Editor Retention

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention articles

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

User:Bleaney, an invaluable asset to Wikipedia through his excellent work. Drop by his page to congratulate him and consider an editor you feel would deserve to be Editor of the Week. Go to the nomination page and get the ball rolling to give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look @ User Bleaneys nominator page for a feel-good. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is that the Wikiprojects control their pages and templates as well as assessments. We will no longer allow non-members to make any further changes to any of our pages, subpages or templates. A copyright violation is serious at Wikipedia, so for the time being until the situation is cleared up, the Editor of the Week template is no longer being displayed on our project mainpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems out-of-left-field overstern and underlinked. To which project mainpage(s) do you refer? And which policy discusses control of project pages and templates? I'm not advocating chaos, and not questioning that copyvio is seriuzbiznez; I know where to find policy/guideline about that. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is stern. Seems more than outrageous to help coordinate a project that extends a helping hand to editors and take hours to build, design and create pages, templates and images, work with others in the project and form consensus just to have bold edits by non members attempt to take attribution and do an endrun around the project members. Do you have a specific question I can help you with? There are no links required when posting on the project talkpages, but if you wish a link to a relevant guideline or discussion let me know. You could review Wikiproject guidelines. Project members control their pages, assements etc. If editors want to collaborate on the golas of the project they do not have to join the project but they do need to join if they intened to make changes to our core pages and templates.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to what caused you to make this sweeping statement? What was the issue that instigated it, and where was the discussion that decided it? Ryan Vesey 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to what policy you think you are referring to that states this is the case. Because the WikiProject Guide actually says the complete opposite. That anyone can edit a WikiProject page just like anyone can edit an article. And like any page if people object to the change they revert per the BRD cycle. Also there is no restriction on who can be a member of a WikiProject so anyone that is interested is by extension a member of a project. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see where this new rule has suddenly come from, just had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and didn't see it there, went over to WP:OWN to see if there was some exemption for WikiProject pages, didn't see it... so, yeah, don't think so. Please either provide an actual policy that supports this position or strike it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::@ madsci...Like Ryan, I'm not quite sure where this proposal came from. I am not aware of any attacks or altering attempts, even of a minor nature...and I keep a pretty close eye on all the WER pages. Can you provide some diffs so we can at least evaluate what concerns you. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I found what troubles you and will comment there. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See User talk:Dennis Brown#User talk:Isaacl copyright violations of Editor of the week template for what appears to be the problem. Amadscientist's comments above go against the goals of this project and go against policy. All editors are welcome to make changes as they see fit. Wikipedia has allowed a great amount of leeway to projects in organizing their own content, but there are no policies disallowing non-project members to make edits or forcing editors to add their names to a list to consider themselves part of a project. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has been an actvi and highly visible member of the EotW project from the very beginning 3 months ago. I have asked him 5 times to include his name in the members list. Not sure why he doesn't but I still consider him a MeMber. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I believe that consensus determines how any project determines who edits the project pages, when and for what reason. But we are an editor retention project with the goal to help each other and if a good faith mistake is made we do try to work it out, but I think it is reasonable to limit the project core pages to editors who at least are a part of the active project member list to at least show their willingness to use the project in the spirit of WikiProject guides and suggestions. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. All I am saying is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide basicly says.

