Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

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

Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Kerry Raymond
Do we have any data on frequency of reverts of users (or more particularly
new users) based on characteristics of the article being developed? There is
a proposal about "in-context help and onboarding" of new users:

 

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/In-context_help_and_onboarding

 

where I am suggesting that we don't allow new users to edit articles of
higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  that
this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting. I take this
approach during training, I suggest the topics they edit and choose what I
regard as "low risk" ones (and provide some sources). This produces almost
no reverts of their first edits which I think is very important in gaining
confidence with basic editing skills.

 

So I was curious about whether anyone has crunched such data or has data
that could be easily crunched to confirm or deny my hypotheses.

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Andy Mabbett-2
On 20 March 2018 at 10:09, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/In-context_help_and_onboarding

> where I am suggesting that we don't allow new users to edit articles of
> higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
> page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  that
> this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting.

I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
things like 1Lib1Ref, or an editor who just adds photos (possibly
their own, taken especially) to articles that lack them.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Andy Mabbett-2
On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> things like [...]

*how* this would impact...

Apologies.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Jonathan Morgan
Kerry,

Did you really mean "not allow" here? IMO we (WMF, researchers,
Wikipedians) shouldn't be in the business of creating Yet Another Barrier
to newcomer contribution.

*Suggesting* that people avoid making their first edit to the article on
Donald Trump, etc.--sure, that's a good "teachable moment" and probably
helps shield newcomers from unnecessary confusion and hostility.

I also believe that we could make progress by *recommending *articles for
newcomers to edit based on some combination of 1) quality improvement
needed, 2) low likelihood that good faith edits will be immediately
reverted 3) topic is of general interest OR topic is likely to be of
interest to newcomer based on their stated preferences or their editing
history.

The data necessary to run a study like the one you're looking for is all
public and so I think a study like this could be done. But to my knowledge
no one has done it yet.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> > things like [...]
>
> *how* this would impact...
>
> Apologies.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett-2
Part of the larger discussion is about an on-boarding system that is asking the user what they are trying to do so they can be given "just in time" advice on how to do it. Obviously the thing isn't built yet to know the options to be offered but you are right that we don't want unintended consequences of it. But, having said that, we did over 1000 edits at State Library of Queensland both this year and last year (about 1/4 of the world's total last year and about 1/6 of the world's total this year), so I see my fair share of 1Lib1Ref edits and, yes, they do get reverted. Here's an example edit from 2018 1Lib1Ref that was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charters_Towers&type=revision&diff=821207200&oldid=816557651

Our community will bite 1Lib1Ref people (and the edit is clearly tagged as such) just as happily as any other new user and, in this case, wouldn't back down when I pointed out there was nothing wrong with the edit. I note that I had advised the Australian community in advance about 1Lib1Ref and the kinds of edits they would see happening precisely to try to start this sort of thing happening, but ...

Actually the on-boarding system would also get in the way of training sessions. So I will probably be asking for a way for "trustworthy" new users to be able to bypass the on-boarding as this will be necessary for training sessions and might also be a solution for 1Lib1Ref.

But the larger issue is to avoid new users having really bad initial experiences because it drives them away so avoiding the high-risk articles for reverting would be useful strategy. I'd happily keep 1Lib1Ref-ers away from that kind of experience. I am hand-holding my librarians through the process (the new ones all do their 1Lib1Ref in a series of edit-a-thons (we run 3 each week through the 3 weeks and they all have my email address for any problems, plus we do have some moderately experienced users among the librarians themselves). We do not encourage the new users to use Citation Hunt because it takes them to high-risk articles. We have our "lucky dip box" instead. We literally have a box with slips of paper with the names of articles needing certain kinds of edits -- this year we added public libraries in Queensland to articles about Queensland towns and suburbs and opening/closing of schools in Qld towns and suburbs) and we have clear instructions on how to do those kinds of lucky dip edits. The repetition of doing the same kind of edit over multiple (usually low-risk) articles builds skill and confidence with these groups. We do similar things in our monthly WikiClubs with the new users (different theme each month). They love doing the lucky dips (librarians are "completer" personalities I think) and only a few seem to desire to advance to more "freelance" editing.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 9:40 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

On 20 March 2018 at 10:09, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/In-context_help_and_onboarding

> where I am suggesting that we don't allow new users to edit articles
> of higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
> page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  
> that this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting.

I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact things like 1Lib1Ref, or an editor who just adds photos (possibly their own, taken especially) to articles that lack them.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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


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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Kerry Raymond
In reply to this post by Jonathan Morgan
I said "where I am suggesting that we don’t allow new users to edit articles of higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  that this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting"

I entirely agree with you that editing Donald Trump would not be a good new user experience. I run all my edit training sessions and new-user 1Lib1Ref edit-a-thons on "low risk" articles as I perceive them. I am just curious if my perception of revert risk for new users matches statistical reality.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 4:30 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Kerry,

Did you really mean "not allow" here? IMO we (WMF, researchers,
Wikipedians) shouldn't be in the business of creating Yet Another Barrier to newcomer contribution.

*Suggesting* that people avoid making their first edit to the article on Donald Trump, etc.--sure, that's a good "teachable moment" and probably helps shield newcomers from unnecessary confusion and hostility.

I also believe that we could make progress by *recommending *articles for newcomers to edit based on some combination of 1) quality improvement needed, 2) low likelihood that good faith edits will be immediately reverted 3) topic is of general interest OR topic is likely to be of interest to newcomer based on their stated preferences or their editing history.

The data necessary to run a study like the one you're looking for is all public and so I think a study like this could be done. But to my knowledge no one has done it yet.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> > things like [...]
>
> *how* this would impact...
>
> Apologies.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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


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

Re: Revert data by article importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP

Jonathan Morgan
Got it. Thanks for the clarification Kerry. I share your perception, but
don't have data either.

- Jonathan

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Kerry Raymond <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I said "where I am suggesting that we don’t allow new users to edit
> articles of higher importance, higher quality, higher readership, or higher
> page-watcher-ship, or about living people because I strongly suspect  that
> this is where new users are at much higher risk of reverting"
>
> I entirely agree with you that editing Donald Trump would not be a good
> new user experience. I run all my edit training sessions and new-user
> 1Lib1Ref edit-a-thons on "low risk" articles as I perceive them. I am just
> curious if my perception of revert risk for new users matches statistical
> reality.
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 4:30 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> [hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Revert data by article
> importance/quality/readership/watchership/BLP
>
> Kerry,
>
> Did you really mean "not allow" here? IMO we (WMF, researchers,
> Wikipedians) shouldn't be in the business of creating Yet Another Barrier
> to newcomer contribution.
>
> *Suggesting* that people avoid making their first edit to the article on
> Donald Trump, etc.--sure, that's a good "teachable moment" and probably
> helps shield newcomers from unnecessary confusion and hostility.
>
> I also believe that we could make progress by *recommending *articles for
> newcomers to edit based on some combination of 1) quality improvement
> needed, 2) low likelihood that good faith edits will be immediately
> reverted 3) topic is of general interest OR topic is likely to be of
> interest to newcomer based on their stated preferences or their editing
> history.
>
> The data necessary to run a study like the one you're looking for is all
> public and so I think a study like this could be done. But to my knowledge
> no one has done it yet.
>
> - Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 20 March 2018 at 11:40, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I can understand your reasoning, but consider who this would impact
> > > things like [...]
> >
> > *how* this would impact...
> >
> > Apologies.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



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