Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

You can also talk at #wikipedia-teahouse ^connect.

Purpose?

I came across this project page quite by accident. Is it proposed that this project page will replace the myriad of other help sources, such as the Help Desk, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions, WP:EAR etc? Where has the creation of this project page been discussed? – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! You can learn more about this pilot project here: Research:Teahouse. We did have a request for comment, which ran for the allotted RfC time, as well. Welcome and I hope you'll find value in this pilot project! SarahStierch (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where was the RfC? If you have a link, that would be great. TNXMan 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tnxman! It's actually a Village Pump RfC (for lack of a better term): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_36#Wikipedia_Teahouse. Sadly, there wasn't much traffic, but, c'est la vie. It has been announced on meta since December, too. Looking forward to launching the pilot and thanks for wanting to know more! SarahStierch (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, quick clarification: this project is not meant to replace any other resources! Teahouse is merely another option, a different strategy for helping out new editors. HD and NCHP are great resources; we're hoping to complement their work here. Jtmorgan (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite - anything with a stronger caffeine content than tea, though? Just askin... Soulparadox 04:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulparadox (talk • contribs)

This really isn't a big deal, but

Why are new sections from the question form added to the top of the page instead of the bottom? I really don't have a preference, but obviously that style isn't used anywhere else. If we don't think its a big deal, I don't mind at all, but I just want to make sure that's been at least brought up. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was designed that way in order to keep new questions visible. Thanks for commenting, it's great to know how everyone feels about various aspects of our implementation. heather walls (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I made that test (don't care about exposing my IP). I think it's potentially a very bad thing that new threads go at the top of the page here, since literally every other discussion page on Wikipedia requires new threads at the bottom. While yes, it's perhaps better for new threads to be at the top, teaching new editors to do something that will get them in trouble everywhere else is not helpful to them. Steven Walling • talk 02:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven: Pretty much everything about the Q&A page is specifically designed to reduce potential barriers to contributions by new users. Especially brand new users who've only been around for a day or so and don't know how things work here. Many modern websites, especially help and Q&A sites display threads in reverse chronological order, feed-style. It's what people expect. See StackOverflow, AskMefi, Feedback Dashboard. Even the email threads in your inbox are organized this way! The way Wikipedia does it is somewhat counterintuitive unless you've been around here for a while, or spend a lot of time on online message boards. And we're concerned that new users may be confused or discouraged if they don't see the questions they ask where they expect to... and leave.

We don't intend to implement the Q&A gadget on Teahouse talk pages. I think the potential for this to cause users confusion on other pages is minimal if literally every other page they encounter uses the standard Wikipedia talk page paradigm. But if it backfires, blame me: this has been one of my primary requirements since the beginning. - J-Mo 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the current design for all the reasons J-Mo lays out. But do think its a good reminder to us all to be on the lookout for this confusion among our guests and take a data driven approach to evaluating how these choices play out. If we see this becoming a problem in how they interact on other pages, let's pick up the conversation again. Meanwhile, I'm kind of loving having a page on WP that fits more closely with how I'm used to the rest of the internet working :-) Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Even the email threads in your inbox are organized this way! " Er.. no they aren't! But reverse chronological order clearly has both benefits and dis-benefits. For short items that fit in a table or list it matters less. For chunks of text it doesn't work so well. Imagine reading a novel with chapters in reverse order. Rich Farmbrough, 10:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Rich: I guess I meant 'threads' in the sense of emails, which show up at the top of your inbox and get pushed down as newer ones arrive. Since I use gmail 'conversation view', and basically live in my inbox, they mostly all turn into threads :) But I think Teahouse Q&A threads fit your description of "short items in a list", in the sense that each thread heading has no direct relation to the previous/subsequent one. And within a thread, responses follow the conventional chronological order, as they should. - J-Mo 08:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation header

The Teahouse invite template doesn't auto-include a header. So you have to remember to add a header. Not a big deal but it would be nice if the header were accounted for through the use of the template. Unfortunately, I am clueless how to do that. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha... someone else who spotted this! See Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge#Template headings. -- Trevj (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

page is very pretty but it doesn't look like it can handle many people talking and collaborating as well as WP:Tea could (if more people knew about it but I don't think either seem to be being used all that much which is a shame hmm) and it doesn't look like there's any real interaction just seems kind of like a place to post a mini userpage?

With the wysiwyg editor coming up this stuff is going to be even more important, drive towards making things editable and usable by average editors than only people that know how/want to write codestuffs instead of just writing to each other The stuff on WP:LOVE is good too --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, most of the real action is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse. A respite from the wolves circling outside

A little haven of tranquility away from the battles outside. :)

See:

• Gender gap and conflict aversion. At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Recent research. See comments at end too.
• User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct --Timeshifter (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize this had gone live! Was just watching project page, not main page. Will check it out and start putting it on relevant pages. CarolMooreDC 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Click here" link doesn't work

Moved here from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Near the top of this page it says "Click here to ask a question".. and then you can't click there! If I were a new editor (which I'm not) this would probably frustrate me. The formatting seems somewhat complicated so I didn't fix it myself.. basically, I think it should be replaced with something like this: Click here to ask a question. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It does actually work, but the clickable area is so small that is easily missed. Try slowly moving your mouse until the pointer is just a couple pixels below the letters. I notice the HTML form has been recently changed - can we make the question easier to click? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We're aware of the problem and we're working on it right now! Thanks everyone! Sarah (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool.. also, I noticed that I couldn't click on the "Be bold" link in the paragraph immediately above; so something weird is going on with that whole section. Mlm42 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange. A few hours ago there were no problems with any of the links. I tried to click on the link for "Be bold" but nothing was happening (i.e. nothing clickable). Odd! We're trying to fix it :) Sarah (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem appears to be with this edit. Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Works now! Thanks Heather! Sarah (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed...thanks to Mlm42 as well for catching this. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mlm42 and Nolelover! heather walls (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

No problem; thanks for all the great work with this page! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Activity spike

We're now averaging a new question every minute or so, up from about 3-4 questions per day. Any idea what is leading to the new activity? If it is something in the way we are contacting or letting people know about the teahouse, that's great. But we're currently getting slammed. Any ideas, or is this just an oddity? --Jayron32 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jayron! The WMF blog post and the Signpost article both when out last night, and social media is starting to pick up the story today too, and I think this explains some of the pickup from the initial trickle of questions. Sarah has also been focusing on inviting new editors using email instead of just talk page templates today, which seems to be way more effective for calling noobs back to Wikipedia (I wish everyone would use this feature when possible!) Sorry it feels like you're being slammed, but I actually think this is a really good thing, because we're getting some folks in to ask for help who usually don't get very far in the editing process before they're scared away. We're trying to get more hosts involved in answering questions, and will be here to support you (let us know what you need!!). I also think it is very much ok if someone doesn't get an answer within minutes of asking their question, we can take all the time we need to format proper replies. If you've got concerns about the kinds of guests we're getting in the Teahouse today, find we just can't handle the flow (which may drop off along with the news getting stale) or think we need to get more hosts involved, that would be good to know too. Thanks for making this project successful! Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No! Its a good problem to have! I was just looking for an explanation. When things suddenly explode like they have, there's usually a cause. I don't mind at all, really. Its nice to see it working well! I just wondered what was causing it. Its all good! --Jayron32 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh good! Its probably just my own "wait, its working? oh no, it's working! yay it's working!" excitement this morning that's making me worried hosts will feel overwhelmed. So glad you're happy to see them pouring in :-) Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Would like to help but . . .

This is an interesting idea that I stumbled on quite by accident, and I'd love to answer the question that's at the top of the page right now (I once tracked down the big brown box of collected tasks for a friend who had the same question), but . . . all those requirements for being a host! (Somewhat contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy of "go head and do it", IMO.) How do you even measure 5 hours a week? Have people clock in and out and assume they aren't double-tasking? Umm, wtf? On the internet nobody knows what else you are doing . . . Sorry, I'll just continue welcoming and helping people informally then. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm in the same boat, but I've already answered a few questions - maybe I wasn't supposed to? Mlm42 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some of the same concerns. There are very few areas in Wikipedia where you have to qualify to edit or where a subgroup of editors control who and who cannot edit there and, indeed, the restrictions at this project would at least seem to violate the ownership policy. Though I was not around at the time, I believe that this kind of restriction (whether actual or implied, I'm not sure) was at least one of the reasons for the forced discontinuation of the Esperanza project, which had similar goals. Of the current set of Hosts here, only mailer_diablo was a member of Esperanza and I'd be interested in hearing his comments about these questions (and will drop a talkback on his talk page). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was a member of Esperanza as well... --Jayron32 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Mailer D was also the admin who closed the MfD discussion which discontinued Esperanza and is in a unique position to comment, so very much hoping that he'll weigh in. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! From my perspective, the more Wikipedians who are helping new editors the better (and not just in the Teahouse!). Some of what the team is trying to do in this pilot though (it's an experiment, after all!) is try to provide a consistent experience to Teahouse guests, figure out what a good ratio of helpers to helpees looks like, and measure the impact of the approaches we're trying. The reason we've asked those who want to answer questions to learn more about what being a host means before diving in is so that we can accomplish these goals. The Global Education Ambassador program has some similar approaches to getting people involved, also because they're trying to get the ratio right, so I don't think this project is the only Wikipedia project that asks people to go through a process before jumping in. We've got some theories that little things can impact a guest's experience, like: 1) after you answer a new editor's question we'd like you to post a template on the guest's talk page letting them know to come back for a reply, because new editors often don't come back if not asked. Or 2) we're really trying to encourage hosts to introduce themselves with a photo on the hosts page so that guests get a sense of real people in the community. Or 3) saying hello and welcome before you tell the editor what to do might make them feel more welcome on Wikipedia too. Or 4) hosts are asked to not just answer questions, but also invite new editors to the Teahouse so that we can keep the flow of questions coming. The idea is not to control the spirit of everyone wanting to help, but at the same time try to learn what we'd like to learn from this pilot. As for the 5 hours requirement, this is mostly again because we're trying to give new editors a sense of community early on in their experience. No one is tracking hours. But if a host stops answering questions and sending invites for weeks on end, we know it. And we may need to recruit more hosts then, so its helpful to have some commitment from a dedicated group of volunteers up front. Ambassadors for the Global Education program have similar hourly asks, for similar reasons. Looking forward to hearing more feedback and iterating on this work-in-progress! Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just speaking as a common editor here, but y'alls help is most welcome. I think a little box was added to the top of WP:Teahouse/Questions saying the same thing. As to Yngvadottir's original concern, I've gotten the impression that "all those requirements for being a host" are just to make sure that this project has a backbone of editors who understand how much work this might take, and are willing to devote time to helping this get off the ground. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has any doubt that the project has the best intentions and beneficial purposes. The concerns I've raised, along with the others who have posted in this thread, is whether, good intentions and purposes or not, the project as currently structured may violate some very basic principles and policies of en-Wikipedia. As for it being an experiment, well, the fact that other proposals were only supposed to be experiments did not seem to carry much weight. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Soo...what basic principles and policies do you think this project may currently be violating? Honest question. You don't have to "qualify" to edit, there's no subgroup of editors who decides who can and can't edit, and I think any critics would be hard pressed to show any form of ownership. Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but a lot of this seems to be born out of simply miscommunication. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict; @ Sbouterse) Yes, I appreciate all that (and the avoidance of massive linkage to policy pages in answers). But it's looking like another example of how out of touch the WikiMedia Foundation is. In particular the 5 hours' requirement (which you admit really just means don't drop off the face of the earth, a very different thing) and the urging to post an actual headshot. Anonymity is a very important part of Wikipedia. I'd forgotten about Esperanza (no, I wasn't here then). It's looking like those people were wronged: they did indeed have almost exactly the same idea. Also . . . I beg to differ about the wisdom of inviting people specifically here to ask questions and even to see answers. While I recognize the logic of pointing out that a question has been answered and linking to where, the practical result of the invites and the "you've got an answer, come back here" is separatism. That doesn't help with the goal of integrating new editors into the Wikipedia experience, or that of increasing transparency. Those who don't get invited will now have another reason to feel left out (along with not getting a welcome template or a helping hand when they try to do something), and those who are already helping at, for example, the New Editor's Help Page will have reason to feel a bit slighted. Too many negatives there. I'd be a lot happier seeing community discussion of the need to greet and assist new editors and not just slap a template on their page - or worse, just tell them what they're doing is wrong. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Yes, the recent changes to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Your hosts are good, and it no longer sounds like experienced editors shouldn't participate. And I didn't think of adding a note to the questioner's talk page - that's a great idea, and had I been told to do it, I definitely would have. Broadly speaking, this pilot project looks like a great idea! Mlm42 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Nolelover: Well, on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Your hosts (which admittedly seems to be in a state of flux), statements like