A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. Much of the work that members must do to sustain a successful WikiProject (quality assessment and peer review in particular, but almost anything beyond the actual writing of articles) is tedious, often unrewarding, and usually unappreciated. To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with WikiProjects is that if you've got even one active editor working on temps and Project-related stuff, you're blessed. Don't do anything to chase them away, including mandating they sign a membership roll. I suppose WP:NOTBURO applies. Inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this isn't about the editor but the ability of the members of the project to make the decisions when a mistake is made and that we should be sure to define what non project members edit, especialy if there are some issues. This isn't about making the editor stop...its asking why they don't want to be a part of us, yet seem willing to Wikignome for us. The only isse is making sure all editors realise that members have the right to make some decisions over anyone just coming along and saying, hey, cool, I think I'll do this. At least join us and demonstrate that you are willing to comethrough the door and not edit out of the project after project members have sent months building the content, contributing to it and formatting it. The guide even says basicly the same under "Article editors do not own WikiProjects" with: " A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, this rule would not really have prevented the precipitating event. Amad, I understand why you'd be upset about your work being used without credit, but I wonder if you step back a bit, perhaps you might see how this new rule sounds unilateral and unfriendly. -Someone who has not signed the role of the project, but supports its goals, LadyofShalott 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a new rule. Its a basic project concept, really. Thats why we have a members. But this isn't about saying no editor can participate in the project, can't help, can't create and contribute. The goal of this project is editor retention, and part of that is to help editors. The sub project recognizes editors who use best practice. I have changed the wording. We should have some control if an editor is not willing to join the project, we should be able to change that work if the work is not to Wikipedia Guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find membership roles rather silly because they go out of date almost immediately. And many people who consider themselves members never sign them. I personally almost never sign membership roles for projects I consider myself a part of for that very reason. I also find signing them often causes you to get unwanted spam on your talk page from projects so I avoid signing them for that reason as well. There is no requirement that anyone sign a membership role for any project. To be a member of a project all is required is that you support their goals and work towards helping achieve them. I find it rather unbelievable that a someone who is trying to support a project about editor retention has made a statement like your original one above which does nothing but chase editors away. I can tell you seeing that I certainly would be much more hesitant to ever help out this project. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We should have some control if an editor is not willing to join the project, we should be able to change that work if the work is not to Wikipedia Guidelines." If someone's work is against the consensus of the project, there is the ability to change it. Likewise if the work is not to WP Guidelines, it can be changed by anyone else. Your rule does not help that, and as previously pointed out, would not have prevented the precipitating instance. All this rule does is imply "we don't want your help around here", which is contrary to the very nature of this project. LadyofShalott 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, I'd have all WikiProjects abolished, as they're basically political parties. But, that's for another discussion, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of the day it is as simple as this: There is no such rule. Period. It is frankly a ridiculous idea to suggest that adding your name to a list gives you special privileges. I am not even a "registered" member of a WikiProject that I started and designed banners and a userbox for. So, by the logic of this rule I would not be allowed to edit the very pages I created because I didn't think it mattered if I signed my name or not. I can't be the only one who finds that this has come up here of all places to be extremely ironic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You certainly aren't. The irony has been killing me. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still see no irony. When someone who refusues to join and then makes unhelpful edits we should be able to control that so there is no edit war. That isn't helpful. I started a thread, we are discussing it and I still disagree. Should I just revert that back entirely or is just preferring editors join to edit project page to much?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus after this much discussion for the change at all, so it is back as it was.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the credit of the editors involved, the issue that precipitated this discussion has been resolved. At least I think it has. Both are quality editors that do their utmost to elevate the Body Wikipedia. As humans, we all commit forgivable "sins". ```Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, would one of the participants please hat this discussion. In the spirit of keeping a decidedly positive-oriented project looking that way? Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of the Week "mini-project within a project" depends on editors being nominated by other editors in order to survive. Currently there are 4 editors in the Accepted Queue. We would love to have many more. Evidenced by some of the comments of past recepients, the award is seen as a solid pat-on the-back and has elicited some heart-felt responses. If you know a deserving editor, dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the March/April 2013 issue of The Cardroom, a poker news broadsheet, is a column entitled "Always be thankful for the new guy". In it the writer states that one reason for the decline in cardroom attendance is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which had two effects: it convinced folks that online gaming is "illegal", thus scaring them off (stemming the flow of online players who might have transitioned to real world play), and by outlawing online gaming in the U.S., killed off "more than half" of the poker shows on TV, since the advertisers were "kicked out of the country." He writes, addressing experienced card players:

"Here's my point - treasure these people who are making mistakes. Encourage them; help them to learn the rules and etiquette of this game we all enjoy so much. We need them and should welcome them with open arms to the tables (even though while attempting to "charge" them for the lessons). Sure, you're going to run into beginner's luck every now and then and have to put up with some less than top-notch play, but that's a small price to pay to keep our game healthy with new players for today and tomorrow." - Randall Rapp, The Cardroom - Northern California's Poker News, March/April 2013. Website.

