User:RubenSchade/Technical Accuracy is Necessary but Insufficient

Abstract

Wikipedia is an incredible resource, for which I've been honoured to play a small part in creating and maintaining since 2004. I'm still amazed a non-commercial site can hold its own in search results, server capacity, and mindshare against cashed-up companies.

Such is my belief in the foundation's mission, I'm a donor and frequent contributer. I also run and maintain MediaWiki installs, and for a time was an editor of Whole Wheat Radio, the most promising wiki and radio station for independent artists.

That's not to say there haven't been challenges. This is my evolving page of thoughts and ideas for solutions that I've been writing for years, and have finally worked up the guts to publish.

The scope of the problem

One of many graphs showing retention rates

In spite of its continued growth and the internet's dependence on it as a resource, Wikipedia is struggling to attract and maintain new editors and administrators. From the Wikimedia Strategy page:

Current result: Non-vandal newbies are the ones leaving.

In a University of Minnesota academic paper, researches concluded (emphasis added):

[..] while the proportion of desirable newcomers [as opposed to spammers] who arrive at Wikipedia has been holding steady in recent years, a decreasing fraction of these newcomers survive past their initial contributions [..] Over time, [changes to combat abuse and spam] resulted in a new Wikipedia, in which newcomers are rudely greeted by automated quality control systems and are overwhelmed by the complexity of the rule system [..] Since these changes occurred, newcomers – including the crucial, desirable newcomers – have been leaving Wikipedia in droves.

I can appreciate the pressure Wikipedia is under from astroturfers, spammers, and other bad faith actors. But if mitigation methods are driving away the good faith actors who make the site possible, we lose.

Better communication

Before diving into specifics, this advise on the Interpersonal Stack Exchange rang truer than anything I've read on the subject; and I'm an engineer!

Communicating well is not a matter of stating true facts (though that is important). It is about expressing things that are accurate in a way that the other party will understand. It is common, in my personal experience, for technically-minded people (like engineers) to only focus on the accuracy of their statements.

The biggest flame wars I've witnessed have been admins and editors tersely responding to concerns, and new editors feeling slighted. The points are technically valid, reference specific rules, and are thoroughly incomprehensible to a new editor. Good faith actors feel burned, and either don't contribute again, or the problem escalates as each party talks over each other.

(I've nearly always been pleasantly surprised when I leave comments on people's talk pages, and calmly work out a solution to an issue. But I've heard enough horror stories to think my experiences are the exception, not the rule).

Idea for solution: Provide explanations, not just rules.

Rule shortcuts

These were a bad idea. Sorry, WP:WABI! I can see why having a shorthand would make things quicker and simpler (such as WP:NPP), but they're incomprehensible alphabet soup at best, and flippant and dismissive at worst to new editors.

Worse is if they're referenced without further explanation. Reverted because of alphabet soup, what do I do to fix this?

Idea for solution: Link to policies with real words, such as notability guidelines over WP:NOTABLE. Then reference the rule/point on the policy page you're citing.

Maintenance templates

My biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia is the deployment of maintenance templates without further explanations. To have a page slapped (a deliberate choice of word, as that's how it feels for a new editor) with one of these without a clear reason can be demoralising, and is counter-productive.

Put yourself in a new editor's shoes: an article they've created has a maintenance template saying there's an issue with some of their references, or that it doesn't meet notability guidelines. They click through to the rule pages linked to in the template, see a wall of text, and quit. Technical accuracy has been maintained, and we've lost another editor.

Idea for solution: Provide an explanation on the article's talk page when using maintenance templates, so editors know how to rectify the issue(s) you've identified.

Elitism

This is the hardest one to write, because I would have thought it'd be intuitively obvious. Elitism has no place on a collaborative, global website.

I read an administrator (username withheld) state on their user page that those who can employ computers should have good grammar. It comes from a good place; we should proof-read our work. But it's patronising to those for whom English isn't their first language, and says their contributions aren't wanted. We can do better.

(There's also a bit of a deletionist bent here. I prefer having contributed content that we can all fix, rather than no content at all. I don't at all buy the argument that it somehow detracts from the quality of the site; we already have page ratings and featured content to highlight articles that have been vetted).

Idea for solution: Set an example, and help people.

Edit summaries

It's important to leave edit summaries whenever making changes to pages, just as it is to have a commit message history in a version control system. Bisecting or sequentially going through page revisions to find a change is tedious and time consuming. But they can be easily abused: the Red flags in edit summaries essay goes into detail about messages that are unproductive.

My concern comes down to tone. I've started noticing summaries being used to post language that either wouldn't be appropriate or tolerated on talk pages. I posit it's due to the targets not having as easy an avenue to respond, so ruder editors feel immune. Edit summaries should follow the same protocols as talk pages, and any human interaction. This is basic Golden Rule stuff.

Curiously, most of the worst examples I've seen could easily be truncated after the first sentence without problems. For example: Removed commercial links. Wikipedia isn't a place to sell your stupid music."

As with most rude messages, they're entirely counterproductive pot-stirring that will only escalate tensions and cause problems. Thus, they have no business being used in this way.

Idea for solution: Be civil, and call out bad-faith behaviour.

Conclusion

This is very much a work in progress! But thanks for making it this far.