whoops, last sentence of paragraph #5 should read "You *CAN* have higher walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and higher newcomer retention (or diversity)."
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM Jonathan Morgan <jmor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Kerry, > > I like this a lot except for one small, but critical, distinction. I want > to get your take on it (yours specifically, in this case, because of your > background and the thought you've put into this issue). > > I think that explicitly forbidding newcomers from performing certain kinds > of actions, or editing certain pages, is a mistake. This was a mistake with > ACTRIAL, and it would be a mistake with any other newcomer quality-control > or harm-mitigation strategies--however well intentioned. > > It's a mistake for two reasons, First, it runs counter to the spirit of > Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become more 'closed' over time in both formal and > informal ways. This is a common patterns for social movements as well as > organizations--it's not unexpected, and to a certain extent it may be > necessary, but in *Wikipedia's *case it directly violates the fundamental > values and goals of the project. That means creeping bureaucracy and > "in-group" mentalities are inherently more damaging to Wikipedia than it > would be to, say, Microsoft, or Facebook, or even Stackexchange. > > Second, being explicitly denied the opportunity to make particular kinds > of contributions (as opposed to being nudged towards other options, > explained to why something is a bad idea, or shown the likely outcomes of > certain actions) is an even bigger motivation-killer, long term, than > having bad experiences due to stumbling onto the "freeway" (nice > metaphor!). > > Especially considering that both the current EnWiki community and the > current content embed major biases and gaps, we can't afford to make it > harder for the new people who have the expertise, the perspective, and the > passion to correct those biases and fill those gaps from participating as > full-fledged members of the community. Full stop. You can't have higher > walls and easier quality control, but you can't have higher walls and > higher newcomer retention (or diversity). > > Wikipedia (esp. EnWiki) has basically two options at this point, with > maybe some narrow-ish middle ways between them: > 1. Continue to make it harder and harder for new people to contribute, > through political and technological means, thus preserving the current > content to a great degree, but diminishing the relevance of the project as > a whole as it becomes increasingly incomplete, out of date, and limited in > scope. > > 2. Try to make it easy as possible for newcomers (with their new > knowledge, sometimes different values, and yes, sometimes *mixed > motivations*) to contribute, and try to make the project feel as exciting > for them as it was for people who joined in 2004; accept that taking this > track will lead to a degree of vandalism and COI (although probably not > different in scale than current or historical levels), and invest heavily > in algorithmic quality control, streamlined onboarding and socialization, > diversity-friendly policy change, expansive and public offline initiatives, > and all the other "suite" of methods intended to scale the ability of the > current community to handle additional growth and diversity in content and > contributors. > > #1 involves no great risk to the "community" besides gradual obsolescence; > Wikipedia will go the way of many other social institutions that failed to > adapt. But it will do so slowly, and continue to provide value in the > process. It just won't ever be the world's encyclopedia. > > #2 involves risk because the intention behind it is that the community > will look different, the content will look different, the mechanisms for > contributing will look different, and the policies will look different in > 10 years vs. today. But it is the only shot at continuing to meaningfully > pursue the original mission at this point. I personally would love to see > this happen--as a contributor, as a scholar, as a world citizen who > believes in Wikipedia--but it involves risk because it means that people > who have power will need to give it up. That's never easy. > > (Opinions my own, not those of WMF) > - J > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:54 AM Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Stripping out a long email trail ... >> >> I am not advocating lowering the BLP bar as there are genuine legal needs >> to prevent libel. >> >> What I am advocating is not letting new users do their first edits in >> “high risk” articles. When I do training, I pick exercises for the group >> which deliberately take place in quiet backwaters of Wikipedia, eg add >> schools to local suburb articles. Such articles have low readership and low >> levels of watchers and no BLP considerations, i.e. low risk articles. If >> the newbie first edit is a bit of a mess, probably no reader will see it >> before it is fixed by a subsequent edit. They will be able to get help from >> me to fix it before anyone is harmed by it and before anyone reverts them. >> >> The “organic” newbie can dive into any article. It would be a very >> interesting research question to look at reverts and see if we can develop >> risk models that predict which articles are at higher risks of reverted >> edits (e.g. quality rating, length, type of article eg BLP, level of >> readership, number of active watchers, etc) and there might be separate >> models specifically for newbies revert risk and female newbie revert risk. >> >> Or we just simply calculate the proportion of reverted edits and just >> use declare anything over some threshold as “high risk” and not bother >> finding out what the article characteristics are. We could also calculate >> what is the newbie revert rate. >> >> Then we have something actionable. We could treat the high risk articles >> (by predictive model or straight stats) as semi-protected and divert >> newbies from making direct edits. Or at least warn them before letting them >> loose. For that matter, warn any user if they are entering into a high >> conflict zone. >> >> When you learn to drive a car, you normally start in the quiet streets, >> not a busy high speed freeway, not narrow winding roads without guard rails >> up a mountain. Why shouldn’t we take the same attitude to Wikipedia? Start >> where it is safe. >> >> Kerry >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > > -- > Jonathan T. Morgan > Senior Design Researcher > Wikimedia Foundation > User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> > > -- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
