Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Behaviour of WER 'members'

Sorry, Buster7, but with one of your recents edits elsewhere you are way, way out of line. If you want the comunity to believe WER is run by a bunch of goody-two-shoes, you'd better start toeing the line yourself. I once supported much of what you do on Wikipedia. Now I'm out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That it folks. Until sanity or the project founder returns, I'll have no truck with what WER has become. Last one out please switch the light off. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit 'ya on the way out! . Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Buster, the fact that you would say that at all, no less on the talk page of Wikipedia Editor Retention, is disappointing. Of all the people here, you are one of the ones I would expect would go the extra mile to bridge the differences. As I hold you both in high esteem, I find this whole exchange disturbing. Please reconsider your position and methods here. I would ask the same of Kudpung. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we agree to disagree, but if we can't even get along with each other, then we are not fit to call ourselves a part of WER. Instead of arguing, we need to seek consensus. We accept the status quo until that new consensus forms, and accept the status quo if there is no new consensus. We need to remember why we are here. No one is the boss, and the only authority in our voices comes from the support of each other. That is how I behaved for years after founding, I seldom acted boldly, instead sought consensus among the most involved, and never forced my way on anyone. Everyone needs to dial it back a notch, accept the status quo for now, but talk about what IS possible and see what the real consensus is. To me, that is leadership.

I simply can't be here all the time. WER shouldn't need me anyway. I'm a 50 year old UV light salesmen that barely finished high school, there is nothing extraordinary about me. I'm as plain as tap water. I am just patient, open to new ideas and don't rush to conclusions, but those are choices more than skills. There is nothing that I do that you all can't do yourselves. I view WER as a glorious burden, one in which I want no power, only a voice. Maybe everyone in all these arguments needs to step back from this page, forget about the details, and just go find and help some editors that need help. The overwhelming majority of my work in WER has never been seen by anyone. The emails, the quiet fixing of problem, mediating. It isn't flashy and comes with zero credit or recognition. I truly believe that the world needs a free encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is so messy that people fall through the cracks all the time. The greatest service that anyone can do for WER is to find and help those people. You don't get awards or recognition, but it will improve editor retention, it will help one person. It will fulfil the original mission of WER. If we each are humble enough, then the act itself is reward enough. Much of the rest of this is just distraction, fluff. Dennis - 2¢ 19:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Buster, thanks for striking that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it curious that this project is taking some flak while Jimmy Wales's editor expulsion project appears to be flying under the radar. Eric Corbett 19:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the dispute? Perhaps I may be able to help? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Day but I think its best if we let this pass. In the words of my car alarm, "Step away from the vehicle!" . Buster Seven Talk 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

