Talk:Editor engagement

What about new editor feedback?
Is WP:NEF part of Editor Engagement or WP:E3 or is it something else? Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.164 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's part of Editor Engagement. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   03:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . 64.40.54.60 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should a description and link be added to the project page? Thanks. 64.40.54.60 (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, no new toys: just make it simpler and friendlier
There are several obvious reasons for Wikipedia's decline, and obvious things that could be done about it: The complexity of current wikisource scares novices away and makes editing a pain even for seasoned editors. Forums, rules, projects, navboxes, templates, categories, stub tags, editorial tags, and the like only consume an incredible amount of editors'work without providing any significant value to readers. The AfD gang and their notability rules must be the leading cause of editor loss. Fancier feedback tools and new discussion forums will not solve the "oh @#$!" problem. The last thing that editors (new or old) need is more complexity and more distraction. Wikipedia needs the courage to cut its useless bells and whistles, and its notorious cancers, even if they are someone's pet project. Good luck, and all the best. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it simpler!
 * Delete all rule and standards pages. Keep only the five pillars and the advice "look at other good articles and try to imitate them".
 * Kill all Wikipedia Projects and delete their templates from the talk pages.
 * Delete all article-side editorial tags ("unreferenced", "orphan", etc.).
 * Lower the formatting standards (no nbsps, en-dashes, em-dashes, etc.).
 * Turn each navbox into a "List of" article and delete all navboxes.
 * Turn each category into a "List of" article and get rid of the category system.
 * Hard-substitute and delete all cosmetic formatting templates.
 * Hard-substitute all templates and get rid of them.
 * Find a way to move stuff out of the source text.
 * Move the infobox source to the end of the article's source text.
 * Use a notation for tables that any editor can understand on sight.
 * Get rid of all stub tags.
 * Get rid of the article evaluation machinery.
 * Get rid of those useless "rate this page" boxes.
 * Ban user-created templates.
 * Automatically provide a "==References==" section when there are refs.
 * Make it friendlier!
 * Abolish the "articles for deletion" mechanism.
 * Lower the notability standards.
 * Ban robot-assisted cosmetic editing.
 * State clearly that "uniformity is not a goal".
 * Ban editors who demand that other editors do this or that.
 * Hide the WP bureaucracy as much as possible.

