Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Issues

Promote this project by telling others about it, and displaying one of these userboxes
Participate on the talk page and develop ideas
Get involved in the policy areas of Wikipedia that affect editor retention
Help us develop this project into a catalyst for positive change
As always, edit-remembering that, as this project and its subpages progress, our contributions will be changed by others...even this one. Interact with editors in a manner that encourages editing and improving the encyclopedia while using your experiance and knowledge to teach and lead by example.
Spread some Wikilove. Welcome new users from the Special:Log/newusers list with our welcome template: {{subst:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}} or one of the standardised templates found at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Try to acknowledge and thank someone different every day for their contributions. Give a barnstar or "cookies" as appreciation.

Reasons editors leave

Not all reasons that editors leave can be "fixed", as many simply move onto other interests or have lifestyle changes that limit their participation. This list focuses on the reasons that can be addressed at Wikipedia. These problems, in no particular order, are within the scope of this project. Feel free to modify.

Negative behavior of other editors

Interaction with biased, reckless editors with POV issues
Ownership of articles by one or more editors
Uninformed but relentless 'Randy in Boise'-type editing, with WP:OWN regularly cited to justify it, leaving editors to watch their work deteriorate
Civil point of view promotion
tendentious editing. For articles that lack a significant following, it is difficult to find enough editors (particularly in a way that avoids accusations of canvassing) to establish a consensus. If a problematic editor does not respond to reasoned argument, time can be wasted trying to build a greater understanding but with no net result. Tendentious editors can ignore Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle and re-introduce their problematic edits; in cases where they are not amenable to dispute resolution mechanisms, there is no clear way to resolve the content dispute, and their edits become fixed in place.
Sockpuppeting causing insurmountable obstacles to editing enjoyment
Edit warring from other editors
Personal attacks, accusations, incivility, and wikihounding, with the targets often discouraged from speaking out in case they are blamed
Outing of personal, off-site information
Perceptions of an anti-social atmosphere within a clique
Regular templating of user talk pages

Negative pressures from the wider community

Deletion, threatened deletion, and the ubiquitous tagging of articles ("nag tags")
Frustration caused by the plethora of policies and guidelines
Poor dispute-resolution processes
Too many editors who focus on dispute-resolution discussions (AN/I, RfC, RfAr), as opposed to content creation; their involvement can cause requests for dispute resolution to become bogged-down and protracted
Experience of peer review processes as confrontational and hierarchical rather than collaborative
Claims that long-term editors are "vested contributors" in a negative sense, which suggests that the project has no respect for experienced volunteers

Pressures related to admins or admin actions

Frustration caused by bad blocks, threats of blocks, or other administrative actions, particularly against long-term editors
Regular attacks on administrators both as individuals and as a group, leaving them unwilling to deal with anything contentious, which in turn leaves editors to cope with disruption without support
Permanence and indelibility of the block record. Admins make bad blocks. Once an editor has a block record s/he is obliged to sport it in perpetuity. Blocks do not expire from the record, and they cannot be removed from it.

Entropy

Failure to defend high-quality work, leaving it to deteriorate over time
Difficulty attracting or retaining expertise
Experienced editors leave because others do, leading to a deterioration in the quality of discourse, which in turn dissuades potentially serious editors from joining.

Personal feelings

Exhaustion of patience
Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith
Attempts to fight an addiction to editing

Wider perceptions

Perception that Wikipedia has been used for political or monetary gain (e.g. the SOPA initiative and the paid editing/advocacy/COI debates)
Perception that the Wikimedia Foundation focuses more on bringing in new editors, than on finding ways to encourage experienced editors
Perception that involvement in Wikipedia is pointless: a bottomless pit
Frustration that poor BLP editing continues to cause problems for living people

More data on this issue is available from the Former Contributors Survey Results.

Some information can be gleaned by looking in the retired editors list at the final edit summaries retired users left

Ways to help improve retention

Part of retaining active editors is to help with dispute resolution on all its levels, recommending editors make use of dispute resolution, and encouraging other editors to resolve their active conflicts swiftly and peacefully.

Sign up and participate with the various Help Projects located through Wikipedia:Help Project. This project is now undergoing substantial reorganizing under Wikimedia auspices to make it easier for editors to find the appropriate help, especially in high traffic areas where applicable, such as WikiProject Directory. Feel free to contribute to that project.
Sign up and participate with the various steps of the dispute resolution process.
Patrol Special:Log/newusers, find newer users who already have made contributions and put a Welcome Template on their talk page, as well as a personal note telling them to feel free to contact you if they have a question.
Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/FA_editors_list to find FA contributors who appear to have stopped contributing recently. Perhaps by contacting them you can encourage them to return to editing.
Help an editor. Seriously. Just stop and help an editor when you know they may be stuck, misguided, incorrect or just stumbling. But, continue to encourage interaction when you get a less than thankful response..
Sign up as a Teahouse host, and participate in one or more of the following activities:

answer questions on the Teahouse Q&A board
send templated invitations to new editors listed on the Teahouse invitee report (it's refreshed daily!) Don't be shy about emailing people too; email + talk page invite works better than a template alone. And personalizing the invitation with an introduction or a "good job with your edits to FOO" is likely to have an even more positive impact. Currently, most of these editors are not being invited to the Teahouse.
post a welcoming message on the talk pages of editors who have recently introduced themselves on the Teahouse guests page. Currently, most of these folks are not being welcomed, even after they introduce themselves.