New Editor Experiences/Conceptual understanding/ja

新人編集者体験プロジェクトの作業を暫定的にどこに集中させるか、2つの領域を選んでおり、そのうちの1つがウィキペディアの概念的理解に決定しました.

新人編集者および編集者になりそうな人は、しばしばウィキペディアのコア概念のいくつかを知らないことがあります. ウィキペディアの組織モデルの重要な部分を理解していないかもしれません. ウィキペディアは作成および運営をボランティアのコミュニティが担当すること、編集に許可は必要ないこと、ウィキペディアの記事作成は共同作業と反復的な変更を採用することなどです. コンテンツを導く重要な方針、つまり検証可能性、中立であること、知名度などを理解していないかもしれません.

これら理解の格差は、いろいろな形に現れます. 基本もあれば（誰でも編集できるとわかってはいるけど資格のある専門家にばかり編集をお勧めしているという誤解）、高度なものもあります（議論の余地のない事実を引用「しない」選択が認められるとは気づいていないなど）. 場合によっては、利用者に自分が知らない概念があるという自覚があります（例えばある人はウィキペディアの記載内容には限界があるとわかったものの、じゃあ具体的にその限界は何かわからないという無力感に陥ってしまうなど. ） あるいは他の人は知識の格差が存在すると気づかないまま、それに苦しんでいます（たとえば過去の編集版は全て履歴に保存されるとは知らず、自分が記事を編集すると消えないダメージを作ってしまうと恐れてしまうなど. ）

ウィキペディアの理解は利用者ごとに差があり（ある意味ウィキペディア〈リテラシー〉）、格差解決策もさまざまで問題解決は簡単でもたんいつでもありません. しかし、だんだん理解を深めするたびに、編集初学者にとって壁が低くなり、経験豊富な編集者から見ると新規利用者の誤解に基づく状況への対処の場面はだんだん減って、負荷が軽くなります.



調査と気づき
このフォーカス（課題）では調査結果の気づき2件に基づいています. 発見8、発見5.



発見8：方針に悪戦苦戦
から以下に転記しました. 発見8の全文は、22–ページをご参照ください.

'''発見8. 編集初学者にとって最大の挑戦とは、技術面ではなくコンセプト面です. ウィキペディアの方針を覚えよう、「ウィキペディアが認める」コンテンツを作ろうと四苦八苦します. ''' 編集初学者は確かに編集の手順をナビゲートする課題に直面しましたが……、活動をいちばん妨げたのはウィキペディアへの貢献を規制する構造と方針でした. 初学者のほとんどはウィキペディアの方針の守り方と適用の方法、その背後にある理論的根拠に戸惑っていて……

ウィキペディアの方針やルールの解説文書を検索して中身を読もうとする初学者とは、ウィキペディアをずっと編集したいという強い動機がある、または編集の手順が楽しめた人だけでしたが、そういう人たちでも方針がびっしりあり、混乱してしまう点が目につきます. Most new editors either became easily frustrated when their edits were reverted, or shied away from creating new content that would require a deeper understanding of how to write for Wikipedia and focused just on correcting pre-existing content.

The most common conceptual challenges that new editors face are:
 * Verifiability and citations…
 * Notability…
 * Writing in "encyclopedic style", with a neutral point of view…
 * Copyright, especially for images…

New editors who successfully overcome these conceptual challenges do so through trial and error…and/or by receiving constructive feedback from other editors.

Finding 5: Wikipedia's unknown model and hidden community
から以下に転記しました. 発見5の全文は、18ページをご参照ください.

Finding 5. The complexity and separation of how Wikipedia is made, and the community behind it, make it difficult to convert readers to editors and new editors to experienced editors.

Many new editors were confused about how Wikipedia works, or were not aware that their understanding of the model was incorrect. Some thought that Wikipedia was edited only by experts or a small group, until they noticed the edit function or learned that anyone could edit outside of Wikipedia (e.g., through news articles, friends, or social media). Once they started editing, most new editors did not understand Wikipedia’s policies and the rationale behind them, and were not aware of or had not interacted with other editors.

