Yes there is some data on templating in a research paper somewhere, and
some more on a/b template runs. But the solution is not trivial. I have
stuck up for a few editors who appear to be children, suggesting that we
treat them a little more gently, only to be told that they are in fact
trolls, pretending to be children, pretending to create obvious socks...
When I joined Wikipedia I was constantly being surprised (and delighted)
by the unwillingness to block, the willingness to unblock, the IAR ethos
when something did something obviously good that broke a rule. I get
the feeling that many admins still have the same /attitude/ they are
just to weary to AGF. UNblock is pretty much always "standard offer or
nothing" - even people who say "I see what I did was wrong but.." end
up with their talk page access removed, or giving up. This is not about
the vandalism only accounts, this is people who do something stupid, and
something in good faith, or make a mistake. They may well not be ready
to edit for a few years, but we are building up a resentment about
Wikipedia that is visible in every comments section of every article
about Wikipedia "I tired to edit once and it got reverted". Of course
there will always be some who won't engage with discussion, but
fundamentally we should be able to engage these people, rather than
alienate them.
On 03/01/2013 10:01, Thomas Morton wrote:
It might help; often it is surprising how statistical analysis can
help narrow the focus of such efforts. For example; it is taken as a
given that incivility drives away new users, but do we have hard
statistical evidence to back that up? And if that is a true situation,
can we identify specifically what uncivil things are driving the most
editors away (rudeness, templating, etc.). Although please lets do it
without words like "big data", which makes me squirm :P Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
