My perspective is to treat everyone as a "Wikipedian". Whether you edit a lot, admin, contribute only images, or participate one time in a jam, or simply rely on it was a reliable resource in an increasingly unreliable Internet, you're part of the community.
Being welcoming should absolutely be a bedrock principle. One of the greatest lessons I've learned raising toddlers is how important it is to not assume bad intent but instead to be in a role of encouragement and safety, seeing experimentation in a positive light and teaching boundaries and rules by demonstration and example. Experienced and active members of this community should try to set a positive example. On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:52 AM Delphine Ménard <[email protected]> wrote: > "Imagine a World in which every single Wikipedia reader makes a good edit" > > (And hence is not reverted, not told off and rather praised and > encouraged). > > It is interesting to think about transitory editors. People who will come > for 6 months or a year, or two, when their life allows them the time and > the mindset. I have wondered whether retention at all costs is the right > way to look at what being part of our ecosystem is. > > The investment might be different for someone who stays not too long. It > might be less deep, more utilitarian (what are they learning that will be > useful outside of Wikimedia?), geared on maximising quality edits and > immediate reward rather than deep community integration. > > I think we want to make sure that someone is welcome, trained and given > tools they can use outside of our ecosystem, and shown quick ways to have > fun so as to make them the irresistible ambassadors for the next wave of > short-career editors. > > This also means a very strong (not necessarily numerous) community > backbone from seasoned editors who can teach well, are patient and don't > mind teaching the same thing over and over again. > > The main question being whether everyone needs to become a Wikimedian or > whether it's enough they learn to reach out to a toolbox which includes > editing Wikipedia once in a while, to do whatever it is they're doing > professionally, or personally, better. > > Cheers, > > Delphine > > Le sam. 5 oct. 2024 à 21:38, waltercolor--- via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). >> Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number >> of active editors, number of articles created. >> On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community >> (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on >> these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. >> These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. >> But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions. >> >> But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ? >> >> One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate >> information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned >> articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. >> Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new >> contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like >> Google. >> I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results >> of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a >> given article. >> It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results >> of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such >> content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing >> article, not the creation of a new article). >> And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions >> that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research >> tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good >> sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. >> Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of >> addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining >> content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a >> good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single >> one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the >> information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it. >> >> I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time >> editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of >> quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote >> all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a >> significant impact on the information provided on Internet. >> >> So quality must be added in our Kpis. >> >> We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative >> tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the >> next French Wikiconference). >> >> I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing >> palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile. >> >> >> Waltercolor >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/ERS7ZSY4I7UCYEX6BZY5AQX7O4PK2LXE/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/7VZNJUPMEKFDSJBEURPYERMD5HJEHKJF/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
