Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
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
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
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
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
? 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 -- Megan Wacha | Research and Instruction Librarian for the Performing Arts Barnard College | 3009 Broadway | New York, NY 10027 212.854.7652 | mwa...@barnard.edu ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Megan Wacha mwa...@barnard.edu wrote: ... [snip] To address some of the points raised in this thread -- We strongly encourage students to begin editing in their sandbox. While, yes, some students may be shy about editing Wikipedia (in fact, most are), we made this decision out of respect to the existing community. Contributing to Wikipedia teaches students about writing from a neutral point of view, when and how to cite, how to find and use sources about underrepresented groups, thereby challenging the existing cannon, etc. etc.. It's an amazing experience for all, but even our most advanced students struggle with these skills. And no matter how many times we discuss these issues in a workshop, students don't fully engage with them until they start their assignment. Encouraging them to play in the sandbox not only allows them to move forward with confidence, but also allows those supporting them to identify any issues that may be of concern to the existing community. This creates a more positive experience for all. ... Hi Megan, There is a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ASSIGNthat you might find helpful, about how to prepare students for assignments on Wikipedia. Sorry, it's quite a lot to read, but there are some helpful links to other pages. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
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