• "Why do we have a process for becoming a Teahouse host?,",
• "If you cannot commit to the below tasks during this pilot phase, you might consider going [elsewhere],"
• "Teahouse Hosts are expected to," and
• "To become a Teahouse host, you must"

all seem fairly WP:OWNery to me, when that policy begins with "All [[Wikipedia]] content<ref>Wikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others.</ref> is open to being edited collaboratively.". Perhaps I'm wrong, and all those are just suggestions and anyone can just jump in here and answer questions without becoming a host and do so however they see fit. But I bet they can't and even if they can, the suggestions themselves are ownerish. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, non-host editors can jump in and answer questions (I did, multiple times, and wasn't reverted). This is clearly a very new project, but everyone seems welcoming to the experienced editors. Mlm42 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think it's fair to ask a little extra from experienced editors wanting to participate here.. like saying "Hi, <name>", and leaving a note on the questioner's talk page; and not using any Wiki-jargon. That's all consistent with WP:BITE. Mlm42 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - modified) But it specifically says not to! Yup, Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia tradition. But I know when I'm not welcome. Getting a lot more serious about discouraging biting the newbies would be a lot more appropriate than yet another ill-informed, divisive WMF intervention. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, the page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Your hosts (to which I think you are referring) has changed since the last time you read it; it no longer discourages non-host contributors. Mlm42 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks exactly the same to me - I refreshed it just in case. They are asking for a raft of specific commitments, including a photo and 5 hours a week. I also went back to WP:Esperanza and for the first time looked at the deletion discussion and it was chilling. People who had tried to do exactly this were vilified. Salt it, people said. Burn it with fire. Yes, this Teahouse is a nice idea. But controlled experiments and encouraging the formation of editorial cohorts are against how Wikipedia works. We do crowdsourcing here, not social media, and in particular not social media on a "friend" basis. I will continue welcoming people and trying to help people. This is a net divisor and drain - typical I am afraid of what WMF comes up with. I hope someone who has an official "in" has answered that question by now. They don't want me to, it would spoil their data. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They ask for a real photo? I didn't realize that...only two or three editors have actually used real pictures...and as previously stated, the five hours is just to separate the more dedicated helpers from the "Yeah I may come in...might not...don't count on me" crowd. As for Esperanza...well, I really think that it is comparing apples and oranges in terms of purposes (Esperanza had a social purpose) and methodology (the councils, etc). And I agree that the WMF....well, that may be better left unsaid. However, we've gotta start somewhere. Yes, I know other uses of "this is a trial" have caused...again, better left unsaid...but the Teahouse is only in its second week. Obviously this discussion has shown one of its bigger potential problems. We can fix that without ending in cries of "salt!" and "burn with fire!" Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm Jonathan Morgan: one of the researchers who designed the Teahouse pilot and a long time (if low-activity) WikiGnome. I'm really glad this conversation is happening, and I hope it continues. I think Yngvadottir's comments about separatism are understandable. You might be interested in knowing that we're actually working with members of active WikiProjects right now so that we have a bunch of places outside the teahouse to point new editors to, where they might find others who share their interests. The Teahouse itself is not supposed to be the only place newbies go on wiki. But I don't think that ultimately it will be: people become editors to edit, after all, and in the course of editing they will meet other Wikipedians. We're just trying to set up a space where they feel they can return for support when they encounter problems (as they will, as all new users do), and maybe meet others in their 'cohort' who they might want to edit with--not just safety in numbers, but community in numbers as well.

or so the rationale goes, anyway. We're testing something out here. The 'results'--both in terms of quantitative impact on newbie retention and the stories of hosts and newbies actual experiences, will be shared with the Wikipedia community, hopefully at Wikimania among other venues. Regarding slighting other help spaces, that's not the idea and I hope it doesn't happen. Everyone who works to support new editors on Wikipedia--whether its NEHP, HD, Online Ambassadors, Feedback Dashboard or the Welcoming Committee is doing vital work. Each of these groups of editors and each of these spaces has a slightly different focus and a slightly different strategy. But no one space can handle the sheer volume of new (potential) Wikipedians who create accounts in GF every day, so there will always be new users who aren't being reached out to.

And I hope that means there's always room for trying new strategies. Fewer newbies become Wikipedians every year. There is a real and actual decline in editorship on enwiki, and on many of the other projects. If we want to keep Wikipedia vital and relevant, we need to try out additional ways of engaging new users. In order to demonstrate that these attempts have been effective (or not) we need to be able to measure their impact. And since the goal behind the Teahouse is to provide help and expose newbies to the Wikipedia in specific ways, we ask that people who want to participate read about what we're trying to do first, make a commitment to do more than "drop in" every once in a while, and try to participate in good faith according to the guidelines we've come up with. Otherwise, we really would be "just another help space", and comparing Teahouse to HD or NEHP would be making a distinction without a difference. - J-Mo 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My response to T-man would essentially what Jtmorgan said at the very end of his comments. We've all seen projects, help desks and different this-will-be-different-we-will-revolutionize! etc. that failed because after a while, the helpers leave. The newbies keep coming, but there's no one to help them. That's what those 'serious' requirements are really for. I agree that they may be worded badly (as you say, everything's still in flux), but the gist is that some people would really like this to work, and are asking for fairly reasonable time and work amounts to ensure that the Teahouse doesn't gradually lose all momentum and end up with a {{historical}} tag like so many others. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see the value in this approach, and kudos to you all for undertaking a commitment to helping out newcomers. However, in creating an inclusive atmosphere, we must be careful about excluding community members who want to help. I answered a query here on the weekend; it went very well, I had the specific knowledge to help the new user do what they wanted to, and I think the end result was excellent. Afterwards, I received a message from the Teahouse co-ordinator. Very pleasantly worded, but the gist was "thanks, but no thanks". (User talk:The Interior#Thanks for lending a hand at the Teahouse! This really irked me somehow. It seemed to work against the wiki ethos, that we should be bold and that anyone can edit. If I had done a poor job answering, had swamped the new user with policy links, or bitten them in some form, this would be a bit more understandable. Just wanted folks here to be aware of my experience, and the result, which is I don't didn't feel welcome at the Teahouse. The Interior (Talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the positive aspects of this projects is that it is in flux. No one person or one group of people can devise a perfect solution to a really difficult problem right off the bat. I personally apologize for any aspect I have been a part of that seems to be an effort to keep people out. That is the opposite of the intention of this project. There are many variables and many things to consider. Often it is easier to knock things down than to build them up; if this (or any) project can embody part of its intent—to work together to make improvements for everyone—that is a really powerful tool. heather walls (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was your (and other's) answers that led to this discussion. I had not seen her message to you and no, that wasn't the best message (IMO) to send. I don't think organizers realized just how many other editors would be interested in helping out, although that's pure speculation on my part. That has obviously been changed, and I do hope that despite that start you continue to help when you can here. Again, this is just the second week of this project. The Teahouse hit a snag, and thanks to you all we may be able to clear the air while the foundation's still being laid. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No apologies required. I appreciate that the project is still in infancy and that it's inevitable that there will be bumps. This was my only criticism from I've seen. The layout and design is really pleasant, and the new users seem to be taking to it quite well. The Interior (Talk) 03:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, as a host here myself, I would like to validate the concerns of The Interior, Yngvadottir, and others. I don't feel it is a good idea to discourage experienced, well meaning, editors from providing compliant, friendly, well-thought-out answers to questions here. The teahouse is a different kind of place to get help, but if someone happens by, and has a good answer to a question, they shouldn't be discouraged from giving it, so long as they "get" the kind of ethos the Teahouse is trying to build. The fastest way to kill this and make it unsuccessful is to make it an exclusive club. That never goes well at Wikipedia. Ever. --Jayron32 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Just in regard to projects that have entry requirements, we've picked up a few - the Wikipedia:Ambassadors program, OTRS, MedCom, some Checkusers, and the various clerking roles, to name the ones that spring off the top of my head. Then, of course, there are roles such as ArbCom and the admin bit, which aren't quite the same thing, but aren't entirely unrelated. Going back a bit, reviewer rights also gave extra abilities in article space to selected users.

I tend to see the Ambassador program as the closest to this model in terms of requirements, so I guess there are now established precedents. As to whether or not it is the best approach, I think the aim is to find out if it is. Personally, I don't see why other editors shouldn't involve themselves in answering questions, but as part of the pilot it does seem germane to make sure that the style and manner of those responses meet the Teahouse's goals. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this feels like another WMF "project" foisted on the community without community input. Contrast this with Wikipedia talk:New Page Triage where the WMF person User:Okeyes (WMF) is welcoming and responding to community input. Real photos encouraged? Isn't this what everyone is saying is not a good idea on the internet, unless you're sophisticated and aware of the potential consequences? And the "hosts" may be welcoming, but I don't see any interaction between the "guests". MathewTownsend (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Re: the Ambassador comparison. (I'm an Online Ambassador this term). While the Ambassador program does vet its members, it has no exclusive processes. By that I mean that there are no pages that are Ambassador-only, and that the Ambassador process, which mostly involves on-wiki help and oversight, is available to all editors. If a non-vetted user tried to help one my assigned classes, for instance, I wouldn't occur to me to ask them to stop. I don't think I'd be within my rights to do so. (of course, if someone was being an idiot or biting the students, I'd be off to talk to my friendly neighbourhood admin about a block) The Interior (Talk) 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with real photos - while pseudo-anonymity is something a lot of people wish, and therefore they shouldn't be required to upload a photo, those comfortable with doing so can always be encouraged. :) In regards to engaging with the community, my recollection was that there was an RfC started and run, but the community didn't get involved. Otherwise, I've thought that those running it have seemed very open to responding to queries raised in regard to the project. I would be worried if this was more like the India Education Program, where communication did seem to be a major concern, but so far it seems pretty open to discussion. I notice that the hosts page has been modified to state that non-hosts can respond to questions, which is a great response.

With the ambassadors, that's entirely true. :But then, I don't think there was ever a concern with other editors helping teahouse guests - the issue was just whether or not they could help editors as a host in the teahouse on the teahouse page, as opposed to other approaches. In a similar sense ambassadors are the only ones who can help as ambassadors, and add themselves to the course page in that role, although there is never any problem with others helping in other capacities. If that makes sense. It does seem moot now, anyway, given the changes to the hosts page. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. One thing the project could do to bring things in line with the WEP and other selection-type deals on Wikipedia is to make sure the selection process is open and transparent (by bringing this up I in no way mean to say this group of hosts was poorly selected, they look to be very well-suited to the task). Perhaps it was documented on Meta? The Interior (Talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There was meta:Research:Teahouse/Hosts which listed the criteria. That doesn't explain much about the selection process, though, just in general terms the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly as this pilot grows, lots of experienced editors will find their way here (who don't want to commit to being a "host"), and they may want to answer some questions. Clearly the way forward is to harness this helpful energy as much as possible; I think by clearly outlining a few key guidelines for them, this could work really well. If I understand correctly, the purpose of the "hosts" is to ensure that things run smoothly, questions don't go unanswered, and maybe to seek out new editors and point them here. Mlm42 (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed either to this project or to making the experience nicer for newcomers or, frankly, even to having some sort of safe zone for them (whether I think that will be of any long term benefit to the encyclopedia is a different subject, but being cordial and out-of-the-way helpful, especially to newcomers, is a good thing for its own sake), but I do not want to see WP principles compromised in the process and I was concerned that they were. It appears from this discussion that the project elders have taken the point and that the tide may have turned on that point, but now let me flip-flop. If just anyone can participate here and something is not done to insure that users dealing here with newcomers do not conform to some particular set of standards and civility (beyond just WP:BITE), then there's no reason for this project to exist unless it's the hope that the newbie-biters will just just be nice and stay away. (Yeah, sure.) The real solution is to put conduct restrictions on people who do things here. Not make them join up, but simply say, "If you edit here and you're not a newcomer you must do X and not do Y." How do you do that? Get community consensus for the restrictions and/or pass a policy, or both. Since this is a fairly radical departure from the norm I would suggest the latter; see e.g. the mediation policy. There is, of course, a risk in that: that the community will reject the project or gut it a-borning, but MathewTownsend's got it right, that's the way things are supposed to be done around here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And the scenario you described after the flip-flop is exactly the job (overseeing of sorts) that some might be thinking of sorta-kinda possibly handing in a reduced form to the hosts quite soon in the far-off future. Maybe. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think things have to be that bureaucratic.. why not just say "If you edit here and you're not a newcomer, could you please do X and not do Y? Thanks!" Do we need a policy to say that? Especially when Y is "not bite the newcomers" and X is something like "let the newcomers know you have responded". Using words like "must" seems unnecessary; is that word the main objection? I don't think it has to be as complicated as you describe, unless I'm missing something.. Mlm42 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As someone who was responsible (and blameworthy) for much of what the Teahouse is and isn't, let me point out one more example (besides the very real risk of BITEing, or simply overly laconic responses) of why we're trying to impose/suggest/adhere to ourselves... standards. We have a talkback template. It is meant to be placed on the guest's page, after you respond to their question. It's an extra step and therefore extra work, but it's one of the very steps that we're trying to evaluate: do new users feel more satisfied or more welcomed or more comfortable asking follow-up questions, and are they more likely to keep editing, hell--more likely to be aware that their question has been answered, if they get a follow up message?