New suggestion related to doodle at google.
I'm kind of running a tiny project at pt.wikipedia to editor engagement using a template banner similar to a under construction in articles related to the doodle at google. For example, today (24th July) we have Amelia Earhart and we will notice a huge incoming of readers comming to wikipedia to read about her. I think we should take advantage of this and try to catch reader's attention to WP:Welcome or other page. I'm registering my results here if you want to take a look. So far I don't have any improvement in editor engagement but I insist we should try a bit more. For example, Alan Turing's doodle last month had 2 million visits in just one day! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What if it's not a "problem"?
It seems to me that the "editor engagement" programs may stem from a false premise. What if the graph doesn't show a "problem", as its been labeled, but a natural development of the encyclopedia maturing? There are two gigantic factors at work: the "new and exciting" nature of wikis is gone and the encyclopedia is largely complete. Both factors contribute to fewer editors signing up and fewer editors staying. In other words, the entire line of thinking driving the "editor engagement" programs may be flawed. Wikipedia is not a business. We don't need to think of editors as "customers" we are losing. Yes, we should focus on making editing a pleasant experience and making it easier to edit but this is a totally different point of view. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to be too flippant, but there are over a thousand pending Articles for Creation submissions, over fifty thousand biographies of living people that need more references, and over a hundred thousand articles with dead external links. We have an enormous amount of existing content that needs to be improved, maintained, and curated, not to mention new material that needs to be created from scratch (e.g., just look at how many new articles had to be generated during the 2012 Olympics). Our current community is straining to keep up with this workload and is shrinking by the year, while the amount of work continues to increase. Editors are not customers; they're the lifeblood that sustains our project, and right now we're in danger of bleeding out. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Jason Quinn's formulation because it reflects my own thinking. I think it only natural that Wikipedia will lose editors because most of the ordinary articles have been created: what's left are often the domain of specialized knowledge which fewer people will have.  Perhaps if one profiled a typical editor from 2005 one might see a high school student, but that, 7 years later, that person is already out of college and possibly pursuing a higher degree in a focused area because their editing interests have changed.  As for Maryana: I've been in groups where the members were split:  some wanted to follow up on the articles to be created, but some wanted nothing to do with that and wanted to create articles from their own interests.  I don't think it's a good incentive to direct people to create articles unless they're interested in doing so. -- kosboot (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maryana, the numbers aren't "flippant" but by themselves they are sort of meaningless. What should be discussed are ratios of "work"-to-editors which are compared to the past and also to the expected future values. I actually think the numbers you just gave amount to a relatively small amount (about 3 to 5 editor-years' worth) of work compared to the cumulative work already done. And I think the point that backlogs have always been a part of the Wikipedia needs to be made. Regardless of all that, my main point is that the decline in editorship may be a natural phenomena based on the achieved quality of the encyclopedia and the fact that the new car smell is gone. Yes keeping the encyclopedia up-to-date is a challenge. We can agree on that. A corollary of what I am saying is that it it's possible that it may be the natural course of something like Wikipedia to peak in quality and then decline (maybe thereafter hitting some stable level of quality). Another point I am making, sort of implicit, is that if my first point is not realized and understood, it is possible that it could result in editor engagement programs that backfire and cause harm to the quality of the encyclopedia (meaning the that the late-time "stable" level of quality is lower with a particular editor engagement program that ended up being misguided). Everything I am saying here highlights the importance of thinking about editors and quality as a differential system. It must be thought of that way or extrapolations can lead to false conclusions. I share the concerns over editor decline. And even if my hypothesis is true, there may be components of the decline that are more easily reversed than the sociological driving force. For instance, I encourage the research and development of better tools. What I am far more skeptical about are the "social" efforts like moodbars and so forth. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Complete? Come on, less then 0.1% complete. What % of existing articles are Featured article quality? How many of the 5 millions+ known species in existence have an article, not many; or how about the million plus computer viruses, only a few dozen. Wikipedia is not complete and at the current rate of content adding it won't be complete within a hundred years. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's complete in the sense that just about every topic that an average person would look up has a satisfactory amount of information for them. This undermines the willingness of the average person to want to be an editor. They just don't see the need. The fractal "shape" of information will always mean the encyclopedia is incomplete in a literal sense. But that very fractal nature means that it requires more and more specialized knowledge to add to articles. This undermines the ability of the average person to participate. Regarding featured articles. It will never be the case that all articles become featured. Why? Because articles has a tendency to regress after achieving featured status. You are using a very literal sense of the word "complete". I am using a very practical one that considered not only the information content of the encyclopedia but also the nature of information specialization and the sociological forces that drive editors. Not only do I think it is a better point of view but a necessary one so as not to make bad decisions about editor participation. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Jason's ideas. To elaborate on one of them: even if an article gets FA status, to maintain that status, it needs to be consistently updated based on newly published (or newly discovered historical) information. To be sure, the average person is not going to want to touch an article that reaches that status, so again - that becomes the domain of Wikipedians who have specialized knowledge -- not to mention advanced use of all the Wikipedia software and social mechanisms. The social part is what gets me: To a large extent, Wikipedia  really is a social network (in contradistiction to what is said on WP:NOT), and that one has to be familiar with the social ettiquette in order to contribute effectively and efficiently.  -- kosboot (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The role of appreciation and community
For editors to stay, they need to have the feeling that their contributions are appreciated. In the early days new articles were rarely deleted outright, however crappy they were even by the much lower standards of those days. Others would jump in, improve style, spelling and formatting, and add links and references. That gave the contributor the rewarding feeling that their contribution had been accepted and adopted by the community as something adding value to the project, and created the motivation to stay and contribute more.

Nowadays, things have changed. Many articles created by new editors are summarily deleted or nominated for deletion, often within minutes after the initial submission, while the newbie is clearly still labouring to improve their newly created article. This sends a message: "We don't need your shit here!" Surely, the new editor will then have an Oh shit reaction, and not one of Oh well, next time better. There won't be a next time.

Another issue. I don't have any data on this, just a feeling, but my feeling is that the sense of us all forming one community with a shared goal is much less. The general level of unfriendliness and incivility has increased, and more personal attacks that would not have been condoned earlier now fall below the NPA radar. That tends to drive some people away, and the fewer people who care about the level of unfriendliness remain, the more it will increase: this is a vicious circle. And even if you're not immediately driven out, it is discouraging. Women are, on the whole, more likely to be discouraged by this than men.

