J
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks Pine,
> >
> > In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP
> > editing is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone
> > isn’t happy with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then
> > feel free to propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone
> > doesn’t mind wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
> >
> > Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> > would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
> >
> > I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses
> > of my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which
> > promising lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
> >
> > One where we might have more agreement is over the default four
> > warnings and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block
> > edit warrers for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till
> > a fifth offence. I know that the four warnings and a block approach
> > dates back to some of the earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to
> > bet that it wasn’t very scientifically arrived at, and that a study of
> > the various behaviours that we treat this way would probably conclude
> > that we could reduce the number of warnings for vandals, whilst we
> > might want a longer dialogue with non neutral editors, copy pasters and
> those who add unsourced material.
> > Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> > neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t
> > generally have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block,
> > the same isn't always true of others.
> >
> > The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> > effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe
> > that the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain
> > level of snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including
> > myself, believe that tolerance of bad behaviour drives away some good
> > editors and fails to improve the behaviour of some who would comply
> > with stricter civility enforcement. It would be really useful to have
> > a study one could point to when that argument next recurs.
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> > ________________________________
> > From: Wiki-research-l <[hidden email]> on
> > behalf of Pine W <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:29:32 AM
> > To: Wiki Research-l
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia
> > survey are published!
> >
> > I'm going to respond to Kerry and Jonathan in two parts of one email.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Kerry, I did not say that transparency should be a free-for-all,
> > and it's important to keep in mind that transparency from my
> > perspective is intended to ensure due process for everyone involved.
> > That includes ensuring that people who are adjudicating cases are not
> > callously dismissing complaints, mistreating people who have been
> > victimized, neglecting evidence, or rushing to conclusions. I would
> > oppose, for example, people who are adjudicating a case deciding to
> > engage in questioning that is completely unnecessary for dealing with
> > the relevant allegations.
> >
> > On a related issue, I don't trust WMF to adjudicate cases or involve
> > itself directly in deciding who gets to be on Wikimedia sites or
> > attend Wikimedia events; WMF is not the same thing as Wikimedia and I
> > remain deeply unhappy with some of WMF's choices over the years and
> > its lack of apology for those choices. I would be more trusting of a
> > somewhat less transparent process for adjudicating off-wiki problems
> > if it was led by people who are elected from the community, similar to
> > English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Arbcom is far from
> > perfect, but I have modestly more faith in Arbcom than I do in WMF. On
> > the other hand, arbitrators are volunteers, and over the years I have
> > seen more than one instance of arbitrators appearing to be stressed;
> > volunteers with high skill levels and good intentions are a precious
> > resource, and if one of the outcomes of WMF's strategy process is a
> > move toward having a global Arbitration Committee then one of the
> > difficult questions will be how to get an adequate supply of highly
> > skilled people with good intentions to volunteer. On a related note, I
> > prefer to avoid identity politics when deciding who should be on
> > arbitration committees; I feel that identity politics are often
> > poisonous and make it very difficult to have civil dialogue. How to
> > balance the virtue of diversity with the virtue of avoiding identity
> politics is an issue that I haven't worked out.
> >
> > We're getting off of the topic of research and into more of a policy
> > discussion, so if you'd like to continue in this topic then I suggest
> > doing so on Wikimedia-l or on Meta.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hi Jonathan, I'd be supportive of running small experiments about
> > blocking all IP editors on ENWP and mid-sized Wikipedias to see
> > whether that is a net positive. As you noted, the research would be
> > somewhat complicated when keeping in mind that the researchers would
> > want to check for positive and negative side effects, but I think that
> > it would be worth doing. Would you like to make a proposal in IdeaLab?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>


--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
retention, civility, and diversity.

I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their
original contributions were in good faith.

I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.

Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can
think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale
ways.

1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and
continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict
resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural change
could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that there
are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which can be
tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my impression is
that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to remove admin
privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having a discussion
awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm
adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in
this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be
helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.

