Marielle, Good point and I will include the links to the blog and the superspreader talk page on the proposal talk page for reference.
I am definitely not discounting the IEG proposal completely, as I can imagine the "edit button allergy" must be a problem for people who use Wikipedia in the classroom. However, though it may seem important to recruit new editors, or to expand our activities in the classroom, we must remain loyal to our current editors, who are doing lots of work right now. Editor retention is in this case more important than getting those shy editors on board. If someone is too nervous about hitting the edit button, they will probably be scared off as soon as they bump up against the daily wikidramas that pop up regularly. I was interested to read the comments on the blog that questioned the "blob paste" approach. Jane 2014-05-08 13:38 GMT+02:00, Marielle Volz <marielle.v...@gmail.com>: > Hi Jane, > > (Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as > well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves > that step-wise editing might not help shy people. > > The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was > comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to > do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" > people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might > help bring this population into the editor pool. > > I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a > spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away > a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob > additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture > of editing that disparages these kinds of additions? > > If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for > it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these > kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and > potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future? > > While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and > I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to > remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT > the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of > people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia > editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it > could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" > editors. > > By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and > student? > > -mvolz > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot >> of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wikipedia_for_shy_people >> >> Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit >> button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows >> that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable >> doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. >> Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this >> IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this >> particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" >> like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is >> interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for >> me. >> >> I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in >> the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable. >> >> 2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott <datzr...@alizeepathology.com>: >>> The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader >>> >>> >>> >>> Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at >>> (my >>> first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010). >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Derric Atzrott >>> >>> >>> >>> From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George >>> Herbert >>> Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 >>> To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the >>> participation of women within Wikimedia projects. >>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help >>> (enWP) >>> >>> >>> >>> This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - >>> the >>> editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke >>> 2010", a >>> female Wikipedian... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks >>> like >>> a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe >>> somebody has time to step in and take a look? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sue >>> >>> http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -george william herbert >>> george.herb...@gmail.com >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
