Quantcast

Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Pine W
Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Kerry Raymond
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Pine W
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Stuart A. Yeates
I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
"Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"

"Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"

Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully first.

cheers
stuart

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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



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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Pine W
Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
"Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"

"Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"

Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully first.

cheers
stuart

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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



_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

aaron shaw
In reply to this post by Stuart A. Yeates
Ofer Arazy, Felipe Ortega, and Oded Nov have looked at career paths among Wikipedians. Also, Judd Antin, Coye Cheshire, and Nov have looked at how new Wikipedians select into specific roles as editors.

I'm not aware of any work that speaks specifically to the "conversion process" (from 50/500 edits ---> career Wikipedian) that you're talking about, though.



On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
"Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"

"Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"

Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully first.

cheers
stuart

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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



_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Pine W
I agree that many WikiProjects are moribund, but I was only thinking of those which are active as you need someone willing to assist in on-boarding. I think you could do it more frequently than annually, maybe around #edit milestones or my "developmental or interest" milestones. "Wow, Wilma, you've participated in 20 Article for Deletion votes, have you thought of becoming an administrator who closes these votes" (or some such). Or "Hey, Fred, you've edited 50 articles from WikiProject Architecture, are you interested to get more involved with this group?"

Maybe just giving the project recruiters the tools to easily identify users with the desired characteristics would be enough (although some guidelines so they don't over-pester would probably be in order). They can then reach out and onboard folks however they like.

The same tool could also be used just to praise the users for various milestones to motivate them. "Hey, Barney, congrats on 100 geology edits, would you like to have a progress bar on your user page so you can set a target and track how many geology edits you're making?". That is, try to motivate them by setting a goal which seems to reflect what topics they like to work on (could be based on categories and/or project tagging).

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 8:33 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Ward Cunningham
In reply to this post by Pine W
I am reminded of B.J.Fogg's notion of triggers as one of three requisites for behavior. The other two are motivation and ability.

http://www.behaviormodel.org/

This is probably old news on this list as he has been explaining his work for a long time now. Still, any initiative should be analyzed in his terms before launch.

Best regards -- Ward


On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
> "Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"
>
> "Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"
>
> Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully first.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Kerry,
>
> Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.
>
> I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.
>
> Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?
>
> I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Pine,
>
> It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.
>
> One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.
>
> The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.
>
> The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.
>
> In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.
>
> Kerry
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Research-l,
>>
>> A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Melody Kramer
That feels similar to an interview I heard a while ago on Fresh Air with author and business writer Charles Duhigg, who wrote a book on habit formation and motivation:


Here's the big takeaway:

It turns out that every habit starts with a psychological pattern called a "habit loop," which is a three-part process. First, there's a cue, or trigger, that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and let a behavior unfold.

"Then there's the routine, which is the behavior itself," Duhigg tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "That's what we think about when we think about habits."

The third step, he says, is the reward: something that your brain likes that helps it remember the "habit loop" in the future.

It's interesting to think about how apps like FitBit do this: they reward people not just for the number of behaviors they complete (steps) but also for the streaks they maintain (number of days in a row.) I imagine that both are important — the steps works towards the goal, and the streak works towards the habit.

There's also quite a lot of literature out there on how belonging to a cohort is motivating for people. I wrote a lengthy paper a few years ago looking at how this might apply in the public media world:


But some of the footnotes are applicable here. I would direct you to Kate Krontiris' work on "interested bystanders" in civic life:


Because it talks about how different kinds of people might be motivated by different types of factors.

Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:


So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.

Footnotes 30, 33, and 45 are also relevant to this discussion.

Mel 


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ward Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am reminded of B.J.Fogg's notion of triggers as one of three requisites for behavior. The other two are motivation and ability.

http://www.behaviormodel.org/

This is probably old news on this list as he has been explaining his work for a long time now. Still, any initiative should be analyzed in his terms before launch.

Best regards -- Ward


On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hmm. Integrating "push notifications" into training, as well as using them for recognition and suggestions for skill development, sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Stuart A. Yeates <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have thought about writing a bot that congratulated active users on account creation anniversaries and suggested directions for growth.
> "Grats X you've been editing for 2 years, here's a picture of a kitten. Have you thought about doing New Page Patrol?"
>
> "Grats Y you've been editing for a decade, here's a virtual beer, you've earned it! Have you thought about applying for adminship?"
>
> Of course, you'd want to check account account behaviour pretty carefully first.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On 21 February 2017 at 14:33, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Kerry,
>
> Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.
>
> I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.
>
> Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?
>
> I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Pine,
>
> It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.
>
> One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.
>
> The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.
>
> The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.
>
> In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.
>
> Kerry
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Research-l,
>>
>> A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hoi,
What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know arguments as what we do and not what we have.