Hosts know about these kinds of procedural details; editors who are just dropping in probably won't. But the only way we can the make experience consistently good (or, at least, consistently whatever-it-is) is if things like talkback follow up are happening, well, consistently. There are a lot of details like this, so we can't just add them all to the 'questions' page--even if spamming the Q&A page with lots of such instructions were an effective communication strategy or good design, neither of which it is.

We're not asserting that what we're doing is better, we're testing it to see what it is. We could be wrong, but if we can't do it sorta-a-certain-way in the first place, we'll never know. So we really want (inclusive) your help, but please don't kick over our sand castle. :)

BTW, I wasn't directly involved in the initial host selection/vetting process, tho I was aware of it. But I believe that, from now on at least, this 'process' will be more like "If you want to be a host, please verbally commit to spending a non-trivial amount of time doing things related to Teahouse, such as inviting new editors, answering questions and following up and discussing new ideas." So if you stop being active for a few weeks, we might remove you from the host intro page, for the simple reason that that page is designed to provide new users a list of people who are currently committed to engaging/interacting with them. You can add yourself back whenever you want to work with newbies, through Teahouse, again.

Good discussion here. I'll be around and participating. This seems like important stuff to talk about. - J-Mo 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Automatic signing of messages

Just letting you all know that I've added Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed to the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions page so that all comments by new users have a signature and timestamp attached to them. I'll admit that unsigned messages are one of my pet peeves, and the "unsigned" template produces some ugly wiki-markup in the edit window, but this followup question may have been prematurely archived today if no-one had responded to it because it lacked a signature. Graham87 04:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graham! It's much appreciated and makes everyone's jobs a lot easier. Also, thanks for copyediting and cleaning up the Host Lounge! Sarah (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks Graham--we need, and are exceedingly grateful for, this kind of help. - J-Mo 00:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Two questions

Congrats on starting this sorely needed project. Can I ask why "five hours" is cited as a minimum. This will turn off a lot of potential hosts; my guess is that busy Wikipedians are likely to make good hosts. Wouldn't two hours be a more realistic minimum?

It's on the boundary of being too complicated.

Why is involvement in arbitration an issue for hosts? A current case has a huge array of parties, most of whom are peripherally involved at most. If a host is named as a party, they have to suspend their role as a host? Arbitration is a normal community process, and if being named as a party somehow disqualifies editors as fully functioning members of the community, it doesn't augur well for this endeavour. Tony (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"As for the 5 hours requirement, this is mostly again because we're trying to give new editors a sense of community early on in their experience. No one is tracking hours. But if a host stops answering questions and sending invites for weeks on end, we know it." - one of the three organizers. My thoughts are above, so I won't copy them here again. No opinion on the ArbCom thing. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have no opinion on the ArbCom thing, why is it there? Tony (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What ArbCom thing? Sarah (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications "be in good standing within the community (i.e. not blocked, not involved in arbitration procedures.)"heather walls (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's more like, don't be involved in some epic drama, and if you are the focus of an Arbcom situation that means you generally are! I think it's quite simple - I think most Wikipedians can name a few folks who might be Arbcom attractors and might not be the representation of best practice on Wikipedia. Just like I keep the drama llama off my talk page =) It's mainly if you're in trouble, for lack of a better term, in the Wikipedia world. ArbCom volunteers are welcome. Sarah (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, btw, thanks for dropping by to learn more and seek clarity on these two questions! I'm working on a bit of copy editing, and perhaps it'll help out. Sarah (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Later this month I'll have a freer stretch in RL and would be interested in being a host. But it might be too late in your audit cycle. Tony (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome Tony. It might not be, so surely check back at the end of March if you have time. The pilot runs through May, so I think you'll be able to play an important role, as all hosts do! Sarah (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Great idea, but....

Hey, guys, I found this project through stalking Steven Zhang's talk page, and gave my first answer to a question a little while ago. I have a concern, though: that formatting...it is godawful in my browser. I don't mean ugly, I mean it's breaking the formatting of the page. Even the template reply I got from SarahStierch on my talk page is messing up the page formatting but good. Is this just because it's a pilot? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC) UPDATE: After looking at the CSS, it's probably because of the "position:absolute" that is applied liberally. This CSS makes the rest of the page ignore the content in question when it comes to spacing/formatting/etc. This is resulting in the message boxes disappearing off the bottom of the page, or appearing underneath the normal content window. Anyone else with a knowledge of CSS have any input? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writ Keeper, what is your browser? We do know that there are some issues with certain browsers and devices. heather walls (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 10.0.2. It could be a bit out-of-date, but other than that, pretty bog-standard. Do you know what purpose the absolute position CSS is serving? Like, I can't really tell what it's trying to accopmplish. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW I'm using 10.0.2. (the latest version) and I have no problems. Sarah (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found the problem. I block image loading, and the formatting depends on the space the images take up to display correctly. Without images, stuff gets messed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'd just like to apologize if the above seemed a bit...presumptuous or rude; unrelated CSS problems have been plaguing me for the last while, and I got a little fed up with it. Sorry! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's okay Writ Keeper! It can be frustrating! Sarah (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

...AND it's always handy to have people to do QA work for you. Thanks for dropping us a line! - J-Mo 15:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse in the "news"

Hi everyone! The Teahouse has gotten some attention, both on Wiki-related spaces and else where, feel free to add to this list:

• March 6: "Welcoming Women to Wikipedia" from Lavender Martini Border Gateway Protocol
• March 5: The Signpost, News and Notes
• March 5: "Wikipedia Teahouse a warm welcome for new editors" from the Wikimedia Foundation Blog
• March 4: "Wikipedia Thoughts, Etcs." from CUNY Academic Commons

Sarah (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Alcoholics anonymous

I've read The section on AA and it goes over the history and what AA is suppose to do. It does not how ever offer inquirers any information on alternatives to the AA program thust limiting peoples options on the treatment of addiction. I've been trying to inform people of there options but have been unable to "appropriately" get my point across based on the guidelines of wikipedia. Being theat i am new to this site i would apriciate any thoughts. however i do not want to get in to any debates with people about there feelings toward AA. I have cured my addiction inspite of AA and my feelings toward the program of AA are very strong. However i simply wish to alert people to the medical break throughs that have helped me so much..Suboxone being the most benificial. I'm also curious to know if there are programs any one knows about that are not religious in nature. I appriciate any input thank you. -Derek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmohr123 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Derek, this talk page is about the Teahouse, please see the AA talk page to discuss that topic. Thank you, heather walls (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unorphan the teahouse

I'd suggest adding links to Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus! Great to see you here. During the pilot, we are actually exploring ways that the Teahouse can contribute to the help and welcome areas of Wikipedia, and we aren't ready yet to link to those areas in the Teahouse space (unless a Host suggests someone go to those spaces). You can learn more about the Teahouse project pilot on meta: meta:Research:Teahouse. Sarah (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a problem with the approach

I'm going to be deliberately nonspecific here, but one of your guests wound up at AN/I. Since the Teahouse invites do not have any of the policy links that the Welcome templates have, and since they didn't think to come to the Teahouse to ask for advice on the matter, they were left unaware of aspects of policy. I suggest that if links to policy are to be avoided in Teahouse invites and advice, it would be a good idea for those who invite people to watch their Talkpages so as to render aid in such situations. Especially since the project involves inviting so many people who therefore don't get the Welcome template. The metaphor of a tea-shoppe to which guests come of their own accord does leave something to be desired when the guest then steps in an open manhole in the street outside, or gets mugged in an alley around the corner. The links suggested in the section above might help a bit, but still presuppose the guests know to look on pages that take a very different approach - IMO it would be more natural and more successful, as well as kinder, to keep a helping eye out for one's guests while they are still feeling their way around. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion is to keep and eye on the actions of every editor who has been invited to the Teahouse? In your metaphor you are suggesting the teahouse hosts should follow you home and lean over your shoulder. I think that would make it an entirely different project.. with considerably more work for all the hosts. Just because editors get an invitation here, doesn't mean they can't also get a welcome template.. Mlm42 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I agree with Mlm42, he seems to have a good idea of what the Teahouse is trying to achieve here. Keep in mind we have invited over 1,000 new editors to visit the Teahouse in one week - so if only one has visited ANI or gotten "in trouble" than that isn't as bad as it could be. On another note, perhaps we have failed to deliver in our ultimate task of keeping new editors informed. The goal of the Teahouse isn't to necessarily hold hands, especially as numbers of visitors grow (I highly doubt that our hosts will want to add numerous additional Teahouse new editors to their watch pages, but, I'm not speaking on behalf of them). I think we're doing a really great job so far, again, if only one new editor has struggled to "learn the ropes," as opposed to the 20+ other new editors who have visited, than that's not so bad! (Or perhaps they are acting in bad faith, or maybe they just haven't had the community, beyond the Teahouse, also help educate them about policy - it has to be a community thing - it takes a village, as they say, and the Teahouse is just one place in that village!) I do encourage you, if you haven't already, to take a look at our Meta page, which has been up since December and explores the reasoning, ideas and concepts behind the Teahouse pilot. You can find it here. Thank you as always for sharing your thoughts! Sarah (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One more note, and again I can't speak on behalf of most hosts, who do welcome templates. I don't use them, but, I never found value in them as a new editor and (almost ten years ago, and even to this day) found more value in asking for help than actually digging through all the generally intimidating and convoluted documentation. Each host or participate who invites has their thing - many actually do post the welcome templates. Again, each experience (and host!) is different, and if one new editor ends up at ANI, and folks blame the Teahouse - I could turn around and blame convoluted documentation and hard to understand policy as just a reason for people ending up there as well :) Oh Wikipedia...! Sarah (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. As someone who's considerably closer to being a true n00b than most Wikipedians in these discussions, I can say that I vividly remember the first time I saw one of the existing welcome templates (with all dem links). I was surprised and intimidated. I was most definitely not more inclined to hunker down and wade through policy and help documentation for having had them delivered them to me via template. And it didn't stop me from getting involved in a series of frustrating interactions around copyright (see my talk page for a record of that ugliness). cheers, J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a member of the welcoming committee, I generally place a welcome template in addition to the invitation. I do think that a link to policies (maybe 5Ps?) would be worthwhile, so that issues (particularly new page creation) don't come as such a surprise. -- Trevj (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm new here. Could someone point me to the welcome template, please? Also, I notice that the pic on the hosts' page is of seven men drinking tea. Is it not possible to find a pic that includes women? (Or is entirely of women?). Tony (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • They're all at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Templates. (The Host lounge has a bunch of useful links at the bottom.) Just to comment from the perspective of WMF work project, I will say that for brand new people, though not people who've made more than ~10 edits, our data strongly suggests that templates with laundry lists of links turn people away. It's only after people really dig into editing that they want a list of useful policies. The best thing to start with is a place to ask questions, just like Teahouse. Steven Walling • talk 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing font

How do you change what font is displayed in a table, especially when it is not the whole field? What about the size of the font (also, especially when it is not the whole field)? I have asked at Wikipedia:Help desk, but haven't gotten a decent answer. I am asking the above because I would like to know how to import an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet into Wikipedia. I have one that I am attempting to import (into User:Morriswa/Highways). I want the table (see link) to be as exact a copy as possible, preserving as much formatting as possible. Allen (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(Just fyi: this is not the place to ask a teahouse question; that place is here). Have you tried using a span tag and changing the inline CSS to the font you want? It would look like

<span style="font-family:Courier New">Desired text</span>

and the output is this: Desired text. Replace "Courier New" with whatever font you want, and "Desired text" with whatever text you want. Font size can be changed in a similar manner:

<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:22px">Desired text</span>

yields:Desired text. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bearing with my lack of understanding of where to ask this. Also, thank you for your help. I think this might really be a big help. I plan to implement this ASAP! Allen (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How would I change the font color using this method? Allen (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's controlled by the "color" CSS property, so:

<span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-size:22px; color:green;">Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet</span>

yields:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

VG

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Project contacts

No video games? :) Salvidrim! 18:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is still a list in progress. It'll be there shortly. SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. :) Salvidrim! 18:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic project!!