With all due respect for its creators and with full admiration for the work they do, unfortunately I feel that Editor of the Week has partially diverged from its original focus and no longer strictly adheres to its mission statement. With that change in its direction I do not believe that EoW belongs as as sub-project of WER and it should consider seeking independence from it. For background discussions, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week has been my responsibility since the beginning. It is a critical part of WER and, in my opinion, has kept WER alive. Except for @Go Phightins!: most of the creators that Kudpung mentions above have moved on over time. Without my daily facilitating, the award would most surely have faded on the vine. I'm not sure what that would have meant for WER. Kudpong questioned a recent nomination and didn't like the answer. That to me is what this boils down to. I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that I take this suggestion personal. It hasn't been the best of weeks. . Buster Seven Talk 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would be remiss at not pointing out @Isaacl: Editor Isaacl's continuous important input (from Day One) and refinement of the many layers of Editor of the Week. He has been instrumental in its success. He watches over things and without him the good ship HMS Eddy would have been dry-docked long ago. . Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Looking over the nominations page Kudpung links, I see a somewhat vague dispute about eligibility guidelines for the EotW award, but I'm not clear how that translates into "diverging from its original focus" or "not adhering to its mission statement". The issue of employees and/or administrators being eligible for the award is obviously contentious, but what bearing does that have on where EotW should reside? Kudpung, it would be helpful if you could spell out here exactly where/what the fail point is that makes you think it no longer belongs here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The scope that was agreed upon for the Editor of the Week recognition is described at the top of the associated page. It was intended to recognize lesser-known editors for their on-wiki work (hence the use of "Editor"). As the criteria of lesser-known is a subjective one, it hasn't always been adhered to in a strict manner, and I don't think anyone involved in the recognition wanted to play traffic cop to reject good-faith nominations. Nonetheless, the guidance remains in the nomination instructions, so nominators will hopefully seek out those who could best benefit from some encouragement. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• I think Buster deserves credit for keeping this program running. Any dispute here is more likely based on one person's perception of what the original intent was, as opposed to what consensus at the time happened to be. Intothatdarkness 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Typical of Wikipedians to misconstrue things, look for hiddfen semantics, and take things out of context. I have never at any one time questioned the value of the EoW project. I think correctly managed it is a plus and an encouragement to other editors. I have simply done three things in the eyes of those who claim to 'own' the project: Voice an opposal to a nomination on grounds that I have explained clearly enough for an 8-year-old to understand. Secondly, I suggested that there may be something wrong with a concept that consideres awards for some editors but excludes others but includes paid staff. Thirdly I took the opportunity to express my opinion that EoW has very little to do with editor retention per se. And finally, something new for you all to consider: several of your awardees have since been declared as disruptive editors, and nominating or even the mere thought of nominating an extremely well known and very prolific editor such as, for example only, Eric Corbett, as 'a lesser known' editor really needs some stretch of the imagination. I don't really care what you all do with EoW, in fact as the fourth most active member of WER I am now thinking in the light of its lost leadership and the absolute disgraceful antics of some editors on the WER talk page fiasco last week of retiring from WER - It most certainly has lost its focus even if some people maintain that the sub project of EoW hasn't. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The fiasco, as you call it, began with threads asking the membership to focus on where we were and where we were headed. The fact that the "Consultation" (as I called it) got off track and morphed into a male/female debate is typical of many discussions everywhere at on Wikipedia talk pages...the original question gets lost in the scuffle. But that is the beauty of WER. It provides a place for editors to let down their hair without fear of reprisals.. Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Added thought. Except for @Eric Corbett: who, to the best of my recollection, is the only editor that has ever been punished for something he said during a WER discussion. . Buster Seven Talk 16:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this WikiProject has lost focus (long predating any recent departures), in part for the same reason that so many others have: Wikipedia's tradition of consensus deciding everything means the aims and goals of a focused group of editors can be overrun by a larger group of editors who wish to insert their commentary into every thread. Recognizing that this tradition is currently deep-seated, I made a suggestion to try to mitigate the problem, but there could be many approaches to try to create some space where smaller groups of editors can define a scope for conversation. It does require, though, that interested editors remain engaged, and so I hope that some place can be found for the topic of editor retention to be discussed, whether it is by this WikiProject or some other group. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Buster7 says 'It provides a place for editors to let down their hair without fear of reprisals.' I read that as 'a place to be downright arrogant, rude, and to make unprovoked PA with impunity.' However, I'm sure that's not how Buster meant me to interpreted his comment. Such a place used to be the RfA voting page, for example. If it has migrated to WER then I want nothing more to do with it. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In a democracy every franchised citizen can vote for their MP, congressperson, or member of their national assembly, but after that they have no control of what those elected peers later do with thier power. At Wikipedi in contrast, we have no parliament, and irrespective of who is listed on a project’s ‘membership’ list , anyone can chime in and is normally welcome to do so. The more people who contribute to a discussion, the stronger any resulting consensus. Users would do well to be sure that they have follwed the link to Isaacl's statement. What he says makes sense - perhaps he should turn it into an essay.

However, the question we must ask ourselves is: are their comments always in keeping with that project’s mission, and do their comments uphold Wikipedia’s 5 pillars and contribute objectively to the discussion or voting process? And if they are not, the user needs to made to understand that they are disrupting a process that is intended to improve policies, guidelines, or collaborative conditions for the users. Now that WER has basically lost its guiding star, the community needs to help avoiding WER becoming a walled garden of a small group of users - all full of good intentions but perhaps not entirely expert in the ways of Wikipedia and possibly lacking the social skills for managing projects like WER in the way that Dennis Brown did. And that goes for WER sub-projects too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If the EoW has gone off the rails & is causing more concern then a solution for retaining editors, then perhaps it should be discontinued or broken away from WP:ER. If not?, then let it continue as is. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm really trying to move out of this, but I think I can add a little clarity here. This is MY perspective, not any official WER policy: Because WER isn't an admin board, we don't have a lot of rules on the talk page. I have tended to be extraordinarily patient when people come here and get loud or talk noise about someone else. I will politely remind them of the policy, and if needed be a bit more forceful, but I've never blocked someone from something that happened on these pages. I don't bend the rules here, I just enforce with a bit more compassion and patience, and if needed, I will revert and get blunt in my own way, but only as a last resort. I do tolerate a level of rudeness that I wouldn't tolerate elsewhere. Someone who feels "wronged" has few venues to come to so they don't know where to turn, often it is a cry for help. Sometimes, the problem is their own making, and we should gently get them to that conclusion. Even though that isn't really part of our charter, I accept some of that as our burden. The best thing is to volunteer to take it to their talk page and help them there, if it doesn't really fit here. Pushing them away and offering no alternative isn't the best option. Sometimes, the very act of LISTENING, asking a question, calmly explaining policy if needed, and simply giving a damn, well that makes all the difference. Often, that is all they want, for someone to listen. From personal (and recent) experience, I can tell you that it often makes a huge difference. Dennis - 2¢ 15:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Go For It!