What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is hardly healthy.
Thanks,
       GerardM


Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W <[hidden email]>
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Pine W
Hi Gerard,

I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.

I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term cumulative effect.

Pine



Pine


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know arguments as what we do and not what we have.

What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is hardly healthy.
Thanks,
       GerardM


Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W <[hidden email]>
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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

_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

David Goodman-2
what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Gerard,

I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.

I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term cumulative effect.

Pine



Pine


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know arguments as what we do and not what we have.

What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is hardly healthy.
Thanks,
       GerardM


Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W <[hidden email]>
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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

_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Jana Gallus
I did some work on the effects of public recognition on newcomer retention on Wikipedia (German-language edition) and found it had significant and long-lasting effects – partly also because of positive reinforcing feedback dynamics (e.g., others congratulating the newcomer):

Happy to discuss this (including possible extensions) at some point if of interest.

Jana

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:
what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Gerard,

I am cautiously optimistic that Wikipedia is sustainable for the long term. (If I was not, I would not be here.) The nature and number of contributors may continue to shift over time; perhaps someday there will be so few volunteers in certain areas of running Wikipedia (Arbcom comes to mind as a particularly demanding, thankless, high-stress role for which I do not ever think I will volunteer) that WMF will have little choice but to pay people at least stipends for the work to get done in a timely and reasonably high quality manner. But I am cautiously optimistic about the quality of many of the volunteers that we do have. Also, I am cautiously optimistic that we can *improve* both the quality and quantity of those volunteers, as well as the quantity and quality of the participants in education, GLAM, and affiliate programs related to Wikimedia.

I have observed that criticizing the admins as a group is somewhat common. While I have met a few admins that I would consider removing from office if I had the choice, I have also met several admins who do their jobs competently, helpfully, and tactfully. I'd like to see more of the good and less of the bad, and I think that there are actions that can be taken to encourage that, for the admin corps and for the Wikimedia population in general. The situation will never be perfect, but we can make small course adjustments over time that may have a positive long-term cumulative effect.

Pine



Pine


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
What you call a career I call a dead end. What I find is that all too often these careermen (typically) insist on their superiority and point of view. It results in a bias that has people say that it takes 10 sources even for something like a stub, it negates notability as it is not as they see it; consequently the sum of all knowledge is not served well. I also find that it has ossified what we do and the result is that we know arguments as what we do and not what we have.

What you call a career, I see as a dead end. There are enough things that can be done that do help us along but the admin side you promote is hardly healthy.
Thanks,
       GerardM


Op di 21 feb. 2017 om 02:34 schreef Pine W <[hidden email]>
Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the ideas. Jonathan Morgan, Aaron Halfaker, and I have had more than one conversation about wikiprojects as a way to engage with new editors. Unfortunately, there are a lot of derelict wikiprojects.

I have some ideas about how to improve the training system for ENWP and Commons in particular. But that's different from the motivation issue, which I think is more challenging. With enough money and time, the training system can be upgraded. I'm not sure if the same is true for motivation. I have the impression that student Wikimedians are mostly motivated by grades (hence the precipitous decline in their participation after their Wikipedia Education Program class ends), and many other people are motivated by money or PR (hence we get a lot of people engaging in promotionalism or PR management.) It's not clear to me how someone goes from being wiki-curious to feeling motivated enough to contribute for years. There are many other hobbies that are lower stress, healthier, offer more opportunities for socializing, and offer a friendlier environment. I think that some Wikimedians are motivated by desire to promote or share their interest in a particular topic, which might keep content creators interested and engaged for years, particularly if they meet people with similar interests. But it's a phase change to go from being a content creator or curator, to taking on roles that benefit other individual Wikimedians, or broad cross-sections of the Wikimedia community. We could use all of those kinds of good-faith long-term contributors.

Perhaps we should include information in our training about "career paths" for Wikimedians who would like to develop their skills and/or move into new roles?

I'm not sure what else to suggest. I find it challenging to figure out how to motivate people to want to contribute productively for years, and there are some roles for which lengthy experience is an informal but significant prerequisite for acceptance and/or success. I'd like to see more people make that journey.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine,

It sounds to me that there are two separate parts to your question.

One relates to the survival of such editors to being ongoing active editors. The second seems to relate to recruiting them and perhaps upskilling them for specific purposes, eg administration, guild of copy editors, and whatever initiatives you have in mind.

The first question probably relates to being able to get them better informed about the policies of Wikipedia at least in relation to the area of their contributions and how to engage with the community because it is the abrasive interaction with the community that seems to drive people away.