2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
of my training project
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project>
that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

80hnhtv4agou

 I believe administrators outside of the US, in en wikipedia and in wikidata etc.,
 
do not understand, our freedom of speech and our right to due process, and

that there is  a cultural misunderstanding and a lack of patience on there part,

which leads to an abuse  of power  and a breaking of the rules when it comes

to blocking  IP’s and others for  just standing up for themselves.  and to that end,

do not see the good faith edits made, that  were not reverted, and based on

other’s intelligent  level not there's.  Everything starts out nice, on tea room’s,

noticeboards, forums, and on there talk pages etc.,  and then all goes south,

as in en wikipedia, and with a now “conflict of interest” just block you,
 
to end it.
 
In wikidata which is more technically challenging, editors that claim ownership

of pages and coming  from outside of north America and europe, revert on

misunderstanding’s, and can not express themselves  in english, so just rely on

administrators noticeboard to complain against IP’s without warning,
 
not giving the chance for the ip to defend himself, and to explain that it was

an edit war.  administrators that see these posts at 100’s an hour, just block

the IP’s or the pages without any kind of  investigation, based on lies of the

accusers. and these same  administrators that have participated on
 
there talk pages are now in a “conflict of interest”, being  directly involved.
 
and in ru wikipedia, ru wikidata, english speakers are not welcome, from

there board down to there users. 


>Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:08 PM -05:00 from Pine W <[hidden email]>:
>
>I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
>that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
>continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
>retention, civility, and diversity.
>
>I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
>willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
>commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
>experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
>intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
>that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their
>original contributions were in good faith.
>
>I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.
>
>Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can
>think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale
>ways.
>
>1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and
>continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict
>resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
>I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural change
>could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that there
>are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which can be
>tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my impression is
>that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to remove admin
>privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having a discussion
>awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm
>adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in
>this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be
>helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.
>
>2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
>of my training project
>< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project >
>that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
>sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
>in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
>newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
>and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
>improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
>contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
>their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
>received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
>incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
>overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.
>
>Regards,
>
>Pine
>(  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>_______________________________________________
>Wiki-research-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Pine W
While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good experience.

Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also there's a high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the most spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any action themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block or at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However, such replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.

One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of an edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately "express doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at what that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns that suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really only be seen as a "big picture".

Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking about ways research can help with this problem.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2018 1:07 PM
To: Wiki Research-l <[hidden email]>; Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor retention, civility, and diversity.

I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant, intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their original contributions were in good faith.

I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.

Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale ways.

1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural change could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that there are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which can be tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my impression is that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to remove admin privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having a discussion awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for administrators, and I'm adding her to this email chain as an invitation for her to participate in this discussion. I think that offering training to administrators could be helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.

2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context of my training project <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project>
that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools, and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

Pine W
Hi Kerry,

Your comments are well taken (at least by me)!

I like the idea of letting users upvote or downvote edits, and having a
time-weighted average of those scores be public or at least visible to
administrators. Users who accumulate a significant number of downvotes
would be good for admins to review, especially if those downvotes come from
multiple users in a short period of time. Upvotes could be closely linked
to the "Thanks" feature, except that users could be offered the option to
thank anonymously or thank non-anonymously. I suggest that you propose your
suggestions in IdeaLab, and I may make some comments on the IdeaLab post.
The Anti-Harrassment Tools Team might be interested in that idea for their
own reasons.