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Project

Don't forget Wikipedia:Mentorship exists so the way these two relate should be clear. Wikipedia:Mentorship probably good for people who like a more formal sounding arrangement than Tea House concept. But having the two options for different types of personality, purposes, just increases the numbers of interested parties for both. Getting retired educators working on this in general is an idea I'm really getting into. I wonder if anyone at WP:Wikiproject Education could help. CarolMooreDC 21:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Carol, thanks for the tip. I think it'd be great to have Teahouse Hosts point new users who have interest in more developed mentorship towards that project. I'll add it to my training materials! Thanks for the Education suggestion too. I'm so glad you approve :) We've had a really great response from the community, I think people are really going to be stoked to see and help the Teahouse as it proceeds! SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for establishing this. I'm sure all the (current and future) hosts will do a great job! -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential proposals for policy changes

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Project

I hope the metrics gathered will provide a sound basis for any policy change proposals in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

I noticed that hosts have a userbox so I made two for guests. Just a random idea, curious for feedback. You can see them here. Thanks! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally had time to add these to the guest page, thanks ReelAngelGirl! heather walls (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome note

One for future consideration: when the pilot is complete, perhaps community consensus could be sought for changes to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. The Teahouse, along with other newbie links, could be included there. -- Trevj (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For sure. We're hoping to include Teahouse links in places like this, feedback dashboard, and welcome templates. The more the merrier, in general, tho there is a tension around linkspam. A lot of these "helpful" templates are already crowded with such a daunting number of links that it's pretty unrealistic to imagine that newbies will actually click on any of them. So we'll have to look for the sweet spot. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Random host profiles

Hey, guys. Looking at the source for the random template that we use to choose the profiles, it looks like the two templates aren't independent of each other; that is, they generate the same random number each time and the same two people will always appear together. For example, it appears that whenever SarahStierch's profile appears, so does Nolelover's; one will never appear without the other. I'm looking into it, but someone with more experience might also want to take a look, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: boldly added "seed" arguments (values 3 and 11) to make them independent. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I wasn't sure what "seed" meant in this context, so I left it out. But it's nice to have more flexibility. The more dynamic we can make the landing page, the better. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 16:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User categories

Hello TeaHouse members,

I was wondering what all the user categories were for and when we can obtain them. In other words, when will become "autoconfirmed users," "autopatrolled users," "administrators," "bureaucrats," etc.? Also, what are the rights granted with the titles?

Thank you,

--MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The last two are a matter of Wikipolitics. You have to persuade fellow editors that you deserve them. "WP:Bureaucrat" is a high level administrator job and votes are hard to get. "WP:Administrator" is a low level administrative job and you need a number of votes for you and not many against. Though an old-timer, I'm not either of these, preferring to keep my nose out of politics. Sometimes this means political decisions go against my preferences. These and the other classifications can be found with a search using the "wp:" prefix as in wp:Autopatrolled. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Section [edit] links on the Teahouse question page may not go to the right question, because new questions are added at the top instead of the bottom

There is a problem with the Teahouse question pages that's just going to get worse as the number of questions asked increases -- the [edit] links aren't going to the right sections because new questions are added to the top of the page instead of the bottom of the page as is the usual practice for Talk pages which throws off the section count. Here's a possible scenario then more detail as to why the problem occurs.
Bob posted a question on the Teahouse questions page. Someone posted an answer and then someone else posted some more information. Bob just reloaded the page and has been reading the answers but they've prompted another question and so he clicks the [edit] link to respond to the answers to his original question and to ask a clarifying question. But while Bob was reading the page, Steve came and posted a question, which was posted at the top of the Teahouse questions page, which throws off Bob's section count in his edit links until he refreshes his page. When Bob clicks the [edit] link next to his question, he will be put into someone else's question because of Steve's new question. If Bob uses a browser which "saves state" (doesn't force a reload of the page whenever the browser Back button is used to go back to it), perhaps so that anything he types in an edit box isn't lost if he navigates to another page for a moment, then no matter how many times he presses the browser Back button then the section edit link to edit the section with his question, Bob will continually be put into the wrong question by the edit link (until he refreshes the page) because his section numbering isn't the same as the "real" section numbering. If you don't understand what I mean by section count, let me get a bit more detailed:

Question 1 [edit] and the edit links to -> Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=1
A question is posted here
:An answer
::Another answer
Note that the [edit] link doesn't go to a named anchored link, it's not to something like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Image_Permissions (a hashed link which goes to the auto-created anchor in the section title). The edit link simply counts down to which section it is then links to an edit of the section with that number. If the page has been edited in the meantime by adding a new question at the top of the page, thus changing the section number of every question, then Bob's [edit] link section numbers won't match up with the "real" section numbers after Steve asks his question.

Question 2 [edit] and the edit links to -> Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=2
A question is posted here
:An answer
::Another answer
This isn't usually a problem because things on Wikipedia pages are usually just tacked on at the end. Section 1 will usually always be section 1 until the page or the section on a Talk page is archived. Individual sections on a Talk page aren't usually autoarchived (it's not the default which is to not archive at all unless someone sets it up) and those that are autoarchived tend to be archived when the page has lain dormant for a few days. As the number of people posting and responding to the Teahouse grows, the problem of section edit links not linking to the correct section will continue to grow, unless new Teahouse questions are added to the bottom of the page as is standard MediaWiki practice. (Anything else would require a code rewrite of the underlying MediaWiki software and that's rather beyond the scope of the Teahouse -- it's already receiving fairly substantial preferential treatment, in my opinion.) Banaticus (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This has happened to me a couple if times, but I immediately realized the problem and fixed it....does anyone else actually have trouble with this? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 11:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

When it happened to me, I figured out what the problem was within a minute, but then I like to think that I really know my way around Wikipedia, HTML, and wiki syntax. Someone who's unfamiliar with all of that might have considerably more trouble. In my opinion, the problem lies solely with the fact that the way the page works is basically completely unlike the rest of Wikipedia and "standard" assumptions (such as section numbering being a good quick shortcut to link to a specific section) don't necessarily work as expected. Banaticus (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I also encountered this, and also immediately realized the cause. While I suspect most new users won't immediately realize the cause, they will easily find the solution: just click the edit button again, until it takes you to the correct section. Since the solution is so easy, I don't see this being a major problem.. that is, until the Teahouse becomes so popular that there are new questions every minute! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you've documented the problem and its potential repercussions so thoroughly here, Banaticus. Now if it does become a widespread problem we'll be able to communicate the issue to outside stakeholders much more easily. And if Teahouse ever becomes so popular that this problem is commonplace, well... those are the kinds of problems I'd like to have, frankly. But ultimately, I agree with Nole and Mlm: if it does cause new users some momentary confusion, there's a high likelihood they will figure it out pretty quickly. And fortunately, the primary mechanism by which new users are encouraged to interact with the Q&A page (clicking the "Ask a question" button) is not effected by this bug. Bottom line: the Q&A page is meant to be a feed, not (primarily) a discussion board. Having new questions show up reverse-chronologically is still worth the odd glitch, IMO - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to greet the Teahouse guests =)

Many new and experienced editors visit the Teahouse and fill out a guest profile! Say hi and welcome them to the Teahouse and Wikipedia on their talk pages! Greet the guests here!. Sarah (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Find the answer "here"

The random(?) question on the Teahouse main page is followed by a "Find the answer here" link. Only this link just goes to the top of the current /Questions page. I'm an experienced editor, so I was able to find the answer by searching through the archive pages for a fragment of the question. You can't even look through the index for the section header since the header isn't shown on the front page. That seems awfully cumbersome for a feature that is supposed to be designed to pull in new editors. Siawase (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Jtmorgan who implemented the system. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent for more details. I'll try to think of a way to include section headers, but one of the problems is that there should be not archived questions in the list. Maybe a bot should make the list, instead of humans. Chico Venancio (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The automated talkback button was actually developed by Writ. The template I've been using goes directly to the question, and it's just the cutting and pasting of the talkback template from here. Sarah (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not ideal. It's actually on my to-do list to write a script that automatically updates the recent-questions page. Right now, I update it manually (and seldom, obviously!). However, as long as we get the newbies onto the Q&A page, we still win. I'll post here once I've got a better solution in place. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any check before editors are welcomed to the Teahouse?

I think I've seen this before, but today I blocked an editor whose only edits were vandalism, and then noticed that they'd been welcomed to the Teahouse. This doesn't seem appropriate. Nor to be frank does a welcome that doesn't give any links to our policies or guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No hard checks. Hosts are supposed to do a little background checking to determine good faith before inviting, but I'm not convinced that this always happens, and there aren't any safeguards against/consequences for this. This is one of the reasons I've expressed (strong) dislike for the "20 invites" proviso in the host criteria; having a perceived quota of invites to fill will always reduce quality of individual invites. As for the lack of policy links in the invite template thing, I'll defer to the WMF folks about that; as the saying goes, they were like that when I got here. My understanding of it is that we're trying top avoid scaring people off with a bunch of links to long, complex, user-unfriendly policy pages; the idea is that they'll come here and we can explain policy to them. Whether the benefits of that outweigh the costs is an exercise left to the reader, although I suspect that nobody would read the policy links even if they were in there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see the damage done by welcoming a vandal.

Ditto for the welcome without policy links. Do you actually think editors welcomed to the Teahouse are more prone to vandalism than otherwise? Chico Venancio (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why this invite wasn't appropriate. User JojaMaria appeared to be a female name, we're trying to engage more female editors, the talkpage was bare, and so that was enough for me to want to invite that editor. While JojaMaria turned out to be a vandal, I say that reform is possible, and maybe she'll return in the future and make some positive edits. In fact, inviting vandals might actually be a good thing, but that's the pollyanna in me. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rosie. More than most of the people we invite are generally good faith, and sometimes vandals aren't really vandals (some people just need guidance in Wikipedia ways). As I have said - if one bad apple gets into the mix that's just one bad apple. Assume good faith - with everyone involved :) And what's wrong with welcoming someone? You can always be bold and add a template with the policies, yourself :) Even vandals sometimes need love, and yes, sometimes "reform" is possible. And the reason for the 20 invites a day? If we don't have people inviting new editors (and trust me, it is NOT hard to find 20 good faith new editors, Rosie and I have found thousands) we don't have people to help at the Teahouse. Sarah (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see a problem with inviting a "vandal", perhaps they haven't vandalized anything yet, or the sin is in the eyes of the beholder, or best yet, what if someone assumed that WP was all bots and cold space and they found out otherwise and decided to contribute. Really you just never know. (I personally flat out ignored welcome templates, aside from anything that seemed like a little note from someone.) heather walls (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Heather, they wouldn't be a vandal if they hadn't vandalized. As I said, the only edits were vandalism, and the first one was to add "Pure definition of "Mohawk" is "Shawna".. Shawna was the first half native half Irish mix ever known to man kind. She spends her nights hunting for kangaroo's and bald eagles, by waiting outside of her window at nightfall. Shawna is what one were to call "THE CHEIF"... And she also eats babies for fun & Hates on the Serbian & Asian people" to Mohawk. By our definition this is vandalism. The Teahouse invitation with no comment on the edit could make it appear that this edit was fine. Sarah, you say that some people just need guidance, but an invitation with no comment on their edit isn't guidance. Guidance might have been a nice note explaining why their edit was unacceptable. Editors welcomed in this way aren't being given any guidance, they are invited to ask for guidance if they wish. Although I see nothing wrong with most of our welcome templates, it would be easy enough for the Teahouse template to include some sort of polite note about how to treat Wikipedia, even if people do insist that links to policies and guidelines are somehow a bad thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to have an argument on what is a vandal and what isn't, let alone do we need to repeat the racist content that was shared by said vandal, again. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, one bad apple is just one bad apple. So far, out of over 2,000 invitations we've had this complaint and another complaint about a user who ended up at Ani. I think we're doing pretty good so far during this pilot period if two new editors that we've welcomed have caused major problems. And of course, if people have a desire to experiment with welcome templates, go for it - just keep us abreast of it so we can track those templates! Sarah (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Invite guide says hosts are supposed to check the new users' contributions to determine whether they are editing in good faith or not. In this case that wasn't done, correct? If the contributions had been checked before sending an invite, then they presumably would not have been invited? Right? Mlm42 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that is true. I've accidentally invited "bad faith" editors, but, sometimes it happens (especially if I'm multitasking). As I said, one "mess up" isn't too bad when Rosie and myself have invited upwards of 2,000 new editors combined. Sarah (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And due to the diligence of hosts like Rosie and Sarah, this is thankfully a very rare occurrence. Although, as an amusing aside: a good friend of mine (a rabid Wikipedian) likes to remind me that his first edits to Wikipedia were vandalism. Once he realized what Wikipedia was, and what being an editor entailed (not something which is readily apparent to outsiders), he started editing in GF. Fortunately for him, he started a long time ago, when new users were under far less scrutiny than they are these days. Else he probably would have been warned, then blocked or otherwise driven off before he cleaned up his act. Moral: just because someone starts out a vandal doesn't mean they can't be turned. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 16:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's inevitable that mistakes will be made, especially when editors are working with large numbers of new editors. I'm happy to know that new editors' contributions are meant to be checked first. I'd still like to see some sort of guidance given in the template. J-Mo, hopefully your friend if the worse happened and he was blocked would have looked around to see why. Any blocked new editor should be quickly unblocked if they make it clear that they won't vandalise anymore. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)largely irrelevant, given Dougweller's post that I edit conflicted with, but I'll post it anyway, whateverLet me clarify a little bit: I didn't mean to accuse anyone of negligence in my original post, and certainly not Rosie or Sarah. False positives will inevitably happen and are no big deal, and an invitation to a vandal or two here and there is not going to harm anything. I just wanted to emphasize that it's not standard operating procedure to invite obviously bad-faith editors, and there is some sort of expectation for hosts to look at the users they're inviting, even if it's a loose, flexible, nonbinding expectation. My concerns about inviting bad-faith editors basically boil down to WP:BEANS. bad analogy time, ready GO: It's as if you saw a guy breaking your car window and stealing stuff out of your car. Sure, it's possible that you could engage him in dialogue and convince him to abandon his life of crime, but that's still no reason to open your door and invite him into your house, with all its great stuff just lying there. To be sure, we totally do not want the Teahouse to be a walled-garden, invite-only party, but we also shouldn't go out of our way to give people ideas about where their vandalism might affect more people and generate more drama.