Has any research been done on this? I shouldn't be surprised if these two issues go a long way to explaining the declining editor retention. --Lambiam 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Features missing for editor engagement (example to be disabled Template:Scroll gallery)
What we need is new FEATURES. Editors do not consider current features to be attractive enough to start editing. One of possible features would be Template:Scroll gallery - nobody touched this template for 3 (!!!) years since it was said it is deprecated. I think we need a feature like this gallery so much.--Kozuch (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

IEngagement grant proposal for editor engagement
Likewise, I have submitted a Meta:Grants:IEG/Studying_content_interest_and_editor_engagement_factors_with_new_editors for the [Meta:Grants:IEG|Individual Engagement Grants]]. I aim to understand how engagement is produced in new editors and see if it is possible to achieve retention with suggestions and courses. In a way, I will be adopting users but at the same time studying them with methods such as interviews and metrics. I have conducted other studies with data processing in Wikipedia and surveys to understand communities. If you would like to endorse this project you can do it here. I would so appreciate any kind of feedback! Thank you very much. Marcmiquel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Star and heart icons
At the top of my page there is a star logo and a heart logo. I finally figured out what they are for, but what about newcomers? Why can't we use words instead? Unfamiliar logos are not friendly at all. Same for the mosh of abbreviations. I mean, what does TW, CSD, XFD, etc., mean to the average person? Please comment. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Click Star-to-watchlist", is indeed a somewhat confusing piece of UI.
 * It matches Firefox's star-to-bookmark, but even that is somewhat confusing, as the two systems are very different.
 * Could we perhaps add a software check for "Watchlists with 0 items", and when True, the user gets shown a notification bubble near the star (explaining watchlists in 1 sentence), or something similar? (Perhaps on mouse-over, though that would be less effective). –Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk to the Editor engagement folks, perhaps? It could use tooltip-ish things like the GettingStarted extension.  Theopolisme ( talk )  20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (The above was copied from Village pump (miscellaneous). –Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

The heart-to-wikilove is only visible on usertalkpages, and is primarily useful for editors who have already made a number of contributions, so is less of a concern, and probably fine the way it is - the mouseover tooltip gives a decent explanation, and testing is easy (the forced-preview is even better).

The star-to-watchlist is crucial for many editors' workflow, and it would be helpful to remind/reinforce/teach newcomers how to use it, fairly early on. ....

I'm going to leave this here for now, and will try to add additional notes on suggested implementations, later. (And in case someone replies with "it's already being worked on!" type details ;) –Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Readers already commonly use smartphones, and even Wikipedia editors increasingly use tablets, few of which can easilu show a mouseover. There's a need for words. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers don't have a watchlist, so there is no star on their page and therefore it doesn't matter if they know what the non-existent star means.
 * There are already six tabs with text labels and nine words at the top of my page. How many more words do you think will fit on a smartphone?  I'm thinking that even this much won't fit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On a smartphone, readers and editors alike already get redirected automatically to the mobile version of the site (en.m.wikipedia.org) which has a specialized skin design . Currently it includes your watchlist, but does not include links to WikiLove or user talk pages. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Big new feedback box
Dear Editor Engagement people:

I was leaving a message on the Village Pump Technical talk page and at the bottom was the new section "Help improve this page", asking if I found what I was looking for. I am not sure that this is needed on a page that is not usually frequented by new users and where everyone is there trying to help each other, but in any case, I would like to report a small problem. I have one of those new Windows 8 laptops; they all have the newly popular 16:9 screen ratio. When I "pagedown" to the bottom of the page to see the new messages, between all of the footers and category listings and this large new box, there were only five lines of text of the actual help page showing. I know that I can scroll back up a little at a time, but it would be helpful if this box were a little less space-consuming. This is a small point compared to the important work that you are trying to accomplish, but you did say "help improve this page".... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That....shouldn't be on the village pump. I wonder why it's there :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kvetchin'
I don't like this page. It is slick and promotional to a fault, and I think it repels editors rather than engages them. It also ties editor engagement to the English Wikipedia more strongly than is appropriate or tasteful. (It is rather bizarre to see staff profiles here, and I have to confess I was relieved to discover that I had been omitted.) Finally, it positions editor engagement as a Foundation project rather than a shared area of activity and concern. Leave it to us, it seems to say. We're on the job.