The second probably relates to raising awareness of WikiProjects and other collaborative initiatives. (Obviously all of WP is collaborative, but some things require higher levels of coordination and I think this might be what you are referring to). I think probably needs some analysis of the nature of their contributions and/or their topics of interest in order to introduce them to targetted WikiProjects etc that seem logical trajectories for them. The mistake we make constantly in onboarding newbies is overwhelming them with information (think of the standard Twinkle welcome templates) because "THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS" instead of what they want to know "how do I do this current thing I am trying to do". For similar reasons I think any attempts to draw them into particular projects/initiatives should be highly targeted, not too frequent, and based on what their interests seem to be rather where someone else would like them to work. (I think we should avoid the mindset of "I need to recruit some cannon fodder"). Having got their attention, someone probably has to hold their hand through whatever upskilling is needed to get them productive. Just pointing people at a Project page isn't helpful, there needs to be some human outreach and shepherding.

In some idealised universe, we should see Wikipedians as being on a learning journey, where (through analysis of past contributions and interactions) we are tracking them against a series of learning objectives (as we do with coursework curriculum "they have passed this unit, let's offer them some new units that build on that"). So, using newbies as an example, we look for some threshold of surviving-edits that demonstrate skills like "add text", "format text", "add list element", "make links", "make piped links", "add citation", "add templated citations", "use a template", "edit an infobox", "add an infobox", write on their talk page, write on an article talk page, write on another user's talk page, add to their own user page, etc. The idea being to suggest as various competencies are attained how to add a new skill to their repertoire. Once they have acquired the basic how-to skills, we could look at the suggestions of where they might apply these skills and how to specialise their skills in various ways.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Feb 2017, at 2:49 am, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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

_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
In reply to this post by David Goodman-2
Re:

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree that many WikiProjects are moribund, but I was only thinking of
> those which are active as you need someone willing to assist in on-boarding.
> I think you could do it more frequently than annually, maybe around #edit
> milestones or my "developmental or interest" milestones. "Wow, Wilma, you've
> participated in 20 Article for Deletion votes, have you thought of becoming
> an administrator who closes these votes" (or some such). Or "Hey, Fred,
> you've edited 50 articles from WikiProject Architecture, are you interested
> to get more involved with this group?"
>
> Maybe just giving the project recruiters the tools to easily identify users
> with the desired characteristics would be enough (although some guidelines
> so they don't over-pester would probably be in order). They can then reach
> out and onboard folks however they like.
>
> The same tool could also be used just to praise the users for various
> milestones to motivate them. "Hey, Barney, congrats on 100 geology edits,
> would you like to have a progress bar on your user page so you can set a
> target and track how many geology edits you're making?". That is, try to
> motivate them by setting a goal which seems to reflect what topics they like
> to work on (could be based on categories and/or project tagging).
>
> Kerry

and

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in
> my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that
> from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating
> that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that
> appreciation more broadly and more intensely.
>

I think both can be motivational.

Personalized appreciation is obviously a much stronger motivator, but
there are inevitable (and large) coverage-gaps if we just rely on
goodwill and randomness to reach all editors deserving of feedback.

Automated feedback won't appeal to all editors (and will even annoy a
few), but the quantity of userboxes, and editcountitis statistics, and
page-creation-lists, and user-group-powers that appear on thousands of
userpages, suggests that Wikimedians can enjoy displaying their
statistics and affiliations and access-permissions and
expertise-areas, and knowing when they've hit a
large-round-number-of-edits-milestone, or page-creations, or
deletion-discussion-resolutions. Many of us might want to know more of
these kinds of details about ourselves!

At the far end of the automation-spectrum, but still within the realm
of serious-knowledge-communities, the StackOverflow system has a
variety of automated statistics and 'badges'. We wouldn't want (or be
able) to do most of that, for a variety of technical and social
reasons, but there's still some interesting ideas. Check out some
userpages in here:
* https://physics.stackexchange.com/users
* https://english.stackexchange.com/users
* https://math.stackexchange.com/users
etc.
These really are "our kind of people"! (It's near the top of "If I
could clone myself..." list of places I'd also like to spend more
time...)

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Pine W
In reply to this post by Jana Gallus
Jana I remember that research. (:

Gerard, I feel the need to add a postscript in my comments to you. It might be fair to criticize me as not being an impartial observer of the admin corps, as I'm an admin on the Outreach wiki, but I've never attempted to pass a community RFA process on a content wiki, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. I tend to refer to admins as "them" rather than "us" except in regards to the Outreach wiki. I don't want to be perceived as speaking for the admin corps in general, nor do I want to be perceived as criticizing the admin corps in general. I think that we'd need some survey and observational data to get a more objective understanding of the quality of the admin corps in general.