As for the policy links, as I said, does anyone really read them? Furthermore, the whole point of the Teahouse that I see is to soften the learning curve of Wikipedia editing by putting new people in more direct contact with older ones ready to help them. Posting links to long, complex policy pages in the invitation as if they were required reading seems to defeat that purpose. Indeed, one of the (best, imo) guidelines for Teahouse responses is to try to minimize wikilinks to policy pages in order to make answers more accessible, and it seems to me that our invitation should be the thing that follows such a guideline most strictly. At best, policy links are going to be of little-to-no value, and at worst, they're going to turn away new users, due to the doorstopper-required-reading factor, which is the opposite of the effect we're going for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug: yeah, I also hope that blocked newbies who have potential to be GF editors will look around to see why they were blocked before throwing up their hands and walking away. But I don't think that's what happens, in general. With the kind of early, somewhat hostile (or at very least, cold) greeting that many new editors receive on WP these days, there's no reason to assume that a majority of them will feel invested enough to go out of their way to appeal a block, or investigate the circumstances that got them blocked. There's some good, relevant research around the question of new editor experience available here, if you're curious. The work by Staeiou and EpochFail especially. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, another point I would hasten to add: it's important to note that I don't mean any editors who are blocked. People with obvious CsOI, people who do copyvios, people who write autobiographical articles: they're are all people who can reasonably be turned into good editors. They all have the potential to improve. Inviting them is a good thing; an excellent thing, actually. I'm talking about people who insist on inserting "chris sucks cocks wat a fag" throughout the article on tungsten, or consistently blanks the page page about Stout, Iowa, replacing it with the text "everyone that lives here is retarded". There are always the edge cases of these users turning into productive editors (as J-Mo points out), but to me, the first step in their transformation is not an invitation to the Teahouse but their decision to stop vandalizing. Until they visibly make that decision, an invitation is at best useless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a minority point of view, but if anything keeps me up at night it's wondering about all the newbies I chose not to invite to the Teahouse, or just didn't get around to inviting. I wonder about the effect of opportunity lost... I could have left a kind invite, but I didn't. Fact is, I'm really surprised that we're spending so much time here discussing the bad apple(s) instead of all the non bad apple invites. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New Teahouse metrics

Fresh metrics are up compliments of the J-mo! Get'em while their hot...as he says. Sarah (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for new users

The above discussion got me thinking; if we check the first contributions of new users for the purpose of Teahouse invitations, and their first 10-20 contributions look good, then maybe we should also give them a Barnstar - something small, like an "Off to a good start Barnstar" (that has yet to be created..). There was a recent Teahouse question, where a new user was looking simply for validation that they were doing a good job, and I suspect many (or even most) new users would appreciate some kind of validation. Does that sound like a good idea? (oops, forgot to sign.. Mlm42 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Sure, don't see anything wrong with that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually put a request on the talk page here (or in the host lounge) for a barnstar for new editors AND for hosts. I'm not very design savvy...so I just put in the request! Sarah (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

		The "Off to a Good Start" Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to new users whose first contributions to Wikipedia look promising. May there be many more in the future!

How about this? Mlm42 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Like Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Facebook, Steven!</silly> Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Like heather walls (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it, too! Just wondering if we can we add the Teahouse logo and some mention of the Teahouse? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I like the concept and I'd love to see something Teahouse involved with it! Sarah (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to the teahouse logo. But "Off to a good start" could sound condescending. Why not "New editor's barnstar" for fine work as a new Wikipedian? Tony (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

		The New Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to new users whose first contributions to Wikipedia look promising, in particular to the article Example. Great work! I would also like to invite you to the Teahouse, which is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Here's a modified version, per the requests. Mlm42 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should tie the barnstar to the Teahouse necessarily, since we want to focus on the editor and their work, rather than the forum they may have gotten help from. We should have a special Teahouse barnstar for hosts etc though! </2 cents> Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice for the barnstar to be focused on the user and not the forum. Maybe we can use the Teahouse colors (I can make an adjustment when I get the chance). And we will keep on working on a Teahouse barnstar. heather walls (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To following up on this, I created the barnstar at {{The New Editor's Barnstar}}, without a link to the Teahouse. So far I've awarded it to 10 new editors whose work has looked good (by searching the New editors' contribs page). It's actually pretty fun! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure abut a barnstar just for picking up the rules faster than most, but maybe make a barnstar for those who dedicate guiding the new editors to be successful. Or is that already a barnstar?Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have several such as the {{Guidance Barnstar}}, {{The Helping Hand Barnstar}} and the {{Instructor's Barnstar}} (the latter is more for writing instruction pages in WP-space). Also note the ongoing discussion about this barnstar at WP:WPWPA; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Proposed addition to the list. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Helping Hand Barnstar

From Wikipedia:Help_Project#Barn_stars: 'The Helping Hand Barnstar' is to be awarded to editors who frequently help new users. Template:The Helping Hand Barnstar which looks like this:

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		To Wikipedia:Teahouse for its great help to new users. CarolMooreDC 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Question page - archives

Can we alter the archive template to include a search box like WT:MILHIST, for one, does? It's not necessarily for new users, although they can use it of course, and we don't want to lose the personalised interaction but more for hosts. Inevitably we will start seeing the same questions over and over and rather than reinvent the answer each time, we could look through previous answers and use those as a basis for our answers this time. Note - the first host who uses "see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive X" in an answer gets the Marigolds and has to wash all the used teacups for a week. :-) NtheP (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has already, I'll get to work on this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. The tag takes up a little more vertical space when collapsed (about half a line or so), but I'd think it's worth it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So to make the archives searchable are we stuck with that antique icon? Is there a way to not have that show up? heather walls (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just imagine it's an antique tea caddy. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to stop editing things with images turned off; didn't even realize there was one. I'll turn it off for now, but we can change it to anything we want; is there an index somewhere of Teahouse-related images? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: k, yeah, that picture was really ugly; I turned it off. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

how about

or this one

In the second one I've set |title= to null to get rid of the link to Help:Archiving a talk page. NtheP (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should definitely keep "archives" in there somewhere; it probably wouldn't be obvious to a new user what they are otherwise. I don't know that it really needs an image, tbh; jsut the word archives might be enough. It's not something that particularly needs attention drawn to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it does but lets see if the link can be turned off, I get fed up with clicking on it by mistake and being taken to the help page. NtheP (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I just put in a title parameter set to "archives". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Want to test out a new edit visualization tool?

Hi all,

Below is a call to participate in a quick user study of an editor visualization tool that my collaborator at UW is developing (I've helped a bit, but am not regularly involved). The only criteria is that you are at least somewhat familiar with the RfA process, which is the current test case for the tool. We hope to make the tool available for editors like yourselves who are interested in examining newbie contributions, so this could be a useful tool for hosts, too. It should be quick and fun! Contact Michael if you're interested. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We are looking for a few good Wikipedians to test an editor evaluation tool being developed at the University of Washington! The tool, dubbed WikiVis, is an online dashboard that provides information visualizations to gauge the level and depth of an editor's involvement in the Wikipedia community. We think this could be a great tool to inform the decision making process during an RfA evaluation, but it also allows Wikipedians to view at a high level how individual contributions can add up to create the entire Wikipedia ecosystem.

We expect the test to take around 30 - 45 minutes, during which we'll ask you to fill out a brief survey, complete the dashboard evaluation, and then answer a couple questions about how the experience went for you. If you are in the area we can host in our offices at the University of Washington (and will provide coffee and delicious snacks), or you can complete the test remotely via Skype.

If you're familiar with current Wikipedia editing policies and the Request for Adminship process, and you'd be interested in participating, please contact me at mdg@uw.edu.

- Thanks, Michael Gilbert, Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington

Is it platform-specific? Tony (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony: nope! it's web-based. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Forum

Just noticed this. Could be some interesting conversation in there. Rcsprinter (converse) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought that you weren't allowed to mention WR on Wikipedia without rubbing your hands and cackling evilly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Abd's comment is rather interesting...apparently we are all too inexperienced conflict-wise to be able to truly help newbies...durn pie-in-the-sky fanatics... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not here to help experienced Wikipedians who participate at WR. We're here to help new editors :) I don't read WR, but I'm not too worried :) I think we're doing a great job - wait until you hear the survey results! Sarah (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the worry? Isn't being discussed at WR a sign that we're doing something right...? In seriousness, being open to critical response is always a good thing, but WR is certainly not the place. Anyway, as Sarah said, we seem to be doing rather well. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed this a while back. "Yeah but you're just making a little girl sad" ...pretty much sums up what makes me sad about internet culture. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

Springtime means fresh tea leaves...

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Campus CA seeks teahouse greetings for a class

Hello! I am a campus ambassador in the Wikipedia Education Program. I have a class of about 15 graduate students at the University of Washington who are all taking a bioethics class. About half of them have put their usernames onto the course page and two of them have chosen articles. I am writing to ask if a host at the Teahouse can greet them. When I gave an in-person Wikipedia orientation to the class I told them about the Teahouse and how they could come here for questions. I appreciate that this project is here for new users. Thanks! Here is the class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Blue! It'd be great to have other campus ambassadors do the same...! Thanks again! Sarah (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

so why

so why does this page needs javascript to post a new thread and why the hell i the order of the post in the wrong order? mabdul 12:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer both questions: because it's easier for newbies. See here for some discussion about the thread order. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be easier for some but in my case (browser issue? ~ i am up to date with browser and java, BTW) the ask my question button doesn't work and i suspect this may be the case for others. benzband (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have Internet Explorer? IE is known to have issues with this sort of thing due to it being a piece of crap, no offense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, i tried it using Firefox and Chrome. No offence taken, as you are absolutely right about IE :-) In case it was because of Ad-blocking or preference settings, i turned the extensions off and set all prefs to allow everything… but with the same result. In any case, i just use the normal edit tab as it has the toolbar and preview functions; i just thought this may be a problem for new users that are trying to use the script when it doesn't work for them. benzband (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, at the end of the day, that's the thing: the Javascript is an easy (and stylish) way to do it; there's always the normal way of editing the page directly, and to be honest, I can't offhand think of a way to make a question form without JavaScript and within MediaWiki. Anyways: you're sure you have JavaScript (as distinct from Java, they're two completely different things) enabled? In Firefox, it's a checkbox under Tools/Options/Content. You might also want to try enabling the Javascript Standard Library gadget in your Wikipedia preferences; it shouldn't be the issue if your browser's up to date, but I guess ya never know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the box is ticked alright. And i just enabled the gadget but it still doesn't work: i get the box, i type, but the button just doesn't work for me. benzband (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, the box is appearing, but the submit button doesn't work? That's probably working as intended; the submit button is disabled until you've signed the post. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, i would have tried that but the input form has changed since. It sounds pretty likely, though. Thanks! Yes, that's it! i must fill in all the fields, including signature and header… *facepalm* even the newbies did better than me :D Thankyou for all the help. benzband (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them?