I propose we move it to MetaWiki. I think MZMcBride will agree that the essay at Editor engagement is altogether too slanted and particular for its claim on the title to be reasonable. Let's move this content there, and in the process try to make it less of a press release. --Ori.livneh (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * As I understand it, the Editor engagement (E2) team is focused on the English Wikipedia (e.g., Echo and the Teahouse). From this, three thoughts flow.
 * (1) I don't care about the page titles at Meta-Wiki. Move pages as you deem necessary and appropriate. I think Heather and the other E2 folks may object to moving this content to Meta-Wiki. Personally, I agree that it's kind of silly content, but the reality is that the team is focused on the English Wikipedia, as I understand it, so the location makes sense.
 * (2) While I personally don't really like this type of content, it does seem to be, as Eminem would say, a reflection of self. That is, the E2 team chose to present itself in this way. I think there's some deference to that. I think most Wikimedians (like you and me) can judge the page content as it is (and simply hope that the eventual E4 and E5 teams aren't anything like AFTv4 and AFTv5, IYKWIM...).
 * (3) There's a concern that putting the page at Meta-Wiki would give a false impression. That is, it'll seem like it's a team focused on all Wikimedia wikis when it's really just focused on the English Wikipedia. This relates to points 1 and 2.
 * Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to make clear, this is a page for both E2 and E3, albeit a rather defunct one we don't update much. It was created when we thought we'd be coordinating activities as a superset, rather than as individual teams. The location is nothing to do with the 'fact' that we're "really just focused on the English Wikipedia" - it's to do with the fact that most enwiki users don't particularly like wandering over to Meta, and that getting feedback out of people on pages located there is a colossal pain in the tuchus. Your examples of Echo and the Teahouse are (respectively) something we are prepping to deploy to other wikis as we speak, and something Product was not involved in in the slightest. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The E2 team isn't focused on the English Wikipedia, despite direct evidence to the contrary? You're familiar with the concept of "verifiability, not truth," right? If there's evidence that E2 is focused on other Wikimedia wikis, please provide it. The claim that the E2 team is focusing only on the English Wikipedia is already fully substantiated by its actions. Your point about "getting feedback out of people" is completely irrelevant after a casual glance at the page history of this talk page and its corresponding subject-space page. Perhaps what we need here is... ARTICLE FEEDBACK! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again I'd like to underscore that this isn't an E2-specific page, but: of the examples you've brought up so far, Echo and (now) AFT5, both are either deployed on other languages or about to be. AFT5 is in active use on (iirc) dewiki and frwiki so far, and Echo is being prepped for launch on frwiki too (and will also, I believe, go to Meta - past that I know we're enthusiastic to deploy elsewhere, but I'm not sure what the timetable will allow). We're certainly focused on enwiki in the sense of "we think Enwiki is the project that is a biggest deal" - because it's the largest project in terms of reader numbers and in terms of potential editor numbers, which means it's the project where a deploy can see the greatest numerical change (in theory, at least) - but we're not abandoning others, and we're not building just for enwiki - as the deployments show. The team has, through local language contacts, been pretty heavily engaged on dewiki and frwiki with AFT5, and I hope will continue to be for the Echo launch, although I've temporarily shifted over to the VisualEditor and so that's now more Fabrice's domain than mine. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikidata is another really big example of this trend, though it's obviously in a slightly different category. The comment by Nemo at m:Talk:Editor engagement gave me pause. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I think it repels editors rather than engages them" Why? Have you heard editors say this? Considering the activity around this issue in the community, whether we're talking about the constant stream of feedback on features or something like WikiProject Editor Retention, I don't think there's much evidence that you're correct in the assumption that this page discourages community members from participating in the problem space. If you personally are repelled by the style of this page, and would prefer a plain wiki page ala WP:E3 or New editor feedback, that's fine. But please don't speak for everyone, as if you represent the community personally with your preferences. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The page has existed for over year and hasn't attracted a single contribution of content from a non-staffer. The sole contributions from non-staffers came from MZMcBride (the redirect hat-note) and Nikkimaria (removed some HTML and corrected a typo). Remember that this is for a page entitled 'Editor engagement'. --Ori.livneh (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. It's also not something we've particularly used. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my word. A page that looks nice on Wikipedia? Kill it with fire says the community. And we wonder why we have an issue with editor engagement and retention. Sigh. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just an editor who's been on WP since August 2006. I like the way the page looks. It's a refreshing difference from the typical article, more like what you find on the outreach website. I'm not saying it should be put there.  Rather, I think it needs a permanent link to the front page so that people will know about it. -- kosboot (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While I can understand that this section may appear that way, I think it's wrong to suggest this is actually what's happening here. Yes, the page looks nice because a professional designer worked on it. But the objection was about the page's location and tone. Nobody is saying to kill the page with fire because it looks nice. People are objecting to where the page is located, its relative stagnancy, and the tone that it projects (i.e., "don't worry about it, we're on the job!"). That the page also happens to look nice is mostly irrelevant and I think everyone in this section would agree that Wikimedia wikis need more design love. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)