I put a couple of interventions specifically targeting improving the new contributor experience here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:New_editor_engagement_strategies Which might have been a mistake as the conversation is happening via email. Sent from my iPad > On 26 Sep 2014, at 11:02 am, Luca de Alfaro <l...@dealfaro.com> wrote: > > You are right about conflicts with fast-updated pages. Not sure it would be > worse than the current situation though. > For many low traffic articles, drafts only visible to the user would not have > many conflicts -- basically, for all pages with fewer than a couple of edits > per day this would be true, and there are many such pages. > I think a more annoying issue would be how to clean up these drafts; a policy > would be required (one week?), cron jobs, etc, otherwise these drafts could > grow uncontrollably in size due to abandoned edits. But this should be > solvable, if with some pain. > > I tend to think that with a bit of UI tweaking, Wikipedia could be made more > friendly.... > > > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Scott Hale <computermacgy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Yes, drafts visible only to the user are different. I was thinking of >> flagged revisions in reference to your idea that edits would first go live >> only after a set period of time. This is basically flagged revisions with a >> trivial extension that the flagged revision always be the latest revision >> that is at least X minutes old. >> >>> We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went live >>> after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism to track when editor >>> open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so fast on the >>> work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be more relaxed >>> and welcoming. >> >> I think the challenge with drafts visible only to the user is that they are >> very likely to have a conflict and have to merge changes if they wait too >> long between starting the draft and later committing it. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Luca de Alfaro <l...@dealfaro.com> wrote: >>> Flagged revisions is different though, as it requires "trusted" editors to >>> flag things as approved. I am simply advocating the ability to save drafts >>> visible only to oneself before "publishing" a change. WordPress, Blogger, >>> etc have it. And so newcomers could edit to their heart content, without >>> triggering the interest of editors and the consequent conflicts, then save >>> their changes. >>> >>> Luca >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Scott Hale <computermacgy...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Luca de Alfaro <l...@dealfaro.com> wrote: >>>>> Better merging would be welcome. But also less aggressive >>>>> editing/policing. >>>>> >>>>> When I edit openstreetmap I have a better overall experience: the edits >>>>> may or may not go live immediately, but I don't have the impression that >>>>> there is someone aggressively vetting/refining my edits while I am still >>>>> doing them. I feel welcome there. >>>>> >>>>> To make Wikipedia more welcoming, we could do a few things. >>>>> >>>>> We could allow users to save drafts. In this way, people could work for >>>>> a while at their own pace, and then publish the changes. Currently, >>>>> saving is the only way to avoid risking losing changes, but it has the >>>>> very undesired effect of inviting editors/vetters to the page before one >>>>> is really done. >>>>> >>>>> We could also allow a time window (even 30 minutes) before edits went >>>>> live after one is done editing (using above Ajax mechanism to track when >>>>> editor open), experienced editors would not need to swoop in quite so >>>>> fast on the work of new users, and the whole editing atmosphere would be >>>>> more relaxed and welcoming. >>>>> >>>>> The fact is that the Wikipedia editor, with its lack of ability to save >>>>> drafts, poor merging, and swooping editors, feels incredibly outdated and >>>>> unwelcoming - downright aggressive - to anyone used to WordPress / Google >>>>> Docs / Blogger / ... >>>>> >>>>> Luca >>>> >>>> >>>> The technology exists to do this---[[:en:Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions]]. >>>> The challenge is that many existing users don't want flagged revisions on >>>> by default. >>>> >>>> And that is the fundamental flaw with this whole email thread. The >>>> question needing to be answered isn't "what increases new user retention". >>>> The real question is "what increases new user retention and is acceptable >>>> to the most active/helpful existing users". The second question is much >>>> harder than the first. >> >> >> >> -- >> Scott Hale >> Oxford Internet Institute >> University of Oxford >> http://www.scotthale.net/ >> scott.h...@oii.ox.ac.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