		Now that you are a Wikipedia editor the wonderful opportunity to add to the knowledge of the World Awaits. There is more to WikiWorld than just this article, Explore. Discover. Grow. Edit.
		PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE . Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to put opportunities to grow in front of them, let them glimpse the bigger picture. Give them permission to leave the little world of the one article or the one topic.

Your drivers license has been appoved!

		Go For It!
		The light is Green! You've passed the Test. Now that you are a Wikipedia editor the wonderful opportunity to add to the knowledge of the World Awaits. There is more to WikiWorld than just this article, Explore. Discover. Grow. Edit.
Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said WER is no longer working?

Dear fellow WER members, I'm glad to share with you all that WER is still working in the way it should work! Recently, I along with Buster7 (One of the most active members) worked together on behalf of WER to bring back a retired Wikipedian. Few months ago he has retired after being baited at their RfA by trolls. I felt that he is a good person but he was so discouraged that he decided to retire. Being a member of WER, I decided to convince him, I send out a Wikipedia email asking him to return. But I knew that a single mail won't do the work so I asked Buster7 to send a "come back" mail.

Yesterday, they returned back to Wikipedia after a month long absense. Our project is working in the way it should. I encourage every member of the project to help users who are in stress instead of arguing with each other. Best, Jim Carter 07:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad Jim and I were able to put what Dennis said ("Maybe everyone in all these arguments needs to step back from this page, forget about the details, and just go find and help some editors that need help") into action. . Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, JC & B7 :) GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Potential members of editor retention programme

I have just found Category:Potential members of editor retention programme in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories (number 201 in the version of 00:11, 2 February 2015).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) and 00:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC) and 18:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• A little more information might be useful Wavelength. Do you see a potential use that WER can put to this Category. If so, what do you envision? Feel free to "go with your flow"...if you have an idea, act on it. All I see is a deflated balloon. Breathe some air into it and lets see if it floats. . Buster Seven Talk 18:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not know more about this category than what other editors can observe. I do not have any particular ideas for how to use it, although I have revised it with a link to the list of members of this WikiProject, and I have revised it again, with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghana/Participants.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SPAs - should we work on retaining them?

Back in 2012 I questioned the prevailing use of SPAs as a derogatory term for editors. I used the example of user: Fortibus to illustrate that not all SPAs are BAD. Unfortunately it appears things have not changed much. Any comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I have seen SPAs that do incredible work, particularly with quick updates to sports articles, for example. Not all SPAs are bad and many current prolific editors likely once were SPAs, so yes, we should absolutely try to retain them. Go Phightins! 00:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Some SPAs are troublesome (particular those with political agendas) & some SPAs are benefical. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor who never edits anything but art history articles would appear to qualify as "one very narrow area", part of the definition of SPA. But I would object to a suggestion that the project would be better served if such editors diversified into other areas. SPA has always seemed like a useless concept to me, and it wouldn't break my heart if it were erased from the community consciousness. There are other ways to deal with the "bad" SPAs. Actually I think this belongs in a more visible venue such as WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Every editor start with one edit, so we all, by definition, started as SPAs. The SPA term can useful in identifying context of an account to a closer of a discussion, but otherwise they should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. NE Ent 03:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The definition in the link SPA seems determined to classify, then over-classify then turn perfectly normal behaviour into a trend that needs to be policed and eliminated. The fault seems to be in Wikipedia's insane desire to write policies- perhaps we should scrutinise the folk that were obsessed enough to contribute to that page.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Clem Rutter and started an attempt to reform wp:spa Ottawahitech (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Specialists are better able to locate relevant sources and evaluate them in context. It seems to me like one of the most effective models of editing is a page curated by SPA's with occasional appeals to outside comment. Rhoark (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally when we refer to a single purpose account we are talking about a user who is here only to push a single point of view. I think it is important that we not confuse this term with a person who quietly improves a specific area of Wikipedia only. We have several experts on various things and naturally they focus on their strengths. SPAs only become an issue when they demonstrate a threat to our neutrality. Chillum 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally when we refer to a single purpose account we are talking about a user who is here only to push a single point of view. If this is the case for most people, then WP:SPA needs to be revised or rewritten, because on that page alone it provides several different definitions of "SPA" and is very misleading. KonveyorBelt 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