Your Archives are not identifiable. Why not date them? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Gareth. Thanks! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

May I propose that each archive be kept short to facilitate referencing. That said, with the success of Teahouse since launch date, the number of archives will soon be vast. It is important that new visitors can view previous similar queries to their own current problem.

Just been comparing the first, March 1 – March 14 (59 postings) with the sixth, March 30 – April 4 (29 postings)

What are the current parameters? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The current MiszaBot settings are {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 7 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(3d) |archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive %(counter)d }}

I don't think that the archives are primarily setup for referencing by users but by hosts so dating hasn't been a concern up to now. NtheP (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Am I right in reading thus: to start a new archive after 70,000 bytes; (don't know)? ; leave 4 discussions; available to archive, if no new postings after 3 days? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In support of Teahouse... what a good addition to Wikipedia!

• Sarah, Thank you for your kind notice on my talk page yesterday evening. I have just posted this on an experienced user's talk page:

Thank you for stopping in at my talk page last night – I had noticed, but was too busy to reply at the time. Crzyclarks (talk) came to my attention on March 26, (his/her first edit as an IP) and with my involvement registered before making the second edit later that day.

Since then I have tried to assist and advise. Enthusiasm should be encouraged – not pounced on and intimidated.

I understand your frustration, but please "don't bite the newbie!"

With respect to your experience on Wikipedia, which far extends mine, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I consider Teahouse a very valuable tool. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: The interesting part of this example is the fact that my protogé/e uses the Discussion page, whereas the experienced user relies solely on lengthy edit summaries. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost interview for the Teahouse

Any hosts interested, the Signpost is possibly soon going to interview the Teahouse members to go in the WikiProject section, the discussion is at my talk page. Previous Signpost coverage.Rcsprinter (shout) 15:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Reaching out via the Feedback Dashboard

Does the Teahouse reach out to new users via the New editor feedback? (see Special:FeedbackDashboard) If not, this may be a good place to spot new editors in need of help (just look for that *angry* smiley) and welcome/assist them. benzband (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we do! Thanks for the suggestion :) You can learn more about our invitation technique during the pilot (and perhaps beyond) here. Sarah (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. All's at best then :D benzband (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ask a question" input form

Hi. In this edit, I changed the question input form to use standard wikimarkup.

I don't think it makes any sense to introduce new users to Wikipedia with a fake input form that's used nowhere else on the site and that posts to the page in a different order than every other page. This seems horribly confusing and simply shouldn't be done. Plus there's apparently a JavaScript dependency with the current implementation, which is also very bad.

Getting new users engaged is great, but they should be introduced to the actual site, not a concocted version of it. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. The "Add a new section" thing does get rid of the "Courier maze" effect I was talking about on MZM's talk page. It also posts new questions to the bottom, as opposed to the top, but I'm not married to the idea that we should put new questions on the top, and as long as hosts are diligent about properly anchoring theeir talkbacks, guest confusion should hopefully be at a minimum. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: well, case in point right here, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Q&A widget is a pretty key component of the Teahouse design, which has been discussed extensively, and for which I've provided a pretty thorough rationale in the project description. I would haven appreciated a little discussion before the edit was made. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Several people have commented above about the issues with this input form and their comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Additionally, my comments seem to be left completely without response. Please focus on the issues being presented regarding a consistent user experience. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in on this, but maybe see above section: #so why. Also if i can leave my 2 cents: the order of the posts is was is giving the wrong idea to the supposed new users of how to use talkpages. benzband (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, more importantly, now we have questions going every which way. I'm going to change back to the previous question form for continuity's sake;nevermind,J-Mo beat me to the punch I think this is a discussion we should still have, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone give me an example of where a new editor has been contributing incorrectly to talk pages outside of the Teahouse? As J-mo said, we really put a lot of time and effort into this (we meaning everyone involved, including Werdna who created the script), and I think it's been successful (and so far no new editor have complained or shown concern in survey responses). I'd rather not see it messed up, as it is such a key component. Sarah (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted MZ's change to the Q&A form, per WP:BRD. Briefly: the q&a board is intended to provide a unique experience for new users. One of the things that many of us forget once we've been around for a while, but which I've seen time and time again in my lab's usability tests and with my students, is that talk pages are incredibly difficult for new users to get the hang of. Basically, the problem with learning the ropes on Wikipedia is that you need to be able to edit pages in order to get help on editing pages! The Teahouse Q&A forum follows paradigms that most internet users are familiar with in help forums, thus giving the user a sense of familiarity and confidence. It makes asking for help easier and less intimidating, in other words, it does in code what the Teahouse hosts do as people. I don't really think that the fact that one page on all of Wikipedia presents threads in a traditional 'feed' style (reverse-chronological) and lets people create a section in a pop up box ruins users for all other pages. And I've no indication of that in my survey or metrics so far. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A unique experience? Can you explain how changing the way users interact in their introduction to Wikipedia is beneficial? And bottom-posting is most certainly not uncommon on Internet forums, I have no idea what you're talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me to the description? I poked around Meta and couldn't find it. Also, more to Sarah's comment, is there some sort of actual metric (beyond no one complaining) to determine if this one-off interface is actually effective at getting people to then edit in the standard wiki interface? If it isn't falsifiable that easier to use intro tools recruit new editors to use traditional tools, then it is hard to judge their relative worth beyond "it seems like a good thing." I personally believe every good experiment is built to have an equal chance of failure or success and shouldn't be done with an inclination that it should succeed. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know of any cases of new posts at the top of a talk page myself, but to MBisanz's point, we have been getting complaints that people don't know how to reply to questions they've asked.[1][2] Having a fancy UI is great, but not so great when you have to abandon it immediately thereafter. I'm going to take the famed "Jefferson copout" on this one and say that, while I recognize the problem, I don't see a good solution for it.

Perhaps we should have a subpage with screenshots that's linked in the top of the Questions page, showing how do edit sections Wikipedia-style? It would also have to touch on the ordering of new sections, although if we just tell people to use the "New section" tab, that won't be too bad. I've found that the explanations I've given that are most helpful are the ones that visually demonstrate what I'm talking about, which, in the case of editing, I can't really do without a dedicated subpage.

As an aside, has anyone talked to Werdna about that extra newline the form adds before every new question? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm targeting a slightly different point, but your point is equally important. I want to know how the TeaHouse will determine if using a different UI to encourage people to first edit actually makes them more likely to learn the normal, hard way to edit? Also, I would be interested in hearing what a failure would be defined as (something like, if a new UI does not result in retention of at least X% of editors for 100 edits, it will be deemed a failure)? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Writ, there are lots of dedicated static help resources available on Wikipedia, that teach (with varying levels of success) how to do different things in this amazingly flexible content management system. But it's too much to expect every serious new editor to plow through pages of tutorial documentation before they commit their first revision. There's merit in providing a place for people to ask editing questions while they're learning how to edit. BTW, here's another link to some additional design rationale. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're patently confused. A wiki is specifically not a content management system. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: possible Javascript bugs, I'm personally less concerned with people's ability to reply to their question than I am about their ability to ask it in the first place, but I do think the bugs are cropping up frequently enough that some of us on the Teahouse 'tech team' might brainstorm potential solutions and then ping Werda. I tried to duplicate some of the eariler issues that were reported, but with no success. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're taking the completely wrong approach here. The idea is to use a reliable system (like &action=edit&section=new) and then add a layer of JavaScript that cannot break for users. This is called graceful degradation of the user interface. This is what you have not done. This is also why I'm re-reverting you. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, i think i have an answer… This potential 'bug' edit may be akin to this test edit i made, in the short period during which the javascript had been disabled and the input form was using "new section" instead. benzband (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had asked about the order of posts at #This really isn't a big deal, but, so that's the only other discussion about this (I think). Now, one point. We already see newbies getting scared off/not being able to use the "actual site", so why is it so bad to have one beginner page where the "concocted version" is easier to use? I mean, you talk about the actual site like it works... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The actual site doesn't work? How are you editing? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I do also think that this is a really bad idea! I have often turned of JavaScript and I do know many persons surfing with NoScript (so enabling JS per site basis). I still don't understand why the WMF is investing (developers time/money) to undiscussed stuff (no consensus with the community), having similar projects on hold (liquid threads) and simply don't communicate with the community! mabdul 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The actual site doesn't work for newbies. I'm basing that on the assumption that the "real Wikipedia", the bits-and-bytes section that can't retain older editors and drives off newer ones, isn't completely user-friendly. Shocking conclusion, I know. For the love of god, we constantly ask for new ideas but when we get something, it's shot down as breaking the status quo! I don't know if this Teahouse is the future. I don't know if the question form/JS is good. Maybe you are right that we shouldn't have the threads reversed. But hell, are we gonna try some new stuff or not? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting to the bottom here, since I'm having trouble following the conversation. If anyone wants to chat about this synchronously, I'm in #wikipedia-teahouse. Otherwise, we might need to start the discussion fresh... for those of us who've lost the thread. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously incapable of having a simple conversation on a talk page? If so, it's most certainly time for you to re-evaluate your role here. Otherwise, please stop stone-walling and answer the questions that have been asked of you. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

MZ, your attitude in this discussion is reaching the point of trolling. Please try to find a way to take this discussion forward rather than attacking the other participants. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a discussion, but Jtmorgan is apparently unable (or unwilling) to engage. How should I proceed? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, he's asking questions and not getting answers. He's irritated, it seems, but that's hardly trolling. I suggest you not accuse someone of "trolling" for asking that his questions be answered. They seem like legitimate questions to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea…

(edit conflict) Yes, i agree that this discussion would be *much* easier to follow if it was backwards… :D however it isn't so we'll just have to deal with it nicely. This is the teahouse, isn't it? I propose a nice cup of tea and a sitdown, if that's ok with everyone. benzband (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I saw this disagreement mentioned on irc, and as an uninvolved admin, I'd like to just ask you all to focus on discussing the change/lack thereof rather than reverting each other. You all appear to have a legitimate philosophical disagreement on what the best way is to format the form; it's great that you're discussing here already, but you need to keep in mind that discussions like this are intended to replace reverting each other - everyone tacitly agrees to keep their fingers off the "undo" button until a consensus can be reached by talking it through - not to happen alongside it. No matter what version the form is currently on when I hit the save button on this note, please, all of you, leave it that way while you hash out the disagreement here. And while we're at it, let's avoid assuming bad faith, calling each other names, and various other things the Teahouse is intended to help Wikipedians learn to avoid. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I guess this is getting lost, so I'm sub-sectioning for clarity. The issues with the JavaScript input form wrapper are:

1. inconsistent interface — new users see a different input form here than they do everywhere else;
2. inconsistent posting behavior — everywhere else posts go to the bottom; here posts go to the top; and
3. no fallback — if you don't have JavaScript enabled in your browser, you can't post.

Some of these technical issues could be fixed in theory, but the philosophical issue (i.e., using a separate JavaScript interface here at all) is probably the largest issue and it has no real technical answer (other than reverting to the standard MediaWiki input form). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 3- You can always post in the regular way, the standard page interface is not disabled. heather walls (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Disable the gadget in your user preferences and then try to add a question. :-) There's no "new section" link and the most prominent link (the one that says "Click here to ask a question") doesn't work at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As a technical issue, this (#3) should be easy to address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the "new section link", well, it's never going to be there regardless of the JS widget, because IIRC, that button only shows up on talk pages, and the questions page is in the WP namespace. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the code __NEWSECTIONLINK__ can add a "new section" tab to any page, regardless of the namespace (see WP:+). benzband (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, didn't know about that. I put it in; no reason not to. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! benzband (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the issues and a good starting point for discussion. My personal opinion (FYI, I'm not involved in the Teahouse) is that 2 and 3 are legitimate issues, while 1 is somewhat dubious. We commonly have specialized interfaces for specialized tasks: UploadWizard, WikiLove, Twinkle, ArticleFeedback, Moodbar, AjaxQuickDelete, etc. As long as the entry point to the interface is distinct, I don't think this is overly confusing to new users. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those utilities are discussion boards while this page essentially is. Killiondude (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything against returning #2 to standard wiki behavior, as long as things are properly anchored. Shouldn't be a big deal, and that's probably the most important difference of the three. I think that, as long as users are allowed to see what they posted, they'll figure it out. As for #1, well, I'm not sure why it matters that much that we have it; I don't think it hurts anything to make asking questions as easy as possible, and it seems to accomplish that. I don't think it's really all that different from the new section page, so I really don't care all that much. Guests seem to respond to it, though, so why not keep it in?