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Stuart A. Yeates
In reply to this post by David Goodman-2
On 22 February 2017 at 16:40, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:
what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  

Automate, no. Encourage, yes.

I can imagine a tool that located editors working mainly in the area of a wikiproject (i.e. 3/5ths of their last 50 edits over three or more weeks, maybe) who had not had much recent obvious attention from other editors (no third-party edits to their talk page in that time) and once a week send each person signed up to the wikiproject a notification with a link to encourage the wikiproject participant to give that editor feedback on their work. 

In short, a private prompt to send a public feedback. 95% of the feedback would probably be positive, but it might also find one or two of the more subtle types of vandal.

cheers
stuart


--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
 

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Edward Saperia
Here's an analysis of editor retention by an experienced game designer, from Wikimania 2014 - maybe a useful alternative perspective: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHH6935o00&ebc=ANyPxKoZi0X3rcWLT3K4m0QxTsbLXm4Wcj0gOSoEBSPW2_DU4u4VBVCwMd0_8bX-f6IuzJPTfGkf

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Feb 2017, at 08:25, Stuart A. Yeates <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 22 February 2017 at 16:40, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:
what mattered to me was personal appreciation of my work--just as it did in my primary career. Not form notices, but  individual public comments that from people who showed that they understood. There is no way of automating that. The virtues of wikiprojects  (and local meetups) is of extending that appreciation more broadly and more intensely.  

Automate, no. Encourage, yes.

I can imagine a tool that located editors working mainly in the area of a wikiproject (i.e. 3/5ths of their last 50 edits over three or more weeks, maybe) who had not had much recent obvious attention from other editors (no third-party edits to their talk page in that time) and once a week send each person signed up to the wikiproject a notification with a link to encourage the wikiproject participant to give that editor feedback on their work. 

In short, a private prompt to send a public feedback. 95% of the feedback would probably be positive, but it might also find one or two of the more subtle types of vandal.

cheers
stuart


--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
 
_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Amir E. Aharoni
In reply to this post by Melody Kramer

2017-02-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer (ET) <[hidden email]>:


Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:

So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.


 
Ohhhhhhh, thank you so much for this example. How I wish we did more of that :/

As a volunteer I've been translating strings for MediaWiki and its extensions for over eight years, and I get a happiness shot every time I see my string used on the live site. It still excites me after thousands of strings just as it did the first time in 2009.

I wish we told people that the article they wrote was read by X people, for example (WordPress.com and Quora do it nicely). Or to tell them that it was translated to other languages (our team plans to do it as part of Content Translation, but it wasn't done yet).

When I get code patches from volunteers, I try to notify them when their fix goes live on wikipedia.org or if it helped solving another problem (e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106632#3042650 ), but I don't do it systematically enough, and it's certainly not a process that everybody follows.

We really need to do it.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

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

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Jane Darnell
It should be possible to inform Commons uploaders if their images are used on Wikipedia, and include the language. This would be especially helpful for Commons uploading contests such as Wiki Loves Monuments 

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]> wrote:

2017-02-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Melody Kramer (ET) <[hidden email]>:


Another fun experiment: a blood bank in Sweden texts donors to thank them after donating, and then AGAIN when the blood is actually used:

So basically, they're reminding people of how their contribution is used.


 
Ohhhhhhh, thank you so much for this example. How I wish we did more of that :/

As a volunteer I've been translating strings for MediaWiki and its extensions for over eight years, and I get a happiness shot every time I see my string used on the live site. It still excites me after thousands of strings just as it did the first time in 2009.

I wish we told people that the article they wrote was read by X people, for example (WordPress.com and Quora do it nicely). Or to tell them that it was translated to other languages (our team plans to do it as part of Content Translation, but it wasn't done yet).

When I get code patches from volunteers, I try to notify them when their fix goes live on wikipedia.org or if it helped solving another problem (e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106632#3042650 ), but I don't do it systematically enough, and it's certainly not a process that everybody follows.

We really need to do it.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Retention of Wikimedians for the long term

Piotr Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Pine W

I have a paper on why long-term contributors retire, but it is still in review. If you or anyone else would like a copy, do send me an email and I'll send you the draft.

--


Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 2/21/2017 4:49 AM, Pine W wrote:
Hi Research-l,

A human resources problem that I am experiencing is a shortage of human resources of community members who are willing, available, and have the skills to work on a variety of useful initiatives. Is anyone on this list aware of research that talks about motivations of long-term contributors? In particular, I'd be interested in research that suggests ways to convert productive, relatively new editors (say, 50-500 edits) into long-term community members who are likely to develop into long-term, productive Wikimedians.

Thanks,

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
12
Loading...