SPAs are less trouble, then persistant IPs who only show up to enforce their edits. But, those types will never discourage me into retirement. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly some SPAs are just a pain in the @$$. But in my experience, most are not. A lot just have narrow fields of interest interest into which they tend to confine their editing. In some cases this can be a single topic or even a single article. Even there however the results can be surprising. An interesting and somewhat ongoing example would be Universal Medicine. This is an article about a very controversial organization that has attracted a small army of SPAs from both sides of the controversy who have somehow managed to produce a creditable article. Yeah, there have been some moments of heated disagreement that required intervention by more experienced editors, but overall it's worked. So yes, I think SPAs should be on the retention plan. As with all retention efforts, a little discernment and commonsense is in order. If someone has a track record of disruptive editing or they are are obviously NOT HERE, then I wouldn't expend much time on keeping them. But with a little coaxing some SPAs can be nudged into contributing on a broader scale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay, and one that has caused a lot of good editors a lot of grief. Add to that WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:CRUSH. Accusing an editor of being a "SPA," or of editing "tendentiously" should be accompanied by a boatload of evidence, which I rarely see. And the notion of "civil POV pushing" is crazy. It's like saying, "Well, if you're going to push what we think is a POV, at least be a turd about it so it's easier for us to sanction you." One of my favorite essays? Editing controversial subjects It explains a lot of piling on behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's civil POV pushing and tendentious editing that played a LARGE role in convincing me to leave the project for a long time. It's not generally THAT hard to get someone blocked or warned for uncivil behavior. It's not generally THAT hard to get someone blocked or warned for edit warring. It's very, very difficult to deal with editors who remain civil yet repeatedly exhibit the behaviors listed in the tendentious editing essay. Many at ANI look only at whether or not someone has thrown about personal attacks, and, if not, we'll let the rest slide because, after all, it's a content issue. Sigh. It's those kinds of editors - the civil POV pushers - who tend to cause a great deal of the frustration experienced by people who write FAs and GAs and then cause those editors to finally snap. I do agree that there ought to be evidence provided - at first.

IMO, we shouldn't try to retain or reform the types of SPAs who are uncivil and/or tendentious. The useful ones, yes, by all means let's try to figure out a way to help them either find it easier to edit their topic of choice, or help them find a way to leverage that interest into other areas of the project. Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

SPA isn't a guideline or a policy and therefore is not even something that can be an official part of this project. We use the guidelines and policies of the project and not the opinions of various editors. It is not even a question of whether or not to attempt the retention of ANY good editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, Mark. I think its a question of our individual discovery as we wander around WikiWorld. If we bump into an SPA editor that shows potential, that would benefit themselves and the encyclopdia by having a broader workspace, we should specifically encourage them. Maybe with a personal note on their talk page. This thread started with the question SPAs - should we work on retaining them?. Of course we should. Its what Dennis sees as our "way of being". Anna also talked about making it (editor retention that is) personal. Any barnstar creators out there? As for the use of SPAs as a derogatory term for editors. Over time maybe we can change that. It's kinda like the "N-word". We (all of us) need to find a more creative and positive term and start using that in our conversations. A term that brings to mind and expresses their possibilities of growth rather than their current state of self-imposed limitations. . Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*SPA = Single Purpose Account
*LPA = Limited Purpose Account
*MPD = Minimum Purpose Account
*APA = Active Purpose Account
*FPA = First Purpose Account
*FA = Flashlight Account

Troublesome SPAs tend to end up topic-banned, so they're not too big a worry. Benign SPAs are quite helpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Are editors who are only involved in deletions considered SPAs?

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Single-purpose_account#Are_editors_who_are_only_involved_in_deletions_considered_SPAs.3F. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation at 2015 Wikimania

I propose to make a presentation (discussion type) on "editor retention" at 2015 Wikimania. 1 Who are going to join this event? Can we go for a group presentation? (note: my participation is not confirmed still) --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

a voting process on possible WER initiatives

I haven't participated much, if at all, here at WER, but have watched. And I have a number of proposals for possible efforts to improve the Wikipedia community environment, in general requiring the coordinated participation of a group of editors. I've seen some good suggestions on running lists by other editors, and sometimes in discussions here. I wonder if this group would be amenable to running a voting process, to consider various suggestions and to adopt one top-voted choice as a priority to work on together, for a one year term. Like how I have seen some software products running votes among users of the software, about what features should be added (or what bugs should be fixed, in alternative terms). I haven't watched closely, but think that WikiProject Military History has used voting processes to good effect (at least to elect coordinators in various areas for one year terms). Create a list of proposals, each requiring some coordinated effort to carry off. Give voters here 10 points to allocate, say, amongst the proposals, with understanding if you vote for one proposal, you are saying you would participate in the effort if it is chosen. The top-voted proposal would be accepted, and 2nd and 3rd proposals would be considered for joint effort also. Maybe this would facilitate concentration of force to good effect. For example, I'd suggest considering:

• Identifying and helping new editors who are at first SPAs (to use an example discussed above)
• Establish a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where membership requirements or admissions process can be defined, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (i.e. to allow an all-women task force to operate without interuption; semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, which would not be all bad IMO.)
• Improving 3RRNB, so that it actually works to determine fault fairly (so that its outcomes are usable in further dispute resolution if necessary. Current focus is on ending immediate disruption, without providing any judgment of fault, which seems unhelpful overall, IMO)
• Improving AFD process, to update its guidelines and to undertake initiatives to reduce occurrence of AFDs (e.g. pursue alternative topic-area-specific programs to head off individual AFDs, like for running flood of AFDs about embassies) By its nature, AFD is destructive, negative, often humiliating. There's support at AFDs about not bashing newbies, not eliminating 100% of what they've contributed, sometimes, but this is not yet codified.
• Participate actively in ANI process for one year, to improve practices and enshrine those into guidance, to reduce delight in applying boomerang unfairly to newbies who have genuine concerns (too loaded a statement, but I hope you get the gist of what i mean)
• Develop guidelines on what constitutes bullying/harassment, and to participate for one year in ARBCOM as a friend of the court for perceived victims, a la ACLU