That said, though, I do think we need to be more explicit (by which I mean we need to mention it somewhere) about how to edit things the "normal" way, rather than the "Teahouse" way. After all, we want guests to be able to go back and reply to the questions they asked, and several users have said that they don't know how to do that. A simplified description of how to post, with screenshots, would probably help with this, while simultaneously emphasizing that this question form is not how Wikipedia normally works. I don't see why the interface here *has* to be the same as the interface elsewhere (given that we do implement the failover as noted in #3), but if it's not the same, we should say that it's not the same. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari: as Killiondude notes, your argument holds little weight when you examine the "specialized task" here. There isn't anything special here (cf. #Why is the Teahouse special?). Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions is simply yet another help forum similar to the Reference desk or Help desk. If you want to provide a generic tool to make posting to talk pages easier, I'm all for it. If you want to deploy some special JavaScript that's completely specific to this one project—a project that will almost certainly be dead in six months, much less a year—I think it's silly and inappropriate.

Some of us have to think about the ramifications of Wikimedia staff actions after the initiative dies. Some of us aren't contractors; some of us have been around before the Earth-shattering and life-changing development of the Teahouse and some of us will still be here after it's gone and the consultants and contractors have moved on to other fads. If so much time and money is going to be invested in changing how users interact with the site, I'd like for that not to be wasted on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little curious as to the massive amount of time and energy the WMF is spending on the Teahouse that you keep referring to...I may be wrong, but that's not the impression I've gotten in my brief conversations with Heather and Jonathan...of course, extravagance is in the eye of the beholder... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How many full-time staff or contractors are working on this? I count three or four. Then compare that to the number of full-time staff or contractors working on every other non-Wikipedia project. That would be a 300% or 400% increase, wouldn't it? Yowza. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to them to answer, but again, I don't think they're "full-time staff or contractors" in the sense you're thinking of...maybe I'm wrong. Dunno - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I count two staffers, and two part-timers - all of whom are spending a small chunk of their time on this project. It's by no means the only thing they do all day :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm half time with WMF, MZ. Teahouse work has comprises between 50% and 90% of my (compensated) work during any given week, since about January. I also support other fellowship projects and project proposals, and sometimes do light analytics work for folks in Community and Global Dev, mostly because I have an active Toolserver account. Sarah's half time too. Heather is < half time: in fact, the vast majority of the work she does on Teahouse is on a voluntary basis. Siko Bouterse, the Head of Community Fellowships, divides her time between Teahouse and many other fellowship projects and project proposals. That, and any hours Werdna billed for writing the script, constitutes the sum total of foundation resource outlay for Teahouse, as near as I can figure. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of WMF employees doesn't solve the named problems - even without them, I still think that the order of threads shouldn't be changed only for one page! mabdul 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive Index

I have noticed several archive-related sections so i'll post in a new one. Talk:Iraq War/Archive index is an example of an archive index. This would be really convenient for finding questions and so on (from the WP:Teahouse/Questions). benzband (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Writ Keeper. See User talk:Writ Keeper, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index and this diff. benzband (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Teahouse special?

I have a very serious question that relates to the previous threads but also has larger significance: why is the Teahouse special? That is, everyone knows that MediaWiki talk pages need technical improvement. So why is this page being special-cased with its own input form and custom JavaScript?

If you're going to invest thousands and thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into improving Wikipedia, why not actually improve Wikipedia? If you want top-posting behavior on a per-page basis, implement that into MediaWiki. If you think the editing form should be simpler, work on that. But I don't see how it's fair for everyone else to be stuck with what MediaWiki provides (at the Reference desk, Help desk, etc.) while the Teahouse gets special treatment.

At some point, the people involved here will go away and the Teahouse will almost certainly die. But if it can have a lasting impact (read: lasting improvements) to the software, then it won't have been a complete waste of time and resources. So it is so unreasonable to ask that it be treated like every other talk page around here and not be given special treatment? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we start with the assumption that the WMF doesn't like wasting money for no reason (which is probably a decent assumption, for all the flak they take), that would lead to the conclusion that they're starting the Teahouse because they don't agree with your premise that the Teahouse is almost certain to fail. Since their premise is different, their conclusions are different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere, MZ. This damn encyclopedia's got its hooks in me now. There's no backing out. I'm sure we'll be able to find a few good hosts to keep the Teahouse chugging along just fine, at no cost to WMF. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To second the above, the main reason I'm here is because other similar projects have died. I know that doesn't make sense, but I don't think you should assume so easily that the Teahouse will die for internal reasons. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that we've all pledged allegiance to WP:Teahouse, can we discuss the issues mentioned? I think it would be wonderful for everyone to have a better editing experience (technically speaking), not just people who would like to use Teahouse. It would seem that making the MediaWiki interface better for everyone would help power users and new editors alike (i.e. help with the whole editor retention bit). Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's totally the plan :). The issue - as raised above, massive changes and revamps cost a lot of money and staff time. If we're going to invest in them, we'd like to do so after we've got evidence that they are a good idea. That is, from my perspective as an engineering guy, one of the big advantages of having experiments like the teahouse; we can find out what works and what doesn't before fully developing it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Q&A Gadget - a proposed solution to the current edit war

So, as most of you know, there's an ongoing discussion (and unfortunately, an edit war) around the Teahouse Q&A Gadget. MZMcBride disabled the gadget earlier today, citing a number of concerns. Since I'm more-or-less responsible for the how the Q&A board functions (along with HeatherWalls, and Werda, who wrote the javascript that powers the Q&A gadget), I've been trying to figure out a way to address these concerns without breaking critical functionality of the Teahouse for new editors: this functionality allow even the newest editor to ask questions and ask for help without having to deal with confusing markup, or read a lengthy tutorial, or worry about 'breaking' something with their edits.

MZ's concerns, as I understand them after several hours in IRC, are mostly as follows. I'm sure he'll correct me if I've missed something or misrepresented him:

1. There is no reason to do anything special for new editors here, the regular editing interface is easy enough.
2. Implementing a pop-up box that appears when you click a link, on a single page on Wikipedia, will confuse new users because they won't see that functionality on other pages
3. The Q&A gadget puts new sections at the top of the Q&A forum, rather than the bottom, which is unlike any other discussion forum on Wikipedia
4. This reverse-chronological ordering sometimes causes unpredictable behavior, such as when someone asks a new question as you are editing a section on the page (this issue has also been raised by Teahouse hosts).
5. The Q&A widget teaches new editors bad editing habits

For my part, these are the functions of the Q&A gadget that I believe are the most vital (in order of ‘’vitality’’):

1. it allows a user to ask a question without having to read or write markup.
2. it allows a user to ask a question without taking them to a different page.
3. it shows the most recent questions first by default, which advertises to new editors who are visiting the page for the first time that the page is active, and that their questions will be answered here.
4. it follows a ‘newest thread at the top’ paradigm which is familiar to many internet users from other Q&A forums such as AskMetaFilter, StackOverflow, Yahoo Answers, as well as many online comment boards.
5. it teaches users good habits, prompting them to sign their posts with four tildes before they are able to post a question (a habit that often takes time for new editors to learn).

So far, our survey of 160 new editors and our preliminary retention metrics do not suggest that the Gadget is a major stumbling block for new editors. In fact, our early results suggest that the Teahouse, its hosts, and its Q&A board, are providing a valuable service to new editors. Furthermore, previous research suggests that new editors to Wikipedia find the technical aspects of editing to be very challenging. To this end, the Q&A Gadget provides something especially important, which to my knowledge is not provided anywhere else on Wikipedia: it provides a way of asking a question about editing without having to edit in order to ask the question. Since the target audience of Teahouse is brand new editors (unlike more general help spaces, like the Help Desk), this is an especially important consideration.

However, I understand that there are valid concerns over the way the Q&A Gadget functions. In particular, MZMcBride’s and others’ concern that the newest-on-top feature might be confusing or misleading, and that it can lead to unpredictable behavior in the editing interface, seems particularly salient. So I’d like your input on what I see as one of the main questions here, and a possible compromise solution:

• do you believe that the Q&A Gadget should be changed so that new questions appear at the bottom of the page, rather than the top?

I would also be interested in hearing about particular experiences you’ve had that pertain to the discussion: for instance, examples of Teahouse guests who struggled with this gadget, or new editors who have struggled with talk page markup in other forums.

I started researching Wikipedia, and then editing Wikipedia, and then working with the foundation because I believe in Wikipedia and want it to continue to be the biggest and best information resources on the planet. I do a lot of research on the so-called “editor decline”, and the factors that may be contributing to it. For me, the bottom line is that in order to remain dynamic, open and accurate, Wikipedia needs to retain more new editors than it is today. I work on the Teahouse because I believe in the power of early intervention coupled with a welcoming atmosphere and user-friendly tools. But we can’t offer that if we’re edit warring over a piece of core functionality. What do you all think is the solution here? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking personally, I'm fine with the top-posting. Sure, it's not standard, but standard isn't right. The teahouse is primarily about acting as a testbed to see what happens when we mess around with things; what changes lead to positive improvements? If it turns out that top-posting is actually a lot better for the modern world, the question should not be "why does the teahouse top-post?" but "why doesn't anyone else?". And if it turns out top-posting is this neutral or even negative thing, we can give up on it in time. But we need to let this run until we can find out. Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think special-casing is bad. If you want this feature in MediaWiki, see to it that it gets implemented and we can all benefit from the wonders of top-posting. If that isn't possible, use the available tools in the standard interface. It's as simple as that for me. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is top posting hardcoded into the gadget? If it's as simple as making it conform with other talk page conventions, let's just do that and enable it. I agree about the top posting annoyance, but it's completely obvious that the gadget makes it easier for newbies, and is thus valuable to have. The whole point of having this pilot is to try some new things, so your argument that we can't have special cases for experiments is nonsensical. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    I believe top-posting is hard coded, tho I haven't seen that code myself. However, if there's consensus to make that switch I bet I could ply Werdna with Tim-Tams and get him to make the change. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be completely honest, I'm fine either way. That said, I don't think we should change it just because it is different from 'normal Wikipedia'. If there is a legitimate concern that we are teaching them bad habits, that's one thing. Make the form post like normal, and, if need be, maybe put a note next to the instructions to sign that says that messages will be posted to the bottom. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with Nolelover, but I do think it is a justifiable question to ask if top posting is easier, preferable and/or an assistance to new editors and I don't see any problem in conducting a trial here. If it needs greater explanation to new editors that, currently, this page is a one off and bottom posting is the norm, then that needs to be addressed. If it needs a gadget to do that, again as an aide to research then it should be tolerated for the duration of a pilot, if indeed The Teahouse is a pilot for something/anything. NtheP (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Solution to no-JS fallback problem

I've created a new Question link template that should be able to function either with or without JavaScript. It depends on some CSS and JS changes, so we'll need to wait until the caches expire before trying it out. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this works, Kaldari; with the widget enabled, it's bringing up the widget and then redirecting immediately. We need to have the event handler return false, to prevent the default action of following the href. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Never mind, it seems to be working now. I swear I cleared my cache. I think it has to do with that I had just looked at the source, saw that it *should* work, and then it actually started to work. Reminds me of a thing I heard somewhere before about enlightenment... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this. :-) We had similar thoughts about how to resolve the JavaScript fallback issue.

Minor point: any reason "//en.wikipedia.org..." can't be switched to "{{fullurl:...}}"? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kaldari, could I get you to change the line "var newText = oldText.replace( /^==/m, "\n"+wikitext+"==" );" to "var newText = oldText.replace( /^==/m, wikitext+"==" );" (basically removing that newline)? This should get rid of the problem we're having, where we're getting a newline added every time someone asks a question. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@MZM: Yeah; when one uses the fullurl template, it percent-encodes the ?, =, and & characters, which need to be unencoded to pass GET parameters to the linked page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(Upon reflection, I actually don't know how much technical knowledge you have, so forgive me if this repeats what you already know.)