--Lexein (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a very good point. The people taking the time to learn how to add to the talk page are possibly the next editors if they are shown the best of what the Wikipedia community has to offer. Putting that into practice takes a Wiki-wide consensus though...Maybe more could be done to attract rival wiki editors since they're popping up at a phenomenal rate? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's Mr. Rapp's point, but I was glad to cite it. It was a nice surprise to see an experienced (completely different industry) author taking a long-view stand for civility, to "keep our game healthy", especially since Wikipedia can be viewed as a game. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may be interested, I have boldly created a WikiProject to collaboratively recognize Wikipedia's finest editors, which can be found at the link above. Please feel free to add your name to the list of members. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be leaving Wikipedia for a few months due to Pl situations, but I will be there when I come back. I am going to make a nomination before I go, however. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked whether there is already a guideline to avoid "too many foreign editors" type comments on Talk pages. It occurs to me it might be condusive in some cases to editor retention so I link it here. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only just realised that anonymous editors can instigate Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ incidents and this to me seems like an area which could have or possibly is open to a shocking amount of abuse. I'll chuck in a quick example here:

• Registered User A - i don't like this part of an article, change it.

  Registered User B - No, it's in line with policy.

Registered User A starts a DRN incident at the noticeboard and it is thrown out.

• Unregistered User A - i don't like this part of an article, change it.

  Registered User B - No, it's in line with policy.

Unregistered User A starts a DRN incident at the noticeboard and it is thrown out.

• Unregistered User B - i don't like this part of an article, change it.

Registered User B leaves Wikipedia from frustration, stress, annoyance etc

Everyone sees that right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the IP editor that is a volunteer? I asked about it but there does not appear to be much concern. I don't like it for several reasons but what can you do?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written the above essay in semi-support of the people at ArbCom. As it might be useful in the retention of disgruntled arbs, I am mentioning it here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagaciousphil stopped by the EotW talk page to thank the project for her well-deserved Award and to nominate a fellow editor. Is there an editor you have worked alongside or have watched in action that would deserve some recognition? We suggest an editor that flies "under the radar", that doesn't get the acknowlegemnet they are entitled to. Dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Project was created by AutomaticStrikeout as a similar Project to our current EotW, but to award all editors, and not just new ones. But the project is currently MfD where it might get deleted.

Also, AS says he is open to having this Project continue closely alongwith EotW. At the EotW, we support the notion of having HoF continue under similar terms to EotW, but under the WER.

So what do you people think about it? Would that be a good option?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I agree with those at the MFD who believe this will be a source of more problems than it solves, and I think this project should not be expanding so rapidly into subprojects that exist just to give out awards. It will come off looking like the WP:ARS and losing all respect from the community, and I for one would rather see it keep a fairly limited and focussed scope so that it can have a real impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said there, userfy it for now. Editor of the Week isn't just about new users, it is about anyone, and enough of a project under the wings of the project right now. I'm open minded about the future, but biting off more than we can chew will just cause dilution of manpower. This is one reason I've backed off creating EotW, to allow others to be invested in it, so they know it isn't my program, but the communities, one that would enjoy broad support. We are less than a year old and have decent momentum, but Beeblebrox is right, we need to be careful to not have too broad of a scope, and irons in too many fires. I would love to do 1000 things, but we are better doing just a few, and doing them very well, and letting the growth be more organic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed and gained a consensus to implement our New Editor barnstar on the Wikipedia:Barnstars page.

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		message Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar is awarded as part of editor retention efforts to new Wikipedians using best practices from the very beginning!

Introduced by Amadsientist on December 31, 2012 as inspired by Gtwfan52.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is User talk:BlueMoonset. Drop by her page and see her response for her well-deserved Award. Is there an editor you know that would deserve some recognition? Dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long time editor Rich Farmbrough got blocked for a year. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich_Farmbrough - blocked for a year for what was arguably, IMHO, manual editing with typos. I don't like that fact one bit, as I indicated there. Does Editor Retention include trying to unblock editors who do vastly more "right" than "wrong"? I hope so. --Lexein (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]