I don't mean for these examples to serve as real proposals--they'd need to be fleshed out at least. And I have seen better running lists of suggestions to improve the wikipedia environment. But the idea would be to run a formal proposal development process and then run a voting process on which initiative(s) to adopt. --doncram 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If it'll keep editors from leaving & encourage recruitment, then sure. My participaton would be limited to 'voting' however, until May 21, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, original research, and NPOV noticeboards could use a lot more eyes. They are supposed to be a venue of first resort for content disputes, but seem at times to be asleep at the wheel. A lot of requests don't get a timely response, or get gut feeling responses that are not grounded in policy. I've been trying to do my part this week and noticed part of the problem is people can easily tell when an article is fishy but have hard time explaining it properly. They often quote the wrong policies on the wrong noticeboards (eg, its a due weight problem, but they allege original research on the reliable sources noticeboard). I've been thinking of writing a wikiessay on identifying the locus of a dispute. I agree with trying to be a "friend of the court", but not just for "perceived victims". WP:POV_Railroading is alive and well. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think updating guidelines and adding essays can be very good efforts. About proposals to vote on, I mean to suggest very tangible time-limited goals that require and engage multiple editors. Like producing a needed good essay on a topic, or achieving 2 day turnaround on reliable sources noticeboard for a 3 month period, or a combination of measurable efforts in one topic area. So we could see how we were doing, going along, and whether we succeeded or not at the end. --doncram 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

EddyBox

Each Sunday, Go Phightins! acknowledges a new Editor of the Week and an Eddybox is posted (at the top right side) prominently on the main WER Project page and the Editor of the Week main page. This weeks 10 year veteran editor is facing some challenging eye surgery in the next few weeks. Stop in and acknowledge him. Retention happens one editor at a time. . Buster Seven Talk 21:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group. Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is not related to editor retention in general nor WER specifically, and instead is directly related to your own interests and activities in your own user space. In other words, this would constitute WP:CANVASSING. Please don't do this in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Whether you agree with my idea or like it, I am, in good faith, trying to help with recruitment and retention of women editors. Setting that aside, several other people have claimed this is canvassing. I have read the guideline several times now. There are four inappropriate notifications listed:
    • Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.
    • Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
    • Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
    • Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
    • Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

Which do you think describes the notice in question?

What I'm saying is, I don't mind being told I've done something wrong if I've done something wrong, but I don't appreciate - nor would anyone - being told they've broken a rule when they haven't. Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, please note that all three of the people who described this as canvassing are current or former admins. Wikilawyering is not going to help you if future instances of this type of behavior go to AN/I. The spamming clearly falls under the vote-stacking criterion (and I believe probably the spamming criterion). I believe the notice posted to GGTF was appropriate; the rest were not. You may disagree with this interpretation, but you should understand what the community feels is acceptable. Karanacs (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The concern is that this is a deletion discussion about a redirect to YOUR user space. This means you aren't a neutral party, and in fact you are the de facto owner of that space, as we grant higher latitude to a user's space, as well as higher responsibility/scrutiny in kind. That said, the way you made the announcement here was proper and didn't try to sway votes, so wording wasn't the issue. What matters most isn't the wording of a policy, it is the intent. The intent of the canvassing policy is to prevent people from stacking the deck to save/delete their pet project/article. Asking people at WER (a group you belong to) to participate in a delete discussion on a page that you control by virtue of it being your user space, and that is in no way open to everyone nor official in capacity would be seen as canvassing, likely by a consensus. Not a crime, but improper.

On another note, let me be clear to anyone passing by: Under no circumstances will any project or activity that discriminates against anyone based on their gender or other attribute be considered a part of, associated with, sponsored by, coordinated with, nor endorsed by WER, regardless of the motives. Discrimination of any kind, for any reason, is inconsistent with WER. This means that WER can't be used as a means to promote a group that discriminates. In my mind, this is not a small thing and it should be obvious to anyone that this would breach the very core of why we started the Project: to put us all on equal footing. I would actively prevent such use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, if your 'redirect' gets deleted & your WikiProject idea doesn't work out, then perhaps you might want to take a break from the 'gender gap' issue for awhile. :) GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, participation will be especially important in the next few months during Inspire Grants Gender Gap Campaign. I have every hope that this grants program will work in synergy with the efforts of this WikiProject to retain existing editors, and urge everyone interested in editor retention to become involved! --Djembayz (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This week's EotW

Editor Mmeijeri is this weeks Editor of the Week. He is an active supporter of NPOV and WEIGHT in topics in which he might subscribe to a different opinion than the majority. Stop in and acknowledge him. Retention happens one editor at a time.