Some new editors were incentivized to edit Wikipedia because of its collective culture—the fact that “anyone can edit”…For new editors who were first intrigued by the collaborative process behind Wikipedia, many then made efforts to learn more about how Wikipedia works before editing, by attending offline programs or lurking on discussion pages…

New editors have difficulty engaging further with Wikipedia’s collective culture because community functions are hidden to them. Though many new editors were intrigued by the collective process of editing, very few made the leap to participating in community discussions or activities likely because they did not know how or where to do so. Many new editors could not find or use talk pages to communicate with other editors on-wiki...and rarely attended off-wiki gatherings…Participating in on-wiki discussions and off-wiki meetings often helped experienced and retained editors cement their investment in Wikipedia…It’s hard for new editors to receive these same benefits because there’s no clear on-ramp to the Wikipedia community, or they are not even aware that it exists. This separation between new editors and the established community makes it difficult for new editors to become more progressively involved, and for experienced editors to support new editors.

How this focus was chosen
In a poll on the Korean Wikipedia, findings 8 was by far the highest ranked (with 7 out of 8 editors ranking it first or second) and finding 5 was second highest.

In a focus group with members of the Czech community, both findings appeared in the group's top 5. Finding 8 was tied for first priority, while finding 5 was fifth.

In a workshop with 15 Wikimedia Foundation staff on this project’s core team, finding 8 was the most supported finding, while finding 5 was fourth.

Since these two high-priority findings were closely related, they were bundled together as a single focus.

Key comments
Significant comments that were made during the staff and community discussions include:

Finding 8

 * Some editors suggested that their communities could try softening some of the policies themselves (in addition to just explaining them better), but most felt that it would not be possible to do so without compromising the quality of the encyclopedia.
 * An increased emphasis on the policies can be counterproductive in some cases, if it makes good contributors doubt whether they comply.
 * One potential challenge is that policies are not always internally consistent or equally applied in all cases.
 * The "Wikipedia way" is not necessarily the same across all projects, so we need to be careful not to build tools that impose a false homogeneity.
 * An increased emphasis on the policies might drive away social changers (new users whose underlying motivation is passion about a social cause), whose underlying goals may be inherently contentious and who may disagree with some of Wikipedia's policies. It may be important to communicate that the rules can be changed and that new editors are allowed to argue their case.
 * Many people suggested that concrete, contextual guidance (for example, detecting when new users add content without references and suggesting that they add some before saving) is a better solution than general explanations of policies, although others were skeptical that automatic detection of issues would be accurate enough to be useful rather than annoying.
 * There are currently no real mechanisms for communities to learn how well readers understand different help and policy pages.

Finding 5

 * Introducing readers to Wikipedia's process is likely to reduce their trust in the content.
 * However, this could actually be beneficial: this lowering of perceived quality could encourage more people to edit; experienced editors are often the most critical of Wikipedia’s content.
 * This could also be of great interest to educators and librarians interested in teaching information literacy.
 * 朝鮮語版ウィキペディアにはNamuwikiコミュニティ（ナムウィキ）というライバルがあり、そちらの方が読者の目につきやすいのです. ホームページはほぼ全域をコミュニティ用機能が埋め尽くしていて（ウィキペディアのホームページはコンテンツのみ掲載）、記事は肩がこらない感じで意見を全面に出してあり、まるで投稿者個人の声が聞こえてくるみたいです.
 * 編集者の中にはコミュニティに入りたくない、あるいは投稿したからと言って大っぴらに挨拶してもらわなくても良いと感じる人がいます. アカウント登録をして活動しても、何かを押し付けられる状況は避けなければなりません.
 * ウィキペディアの性質について、最初からあまりにも多くの情報を見せては、人々を怖がらせてしまいそうです. 段階的な導入が重要です.
 * 発見2に関連のある気づきでは、ウィキペディアが卓越しているせいで、編集者になりそうな人はしばしば、自分には編集する資格がないと感じています.
 * 最近の調査で一般社会の人がウィキペディアを知っているか、どう使っているか調べたところ、同様の問題が確かに見られました.
 * ウィキペディアの共同作業について人々に示す時、技術の初歩のみでは（トークページの説明など）、それが実際にどのように機能するか、または実際にコミュニティに参加する方法は伝わらないかもしれません.
 * これを表明しようとすると他の人の「ウィキペディアはSNSではない」という考えと衝突しかねません.