I sympathize with your concern, Ori. I suspect, however, that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Teahouse works when other processes (several of which have included cute symbols) have been less effective.
And the reason is: the Teahouse is explicitly designed for having conversations. Teahouse "convenors" were initially selected for their demonstrated communication skills and willingness to remain polite when dealing with often frustrated people, and their ability to explain often complex concepts in straightforward terms. As their ranks have evolved, they have sought out and taught others those skills, and there's an element of self-selection that discourages the more curmudgeonly amongst us from participating. (There's not a lot of overlap between those who regularly help out at the Teahouse and those who hang out on ANI, for example.) We're talking about a relatively small group of people who really excel at this type of communication, although it is certainly a skill that others can develop if they have the willingness and inclination - but it really comes down to being able to identify the right "level" at which to talk to people, and then actually talking. The Teahouse works because it doesn't [obviously] use a lot of fancy technology, because it doesn't use a lot of templates and automated messaging, because it's made a lot of effort to avoid massive hyperlinking to complex and inscrutable policies. It's people talking to people. It's scaled remarkably well - I suspect because there are more "nice" Wikipedians than people realize - where other processes have failed. Several of those processes failed because we couldn't link up the right people giving the right messages to new users (MoodBar was an example of that - on top of the really problematic technical issues it raised), and others failed because they were pretty much designed to deprecate direct person-to-person communcation (AFT-5 would be in that category). Nonetheless, I think you've raised an important point. If we can develop processes that can better link up new users with people who have the interest and skill to communicate with those new users, we should keep trying those technologies. But those technologies need to incorporate the existing findings that the most effective way of attracting and retaining new editors is direct, one-to-one communication. Not templates. Not cute emojicons. Not canned text, and certainly not links to complicated policies. It's people talking to people in a helpful way that makes the difference. And that's a lot harder than meets the eye. And now, having written this, I'm going to spend some time trying to figure out how to create a message to new users I encounter when I'm oversighting their personal information...without templating or linking to complex policies, but pointing them to the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure it's not going to be very easy, but I'm going to try. Thank you for saying this, Ori. Risker/Anne On 2 April 2016 at 21:37, Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Legoktm <legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > It's well known that Wikipedia is facing threats from other social > > networks and losing editors. While many of us spend time trying to make > > Wikipedia different, we need to be cognizant that what other social > > networks are doing is working. And if we can't beat them, we need to > > join them. > > > > I've written a patch[1] that introduces a new feature to the Thanks > > extension called "feelings". When hovering over a "thank" link, five > > different emoji icons will pop up[2], representing five different > > feelings: happy, love, surprise, anger, and fear. Editors can pick one > > of those options instead of just a plain thanks, to indicate how they > > really feel, which the recipient will see[3]. > > > > Of the many initiatives to improve editor engagement and retention that the > Wikimedia Foundation has launched over the years, the only one that had a > demonstrable and substantial impact (AFAIK) was the Teahouse. > > The goal of the Teahouse initiative was "learning whether a social approach > to new editor support could retain more new editors there"; its stated > design goal was to create a space for new users which would feature "warm > colors, inviting pictorial and thematic elements, simple mechanisms for > communicating, and a warm welcome from real people."[0] > > Several studies were made of the Teahouse's impact on editors. One study, > conducted by Jonathan Morgan and Aaron Halfaker, found that new editors who > were invited to participate in the Teahouse were 10% more likely to have > met the thresholds for survival in the weeks and months after > registration.[1] > > Another significant fact about the Teahouse is the substantial > participation from women. Women make up 9% of the general editor > population, but 29% percent of Teahouse participants.[2] > > When new editors who had been invited to the Teahouse were asked (in a 2012 > survey) to described what they liked about their experiences, many > respondents spoke about the positive emotional environment, saying things > like: "the fact that there is somebody 'out there', that there is a sincere > community, gives a professional and safe feeling about Wikipedia", and "the > editors are very friendly and patient, which is great when compared to the > rest of Wikipedia in how new editors are treated."[2] > > Why am I going on about this? I guess I'm a bit bummed out that the idea of > designing user interfaces that seek to improve the emotional environment by > making it easier to be warm and personal to one another is a joke. I don't > think any topic is sacrosanct, this topic included. But humor works best > when it provides a counterpoint and a foil to "serious" discourse, and > there just isn't very much serious discourse on this topic to go around. I > also worry that people in and around our community who feel a need for more > opportunities for positive emotional interactions will feel invalidated, > ridiculous, ashamed, or at any rate less confident about ever speaking up > about this topic in a serious way, and less hopeful about being heard. > > [0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse > [1]: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse_long_term_new_editor_retention#Results > [2]: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse/Phase_2_report/Metrics > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