• Thanks to Jim Carter and Lixxx235 for responding. Motivating members of WER to participate happens one member at a time. Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmeijeri

Adam and Eve in the Garden

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 22, 2015

While working on religious articles, Mmeijeri Identifies and accommodates the concerns of fellow editors. He has a willingness to engage in legitimate debate

Recognized for

Fairness and unbiased editing

Notable work(s)

Historical Jesus

Nomination page

Admin assistance required

I suspect helping this editor to vanish will allow him to return with a new username (that doesn't identify him). Can a friendly admin help him? Thanks, St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The right to vanish is only for editors who intend to leave Wikipedia permanently. Do you mean instead helping to select and change to a new user name? Given that (so far) this editor is here solely to promote the company he works for, unless he claims that will never again touch articles related to his company or its products again and only edit non-related articles, then he should not be permanently disassociated from his old account via RTV. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think he knows what he wants; I certainly can't work it out. He hasn't really "promoted" the company per se - its been announcements of stuff (so it seems) before that stuff is public and changes to information only available from those on the inside (unless the information is wrong, in which case he's just a fan). There's just no way to verify any of it. Whatever the case, he seems worried about the notes I've posted (and others) being associated with him and the company. I probably used the term "vanish" in the wrong context, but its the word he used. If I stay to try and "help", I'll know what name he picked and so his right to a clean start (I think that's the proper terminology) is effectively voided. Anything anyone can do to help him would be much appreciated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Admins don't do vanishing, you might ask a crat if he wants to LEAVE forever, but that probably isn't the case. What you are talking about is WP:CLEANSTART, ie: abandon old account, wait a while, then come back. He needs to read that. Not really a WER issue, he just needs to read and comply with that page and he will be fine. Policy doesn't allow him to vanish the old account and come back, it isn't an option, that would be ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors of the week and possible co-nominations?

If the backlog winds up getting too long, it might be possible, although obviously a pronounced increase in the workload of those involved, to maybe make it an award to multiple people in a given week. Also, although I think that some people might see the number of comments in the nominations talk page, it might not be unreasonable in some instances, particularly if people think that there is more information which others could reasonably be included, to more clearly allow multiple people to put some information in the nominations section. That might also be a way to seek additional support from people who might be more directly knowledgeable about individual editors, as maybe we might include a few "pings" in a nomination of other individuals who might be willing and able to provide more information about the laudable activities of individual editors. Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The backlog has never been more than 6 weeks. From the time of nomination, 2 weeks to get some seconds (and thirds, etc.) and then into the "Q" at accepted. 6 weeks to get the award. If it ever gets up to say...10...I might consider more than 1 per week. But my anxiety has always been to keep the "Q" stocked with at least 4 nominees. After Tuesday I'll make some instruction changes on the Nomination talk page to open the process up to more favorable comments. GoP mentioned to this weeks Awardee that they had received more than the required seconds which I thought was great. I really wish more members of WER would go to the Awardees page to congratulate but you can't make a horse drink water as they say. Not that WER members are horses. They are more like zebras...free spirits that can not be tamed. Buster Seven Talk 00:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter As you have probably noticed, more and more of the nominees have started to attract more than just a second. Your most recent nomination already has 7 seconds I believe. And both GoP and I have been willing to add comments made during the 2 week seconding period to the Award Prose on Sunday or to the Eddybox when it is delivered on the Tuesday following. . Buster Seven Talk 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) was implimented but a new thread is a better solution since the topic is completely different

I have removed the duplicate box banner regarding EOT from the project page. Was the addition of this box banner ever discussed here? For more see: User_talk:Northamerica1000#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for other members, but it would be appreciated if there was 'no more' edit-warring on that topic :) The discussion you've linked to, should be brought to this talkpage, as it concerns this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have no objection to “bringing” the discussion here. However, I leave this to the talkpage owner, but really what I want is an answer to my question:

Was adding the EOT banner ever discussed here before it was added to the top of this project? — if not why am I accused of edit warring just because I want it removed until such time that there is consensus here for this addition? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no talkpage owner. The potential edit war was between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll let the other RETENTION members answer your questions. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the week — blunt criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don’t like raining on others’ parades, but this is something I believe should be discussed. Please forgive me if I am blunt, but in my experience such things have to be dealt with out in the open, and hope my posting will not be removed. So here goes…

In particular I find the following guidelines have not been followed:

• As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins.
• While there are many well-known editors who meet these criteria, the intent is to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown.
• Editor of the Week is a recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed.

