Thread:Talk:MoodBar/No thanks/reply (6)

Being like a social networking site dosen't necessarily mean friend requests. Superficial "how are you feeling today" stuff and talk-centric features are also social networking.

The Short Answer

I see the whole "how are you feeling today" thing to be superficial fluff. I have to assume that it's aim deals with editor retention and satisfaction, but "how are you feeling today" isn't going to do anything to solve the deep and systemic problems that drive editors away. Before you try and justify the research value of this, let me stop you ahead of time. The aforementioned deep and systemic issues have been around, and been the subject of much commentary, for years. The research this generates isn't going to differ from what you'd get if you read back on a half decade's worth of AN/I and VP threads.

The Long Answer

The WMF is tackling the problems of editor satisfaction and retention with:

1. WikiLove, which is superficial and ineffective. People give barnstars to other editors that they know, meaning that this misses new editors.

2. Article Feedback, which is easily skewed by a few idiots that decide they want to give 1/1/1/1s to everything. The solution to the issue of changing content rendering votes obsolete, having the votes last for only 30 edits, means that ratings last less than an hour on our most active articles, or years on our least active articles.

3. MoodBar, which might actually do its stated task of gauging new users' comfort with editing, but will miss the larger issues completely.

The larger issues:

1. High levels of incivility among vested contributors: A dozen or so editors on Wikipedia can get away with being... for lack of better terminology... irredeemable assholes... because they also generate large amounts of other good work. I don't have to name them, everyone knows who they are. These people are not only painting an ugly picture for newcomers, but are causing experienced, long term editors to leave. A half dozen vested contributors might generate 100 good articles, but they chase away two dozen users, themselves the source on 400 good articles. Even if the users that were chased off were not nearly as productive as the vested contributors, it still would be a problem.

2. Ineffective dispute resolution mechanisms: This one is being solved by the editors themselves, at least partially, because at this point it's gotten so bad that people are willing to try anything. Others are able to describe this one better than I am, but the long story short is that the steps along the road to ArbCom all have deep flaws, and while they solve the low hanging fruit issues, they don't stand a chance against anything really contentious. That stuff winds up, after many failed attempts at resolution have inflamed the problem, at the foot of a less-popularly-legitimate-that-you-all-want-to-believe-it-is ArbCom, which has a limited number of plays in its playbook, and at best is able to cool off situations for a year or two. That is, when the case makes it to ArbCom properly. When they circumvent the community and act by motion, it makes situations worse.

3. Lack of collaboration: I can count on my two hands the number of truly active (and actually productive) WikiProjects. We have hundreds of them, but most lie pretty dormant. In the absence of Wikiprojects, there's little recourse for contacting like-minded editors for resources or assistance. Editors that don't already know everyone are liable to feel stranded, or worse yet, join a Wikiproject and get turned off by the lack of a pulse there, and then feel stranded.

I'm not saying that this is all the WMF's fault, and I'm not saying that there are easy answeres. What I am saying though, is that you're rolling out lots of features that don't really help much of anything. You seem to have opted for the "let's solve the problems by asking everyone how they feel" course as opposed to the "let's solve the problems by tackling difficult issues head on".

Also, you really should have a cynic/devil's advocate on hand at all times, so you can run ideas past him or her. Having someone there to say "I've been on Wikipedia for three years and can tell you right now that [they won't like it/it won't solve the problem/you should ask them for imput this way rather than that way] will make things smoother.