I have 15 years experience on the coal face, and now more than 10 years actively encouraging others to part of that. I come from the time where the community was growing really fast and templates werent available for every action, that meant we had to leave personal message explaining what had taken place. Currently anyone can react at the twinkle of an eye to do the same thing 100 times in a minute with all the necessary policy links already there, nothing is written with a personal touch, there is no measure of encouragement its just a cold machine response even the edit summary is a cold you've been twinkled upon. We have forgotten to Assume Good Faith when its appropriate.
Doing outreach, workshops, editathons and other such events we need to step away from retention being the be all of these events, the aim of these events is content, connection, and community every edit whether its just one or one million is to improve and share knowledge. The more we get hung up on volume the less we value quality and diversity, outreach is building access to knowledge creating a path for others follow. Twinkle is great tool in combating vandalism, and spam but its very poor tool for building community and becomes extremely dangerous when its applied as a training aid or for contributor there are no workshops, no outreach, no twinkleathons to teach people how to use it effectively just log a few edits ask nicely at a notice board and voila you're armed to zap template where ever, when ever. Twinkle needs to have limits placed on actions, some review process of those actions - 100 actions in your first 30 days then its disable until some reviews. We could even consider a limit to its use until a person has gained community trust as an admin, if person can only whack 100 people a month they are going to consider/value their decision when they do so, we might see a lot less templates and more talking. On the subject of a twinlkeathon, twinlkeshop Wikimania 2020 is looking for such activities maybe you can help improve its use On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:32, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Also, overworked groups with large backlogs struggling to maintain high > quality tend to have less patience with the inexperienced and > not-yet-competent than we might like. It is also possible that some of the > workers in those groups are not as competent as we would like them to be, > but at those wages, what can you expect? The work probably also attracts a > share of people who get their kicks out of telling other people what they > can't do. Again, they are volunteers, we accept their offer to help in good > faith until they prove otherwise. The competent and really incompetent are > the easy cases. The not quite competent are harder to deal with. Will they > get better or worse with experience? > Some competence is required to edit Wikipedia. A suitable personality also > helps a lot. However, an enormous amount of work gets done quietly and > without fanfare and drama, if one chooses the topic carefully, and edits > with discretion and a reasonable level of willingness to cooperate. > Cheers, > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta > Sent: 25 February 2020 20:03 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI > > As a rule, (at least) in Wikipedia, with very rare exceptions, established > communities of editors treat newbies as unwelcome invaders. > No idea how to solve that, since it's a problem related to the nature of > humane beings, not something technical. > But the result is a very low rate of retention, indeed - and increasingly > reduced diversity and cultural richness, which eventually ends up reflected > on content. At some point those established editors also start preying at > other established editors, specially when newbies are not available. The > environment is awful and toxic in general. > > For outreach activities to have at least a minimal rate of success, the > participants need to have some kind of protection shield, such as some > privileged contact with established editors willing to help them. > Otherwise, edithatons and other outreach activities are basically sending > lambs to the slaughterhouse. As for newbies that come to Wikipedia by > themselves, they are generally on their own. > > Best, > Paulo > > Aron Demian <aronmanni...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia domingo, 23/02/2020 > à(s) 23:30: > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of > > > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w > > > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life. > > > > [...] > > > > > As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk > > > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a > > > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094 > > > characters or 665 words. > > > > > > > This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain > > areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many > > newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were > > wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies > > behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason. > > > > I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in > > English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits > > being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I > was > > frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help. > > > > I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not > just > > with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing > > factor to the toxicity. > > > > I've noticed the following issues: > > 1) The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered > > lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they > jump > > right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor. > > 2) The lack of protection given to newcomers: "You have no rights" being > > explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall. > > 3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established > > user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often > > hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable". > > 4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules > > such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same > > regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any > > damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles > for > > years. > > > > Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the > > policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the > > "biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are > > almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers. > By > > that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the > > community - and primarily who get involved with handling disputes - > should > > take these seriously, approach with a neutral mindset and remind the > > editors about our policies, but that almost never happens and such > > complaints are either ignored or blindly decided in favor of the editor > > with more supporters, enabling the abuse of newcomers. > > > > Tl;dr: newcomers don't enjoy the safety net created by editors who know > > and care for each other and the community processes are not set up to > > create a welcoming and/or safe environment, this purpose is not > manifested > > in any kind of endeavors or practices. If the WMF and the movement take > the > > Mid-Term target of a welcoming environment seriously, that's a difficult, > > long-term target that will take a lot of effort. > > > > Aron (Demian) > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- GN. *Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