Today for the first time I carefully checked out the list of award recipients and saw several editors who received this WikiProject Editor Retention Award who are:

• Well known to the community (user: Eric Corbett is only one of those) and I say this as someone who normally stays away from WP:Dramah and other community water-coolers.
• Admins

In real life this awards dispensing is behaviour described as ass-kissing. I therefore wonder if Editor of the Week task force detracts from this project? I would appreciate any honest feedback here. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What admins were awarded? I know of a few who became admins after receiving the award, but unless I dropped the ball, we have not awarded any individuals while admins. Go Phightins! 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Some admins were nominated but none ever received the Award. As far as the ass kissing goes, I'm gonna have to ask for Diffs. There have been over 120 nominations. I can't remember the well-known vs less celebrated quantifiers for each. If you provide the names of those that you think are contrary to the stated requirements, I can do some investigating after I return from being in strike mode. . Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note that in lieu of admins receiving the EOTW award, deserving admins can be awarded The Administrator's Barnstar. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that so far as I can see the initial post here, for all its "bluntness," is also apparently in error. I acknowledge that there have been past and future admins who have won the award, but they were not admins at the time the award was received. Of course, if you can produce any evidence specifically contradicting that, I think we would be quite willing to see it. Regarding Eric, well, our main purpose is editor retention and that individual is someone whom many people consider in many ways an active plus to the project who has been, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, regularly subjected to criticism which might cause many people to resign from the project. In such cases, I think the occasional exception is not to be considered problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the ways to retain editors is to bring a little joy to the place. Let's look at EC's reply after he got the award
How extraordinary and completely unexpected! Thanks....
Sounds to me like the award did what it was intended to do. . Buster Seven Talk 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're concerned that the EoW Award is a popularity contest. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned whose ass has been kissed and by whom. A rough count of the 120 or so nominations comes up with about 60 separate editors that have nominated a fellow editor for the award. Now...as long as a clear reason is given and a little vetting is done by the clerks and the seconds (+), there is no investigation as to the sanctity of the nominee. I think most nominators discover someone doing something for the benefit of the encyclopedia and they decide to put their name up for the award. No ass kissing involved. Maybe a little patting on the back for a job well done but no ass kissing. What someone could do is poll the 60 or so nominators and ask if ass kissing was their intended purpose. Or....someone could poll the 120 or so recipients and ask if they felt their asses being kissed. I can provide a list of all the nominators since the Awards began. It will take time to gather but it can be done. Other than the honest feedback already provided, I really don't know what to say.Buster Seven Talk 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I responding to Ottawahitech, Note the indent :) GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As per this definition, "ass kissing" is undue complimenting of someone the person in question is seeking something from, generally of a personal nature of some sort. I can see no evidence from any of the above that anyone involved has specifically nominated anyone for the explicit reason of getting something in response from the nominee. On that basis, I regret to say that the "blunt" use of that term is perhaps more accurately described as the "irrational, unsupported, clearly prejudicial" use of that term. I acknowledge that, in some cases, the people I have nominated have been people I have had to work with in cases where most editors might be reasonably seen as getting some form of burnout, but I do not think most reasonable people would attempt to equate the one with the other. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated 26 editors. 6 were editors I worked on articles with. The other 20 were strangers. . Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

OttawahitechIn spite of your dire weather forecast the skies overhead seem clear. Can you provide names and diffs as requested? Or have you decided that maybe your claim was a bit ... inaccurate. Everyone involved with the Award would like all the WER members to be happy with our efforts. Maybe if you offered some editor you worked with up for the Award, you might see things a little different. Or maybe someone might put your name up for an Eddy at the nomination page. It's just a simple award designed to say thanks. Its not an Oscar or an Emmy or RfA or anything remotely like that. Award recipient's are not saints. Someone thought they deserved an award and at least one other editor agreed. If there is a problem, we have a discussion but most times its trouble free. There must be some editor you have seen in your Wikiworld that deserves some praise. Nominate them. . Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week recognition is basically a "thank you" in the form of a barnstar. When you've given a barnstar or thanks to editors for their contributions, I assume there was no intent to flatter someone in order to curry favour. I'm curious to know if there is something about the nominations for Editor of the Week that lead you to believe that the nominators were motivated by considerations other than those that motivated you to thank other editors? isaacl (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure if the criteria were exactly my words, but they looks like exactly something I would write. Note there are no absolutes ("must" "can't"). In order to cast a wide net, some will get in that others might disagree with. That's ok. Our goal isn't perfection, it is improvement. As long as we get it right most of the time, we are doing good things. And as someone has pointed out, about 5 EotW have moved on to become admin. That is one of the greatest, unanticipated side effects of the program. Once we put eyes on someone, we discover that some of them would be perfect admin. I would like to think that some of the most respected and competent admin have come from the program, but I admit I may have a little bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as Ottawaitech hasn't given us anymore feedback, I'll assume he's satisfied. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He came to edit his question just now, a day and a half later, but he cannot give us the courtesy of a thank you for all the time and effort to respond to a questionable comment. Look at how long this thread is and how many editors wasted their valuable time on it. For what? Now he wants to know about a banner two years after it was formulated. No one asked or gave permission in the earliest days of the project. It was every man for himself with ideas and action and discussion and editing. And the end result was a pretty damn good project if I don't say so myself. If memory serves, I asked him a question four years ago and he still hasn't answered. I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'.. Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let you & the other members answer Ottawahitech's future questions. PS: Someone might want to advise Ottawahitech to archive his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Members of WER