The url in question ("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=new"), as you can see, has the characters ?, =, and & in it. These characters are used to pass information to the page the URL links to; in this case, it tells the Teahouse Questions page that we want to edit the page, and that we want to start a new section. Trying to use the fullurl template changes the ?, =, and & characters to their percent-encoded equivalents, which basically means they lose their special meaning and just become part of the page to be redirected to, and the information doesn't get passed to the page. If you used the fullurl version, instead of taking you to the WP:Teahouse/Questions page in new section edit mode, it takes you to the nonexistent page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions?action=edit&section=new. I looked at the source for the fullurl template, and it doesn't look like there's any way around that; do you know of one? (And what's the benefit of using fullurl anyway?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My issue isn't your lack of technical knowledge. My issue is that you put up the appearance of technical knowledge that happens to be completely wrong.

{{fullurl:}} isn't a template, it's a magic word. It made more sense when there were https://secure.wikimedia.org and http://en.wikipedia.org links. Based on how a user viewed the page, the output changed. Similarly it now accounts for https://en.wikipedia.org vs. http://en.wikipedia.org access, though the ability to use protocol-relative syntax (i.e., //en.wikipedia.org) has made the {{fullurl:}} magic word less relevant. It still prevents hard-coding of the site's URL, however, so it should be used when possible.

The issue you're encountering comes from misuse of the magic word. [{{fullurl:Hello?action=edit&section=new}} click here] will produce click here, which is in fact wrong, as you note. But as the documentation explains, the format is [{{fullurl:Hello|action=edit&section=new}} click here] (note the pipe), which produces click here, a perfectly valid and working URL. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Hard-coding the site's URL is bad as it isn't guaranteed to never change. For example, many moons ago, wikipedia.com became en.wikipedia.org. There are server-side redirects in place, but it's nicer to not have to go through redirects. Avoiding hard-coding also makes it possible to directly copy and paste the code to other sites without having to adjust it.

snark aside, Thanks. I was looking at a different thing that was a template; not sure how I didn't notice that it wasn't the same thing you were talking about. Yeah, no reason not to use that. UPDATE: done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I've put the new link in place and it seems to be working. I also fixed the newline issue. If people report any problems with it, feel free to revert my change on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Also, while I was testing I noticed that the interface definitely needs a spinner while the API request is going through. Otherwise, it just leaves the user hanging for a couple seconds with no visual feedback. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it not? For some reason I thought it did... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just checked this out. When I click "Ask a Question", the pop-up question box shows up for a second, then I get redirected to the "new section" page. This happens whether or not I'm logged in. Is this the intended functionality? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Try looking at the source. Once I had looked at the source and realized that it shouldn't do that, it stopped doing that. (Or, alternately, are you sure you cleared your cache?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite being totally clueless on what language you guys are speaking, I have cleared my cache and it works! Huzzah! Sarah (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Derp. Cache cleared. Functionality restored. We should add in a bulletin somewhere near the top of the page, instructing visitors to clear their caches, so that repeat visitors don't encounter that same problem. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the client-side cache is set to last 4 days. I'm going to go ahead and revert the page back to the old template for now, wait 3 days, and then switch it back. That way people who have the old gadget js and css cached won't experience any weird behavior. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I think I've figured out adding a spinny thing (File:24px-spinner-black.gif) to the prompt that shows up right next to the submit button when it's clicked. I think the code here should work, but I haven't tested it and to be honest, I'm a little puzzled on how to go about testing it. Anyone care to take a look? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The spinner works for me, Writ. Thanks! heather walls (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that wasn't me. I thought there was a spinner already implemented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that I am a bit late to the party, but my thoughts on the issue:

The popup gadget and the top positioning is one of the greatest things of the Teahouse (us hosts being up there with it). It not only makes the technical stuff much simpler but actually teaches one of the very hard things to teach about wikimarkup "sign all your messages with four tildes". Without the four tildes the button wont be enabled, beautiful.

The top positioning is a very useful tool, not only does it make it simpler for newbies to find questions and answers but it actually helps the hosts in seeming what questions need attention.

The argument seems to be based entirely on tradition and uniformity, to me that sounds absurd. If the matter with technical mediawiki behavior is actually insurmountable then the top positioning should be done away with, otherwise uniformity with the rest of Wikipedia is not enough of a reason. Is there any evidence that new editors find it difficult to understand the ways of Wikipedia after visiting the Teahouse? Is there one case where this has been significant?

As a final note, The Teahouse is in my experience the most quick-paced area of Wikipedia, sometimes we provide answers faster and more accurately than what editors get in IRC. That also is significantly different than on other areas of Wikipedia, should we slow our response time down to match the rest of Wikipedia as well? And on this topic I have actually found editors that have been confused by this.

Chico Venancio (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say here Chico. And no please do not slow down your responses. Visitor surveys from the Teahouse show that they appreciate the fast responses - I do too! And of course, don't forget to keep on inviting!!! Sarah (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that 4 days have passed, I've switched in the Ask template with the non-JS fallback. Hopefully all the caches have expired at this point. Kaldari (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to clarify all questions now go to the bottom?

All questions are now going to the bottom of the page. Is this what consensus agreed on? A lot has been going on in the past two days, so just trying to get my bearings. I've been so used to the process at the Teahouse now I'm all dizzy. Sarah (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions still currently go to the top. heather walls (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The deal is that we've implemented a fallback method for posting questions, should the Javascript gadget not work; this fallback method posts questions to the bottom, while the JS gadget posts to the top. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, you know I'm terrible with this stuff, just to clarify

If a user has Javascript enabled the question goes to the top? And if they do not, it goes to the bottom? Sarah (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Sarah (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which, in itself, is probably the most convincing argument in favor of switching the JS to bottom-posting, really. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm completely lost, I shall continue to rely on my watchlist to tell me when there are new questions to address. NtheP (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Find the answer here"

In "Recent Questions", the "find the answer here" doesn't link to the question. Seems that ought to happen. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is operated from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-box, and selects questions to display via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent. So far it's done manually. I don't know much about this feature but i think something should be done to make this easier to use. (looking in to it) benzband (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This was noticed earlier...I think it might have had something to do with the section headers and a lack of anchors, or something. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Fixed - now the links point to the exact section (because i have localized them on each subpage via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-answer). Thanks! However, these pages are going to need regular updating as the questions get archived pretty quickly… benzband (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be better to permalink them, once they're answered, so that archiving doesn't affect it. Perhaps another job for HostBot? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you've got me lost there, so if you could explain :) or look into it yourself please do >.< benzband (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it'd be statically linking to the revision of the page that has the answer. Isn't affected by changes made later, including archiving. I'd leave it like it is for now, because it also wouldn't display any further answers after the link is made. We'd really need a bot to keep it all up to date, no matter what we do; something to discuss with J-Mo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are currently several "featuring" devices running on the Teahouse main page. How about putting guests all on their own subpages so that the featuring process runs by itself using {{random subpage}}, and you only need to create the pages once each? Seems like me to be a much easier solution than the current one of updating a few subpages (like with the questions) :/ benzband (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you want the questions to display the entire answer in the box on the front page? I think it might be better to show it without the answer or just one or two (after all we *are* saying "go here to see the answer"). Those answers can get pretty long and create that wall-of-text we are trying to avoid. heather walls (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we're just trying to find a solution for the link itself (link to the answer, that is). The problem is that once the question is archived, the link breaks. Writ proposed linking to a particular diff/revision, but only linking (that would have it's drawbacks though, such as not showing subsequent answers to the question). benzband (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My idea is to automate the linking via Hostbot. Basically, it should check the page, and if a thread hasn't shown any activity in two days or so, the bot creates a permalink to that page. If someone answers it afterwards, hostbot can update accordingly. Otherwise, it gets archived and it doesn't matter. Alternately, it could do anchored links, scan for when things get archived, and then update the anchored link to point to the appropriate archive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ah. benzband (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper above. Automate the system as much as possible. --Nathan2055^talk 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Success?

Just been taking a look at The Teahouse on stats.grok.se. Interesting? benzband (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with stats is that they track every single visit - I've probably looked at the main Teahouse page 2,000 times at this point in 90 days :) The biggest successes will be if metrics show that we are retaining new editors who have participated or visited the Teahouse. You can learn more about our project goals here. Always fun to see though. I wonder how many of those hits are new editors we invited that didn't participate, or mad Wikipedians ;) Sarah (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheshire cat reasoning on the madness, I take it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

well, now we're in Phase 4 - Launch (Feb, March, April): "Deliverable: Invite at least 75 promising new editors per week and turn them into engaged Wikipedians." From the project goals meta:Research:Teahouse#Goals. So with the minimum of 75 "promising new editors per week", what is the definition of turning them into "engaged Wikipedians"? What are the criteria for "engaged"? What's going on? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew! I was the one who helped Sarah and J-Mo design the goals and metrics of success for their fellowship project (I ask every fellow to basically spend a bit of the time at the start of their project explaining what they imagine a successful outcome might look like), so maybe I can help shed some light on this :-) Apologies in advance for what will be a long post, but your question is pointing out to me what's really missing in that plan page - the thought process behind the text!

When we started building a plan on that page, we wanted to set some goals around the overall number of new editors that we thought we would try to engage with in the Teahouse, and what we hoped some outcomes would be as a result of working with these new editors. The purpose of this was to give those working on the project a loose approximation of something to aim for. Some background about the thinking behind this goal (which could probably be phrased better - suggestions always welcome!): As you know, many people register accounts on Wikipedia and never make a single edit after that. Some others make edits on their userpage or in their sandbox and then never come back again. Lots of them never read their talk page or respond to messages left there (which can be pretty frustrating to anyone trying to get a new editor's attention to correct mistakes, as we all know!). Because we knew this going into the project, and we know that volunteer time is precious, we gave some thought to what kind of editors might be most likely to continue to contribute if given some extra encouragement and an additional opportunity to ask questions early on. At the time that someone registers an account, there is really no way of knowing if they're going to stick around to edit, so we didn't want to just target new accounts. We thought it would be best to focus on editors who have already shown a few good faith edits, as an indication that they have already invested a bit of time in learning the ropes and in hopes that they'll respond to an offer of help, stick around and eventually become an active member of the community. This is what was intended by "promising new editors". In some ways, it is meant as a corollary to how the adopt-a-user program works. Experienced Wikipedians in that program focus on providing intensive 1:1 mentoring to editors who express the intention of becoming long-term contributors and members of the community, because its often not worth the trouble to mentor someone who isn't going to stay around. We thought this made good sense and wanted to do something similar so that hosts are spending time with new editors who have a good chance of staying around past their registration date, but we also wanted to make sure we're available to new editors who aren't being served through adoption or other programs. At this point, the project is definitely not serving as many new editors each week as we said we'd like to in that goal, I think we've got about half that many asking questions in the Teahouse each week. As the Teahouse is still in pilot and there aren't a lot of obvious ways for new editors to find Teahouse outside of talk page invitations, the project is falling a bit behind the sheer number in that goal, but I also think it's ok, frankly, because quantity isn't all that matters :-) If we had only one new editor coming to the Teahouse each week, though, by now we'd know this project had failed.

Now, getting to the bit about "turning them into engaged Wikipedians". Again, the intention here (and again perhaps not best worded...open to suggestion!) was about giving new editors enough encouragement and help early on in their editing career to keep them coming back to edit and become an active part of the community. Engagement is a tricky thing to measure, as you point out the criteria can be pretty fuzzy. So, we came up with a set of metrics that we thought might be useful to measure this. If you look at the metrics section on that page, you'll see we're interested in looking at what happens later on to new editors who visit the Teahouse compared to new editors who don't. An engaged Wikipedian should probably get blocked less often and edit more often than an editor who isn't going to stay with the project. They should probably have less warnings and create more content that persists and isn't reverted. They should go participate in other projects on Wikipedia with other editors, so maybe they join a Wikiproject or contribute to the Signpost or fight vandalism or participate in DR. In short, they start to become an active member of the community. Its likely that we can't measure every detail of outcomes that we'd like during the pilot, but the intention is to try to measure as much as possible and see if there's any indication that the kind of support being offered in this project has a positive impact on editor retention. To my mind, you can't retain an editor who isn't a productive and accepted member of the community, that would be a waste of everyone's time. We're not waiting til the end of the pilot to measure what's happening, so I would encourage everyone who is interested to have a look at this initial metrics reporting page on meta too. To my mind we're still definitely in the "success?" phase, but the initial feedback from guests, activity on the Q&A board (many good quality questions and answers are coming through there!), and early comparative retention sample is looking promising. Again, apologies for the long-winded post, whew! But I hope this gives you some more insight into the intentions of the team's goals and metrics, and I'm looking forward to hearing more thoughts and feedback :-) Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)