Regarding reversions, I think that I heard Jonathan Morgan once say that
reverting good-faith new editors makes them significantly more likely to
stop editing. Perhaps he could share some research or thoughts on that
point, and any other thoughts about the problem with excessively aggressive
reversions and/or comments on reversions.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:47 AM Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> While I have no objection to the administrator training, I don't think
> most of the problem lies with administrators. There's a lot of biting of
> the good-faith newbies done by "ordinary" editors (although I have seen
> some admins do it too). And, while I agree that there are many good folk
> out there on en.WP, unfortunately the newbie tends to meet the other folk
> first or perhaps it's that 1 bad experience has more impact than one good
> experience.
>
> Similarly while Arbcom's willingness to desysop folks is good, I doubt a
> newbie knows how or where to complain in the first instance. Also there's a
> high level of defensive reaction if they do. Some of my trainees have
> contacted me about being reverted for clearly good-faith edits on the most
> spurious of reasons. When I have restored their edit with a hopefully
> helpful explanation, I often get reverted too. If a newbie takes any action
> themselves, it is likely to be an undo and that road leads to 3RR block or
> at least a 3RR warning. The other action they take is to respond on their
> User Talk page (when there is a message there to respond to). However, such
> replies are usually ignored, whether the other user isn't watching for a
> reply or whether they just don't like their authority to be challenged, I
> don't know. But it rarely leads to a satisfactory resolution.
>
> One of the problems we have with Wikipedia is that most of us tend to see
> it edit-by-edit (whether we are talking about a new edit or a revert of an
> edit), we don't ever see a "big picture" of a user's behaviour without a
> lot of tedious investigation (working through their recent contributions
> one by one). So, it's easy to think "I am not 100% sure that the
> edit/revert I saw was OK but I really don't have time to see if this is
> one-off or a consistent problem". Maybe we need a way to privately "express
> doubt" about an edit (in the way you can report a Facebook post). Then if
> someone starts getting too many "doubtful edits" per unit time (or
> whatever), it triggers an admin (or someone) to take a closer look at what
> that user is up to. I think if we had a lightweight way to express doubt
> about any edit, then we could use machine learning to detect patterns that
> suggest specific types of undesirable user behaviours that can really only
> be seen as a "big picture".
>
> Given this is the research mailing list, I guess we should we talking
> about ways research can help with this problem.
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2018 1:07 PM
> To: Wiki Research-l <[hidden email]>; Rosie
> Stephenson-Goodknight <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
> are published!
>
> I'm appreciative that we're having this conversation - not in the sense
> that I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm glad that some of us are
> continuing to work on our persistent difficulties with contributor
> retention, civility, and diversity.
>
> I've spent several hours on ENWP recently, and I've been surprised by the
> willingness of people to revert good-faith edits, sometimes with blunt
> commentary or with no explanation. I can understand how a newbie who
> experienced even one of these incidents would find it to be unpleasant,
> intimidating, or discouraging. Based on these experiences, I've decided
> that I should coach newbies to avoid taking reversions personally if their
> original contributions were in good faith.
>
> I agree with Jonathan Morgan that WP:NOTSOCIAL can be overused.
>
> Kerry, I appreciate your suggestions about about cultural change. I can
> think of two ways to influence culture on English Wikipedia in large-scale
> ways.
>
> 1. I think that there should be more and higher-quality training and
> continuing education for administrators in topics like policies, conflict
> resolution, communications skills, legal issues, and setting good examples.
> I think that these trainings would be one way through which cultural
> change could gradually happen over time. For what it's worth, I think that
> there are many excellent administrators who do a lot of good work (which
> can be tedious and/or stressful) with little appreciation. Also, my
> impression is that ENWP Arbcom has become more willing over the years to
> remove admin privileges from admins who misuse their tools. I recall having
> a discussion awhile back with Rosie on the topic of training for
> administrators, and I'm adding her to this email chain as an invitation for
> her to participate in this discussion. I think that offering training to
> administrators could be helpful in facilitating changes to ENWP culture.
>
> 2. I think that I can encourage civil participation in ENWP in the context
> of my training project <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_project
> >
> that I'm hoping that WMF will continue to fund. ENWP is a complex and
> sometimes emotionally difficult environment, and I'm trying to set a tone
> in the online training materials that is encouraging. I hope to teach
> newbies about the goals of Wikipedia as well as policies, how to use tools,
> and Wikipedia culture. I am hopeful that the online training materials will
> improve the confidence of new contributors, improve the retention of new
> contributors, and help new editors to increase the quality and quantity of
> their contributions. I hope that early portions of the project will be well
> received and that, over time and if the project is successful as it
> incrementally increases in scale and reach, that it will influence the
> overall culture of ENWP to be more civil.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
123