You are all invited to assist at anytime. One of the simplest things that WER members can do is go to the week's awardees talk page and offer their personal 2¢ in acknowledgment. If 20 strangers, 20 well-known strangers, came to the awardees talk page I think retaining that editor and strengthening the resolve of that editor to keep doing whatever it is they are doing is increased. Think of all the time we waste in "ring-around-the-rosie" conversations. What I'm suggesting takes one minute! Editor retention happens one editor at a time. . Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing the above message relates to Wikipedia:Editor of the Week. How does one locate "the week's awardees talk page"? Is it the talk page of the most recent editor added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#2015 Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy? If so, and if there is not some easier way of finding it, is it worth adding editor talk page links to that table? Or possibly there is some way to code a single shortcut link that will always point to the talk page of the most recently awarded person? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Or....See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week, right at the top of the page is what I call an Eddybox. I put it there after Go Phightins! hands out the Award (almost always Sunday Morning). The List you mention can be easily used to get to the User page and then you are one click away from the talk page. I would love to broadcast it to a wider audience. Ideas are welcome! . Buster Seven Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible collaborative "thank you" efforts?

Even with the best of intentions, there are some editors who we will lose. Some, like User:Wadewitz, die. Others, like User:Neelix and User:TParis, retire, possibly permanently, possibly not, sometimes for reasons we would regret. I was wondering whether there might be any interest in maybe having some of those involved here engage in something maybe beyond what we do now and maybe trying to get some content of some sort together and up to a decent standard of quality as a "thank you" to these editors, maybe, possibly, with some sort of template on the relevant talk page indicating who was being thanked. User:Koavf and I have recently finished the transcription of s:Original Stories from Real Life at wikisource as a sort of posthumous "thank you" to Wadewitz, and Neelix indicated to me in e-mail that he would maybe like to see the Homestead (Star Trek: Voyager) article, in which the character Neelix left the series, developed as a "thank you" to him. I actually found a few sources online which might be useful there. TParis has indicated that something relating to the military and Hawaii would be something he wouldn't mind seeing improved as a thank you to him. I actually found a book called "Myths, martyrs and Marines of Mokapu" at archive.org about the Marine Corps Base Hawaii from the Marine Corps historical branch which could be used to help develop that article, and have done preliminary prep of the text for inclusion at wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no experience in writing articles about TV shows, and not much more in military subjects, and wikisource work wants .djvu files to use as the basis for transcription. I still can't figure out how to upload the .djvu file from archive.org so I haven't uploaded it myself. Anyway, would any of the rest of you maybe be interested in some efforts along these lines? John Carter (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, TParis is still active. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that actually. 2 edits today here, his first in 2 weeks. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure John. I will be an active supporter and participant. I like the idea of paying homage to the hard work and endeavors of those editors that have chosen, for whatever reason, to retire. Khazar2 comes to mind. If they returned because of WER's efforts, so much the better...but that's not necessarily the reason for our thanks to them. It seems you have contacted the retirees you had in mind which is a good idea. Do you have a script of some kind? Whatever you create, I'm in! (I'm on strike in 1/2 an hour till Tuesday. I'm sure you know why and I understand why you are not. Someone has to watch the cookie jar!). Buster Seven Talk 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am rather happy to say that User:Neelix has returned to active editing again as of yesterday, but I still think maybe, if anyone might want to help in a "thank-you" there, it would probably be welcome. And, FWIW, probably tomorrow I will try to put up the PD history of the Hawaii Marine base I found on wikisource. In that particular case, all that will be needed for at least the finishing of the document there will be someone going through to proofread and by their terminology "verify" my first proof read. There is one point of question with the source, a footnote which doesn't actually have an indicator where in the text it is to be added, but that is about the only one I can think of. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

I have started a discussion relevant to this project at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Editor retention message --Geniac (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent retirements

Two valuable and productive editors, User:Yngvadottir and User:Sminthopsis84 have indicated their retirements today. The first seems to be maybe a case of, basically, burnout and frustration. The latter seems to at least relate to a rather contentious and maybe argumentative FAC for the article Cucurbita. Anyone who has had any prior experience with either editor and/or knows how to contact them offwiki, or who even wants to take part in the FAC, is more than encouraged to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message for both on their talkpages. IMHO, sometimes retired editors will sign-in, to see what's been happening since their retirement. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the other but User talk:Yngvadottir is a worthy suggested read for any editor interested in Wikipedia and the editors that work here.. Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Yngvadottir, indeed she is an important read. Thanks for the heads-up. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)