Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them

An un-opened gift from User:Penyulap

This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.

Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."

• Wikipedia:First contact
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests

Signpost

This is not so much about missing editors, but more about a missing newspaper and its editorial staff. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Death_knell_sounding_for_Signpost?_Proposals_required. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We have lost another one

Looks like user:Coffee has retired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain, if this is the first time he's retired. Note, that he indef blocked himself, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Daicaregos & Cassianto (two long term editors) have retired :( GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP giving free pass to clear vandals for continued vandalism

Has it ever been brought up before, how WP policy/protocol/practice that permits ongoing vandalism are a source of editor frustration that c/ cause editors to become frustrated & leave? (For one example, IP 175.143.127.73. The IP's first edit was this. Followed consistently by more vandalism. Never stopped, never blocked.) Can someone explain why WP tolerates such nonsense? It ends up as a cancer, dumping unnecessarily more work on editors improving articles to un-do damage. (Why is policy postured to do that to reg editors? There is no thought it might be tiring? And that eventually editors might give up/quit?) --IHTS (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ya just gotta report such IP vandals to the administrative board that deals with vandals. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That begs Q, why wasn't this vandal reported for over 10 months? (Clearly there is room for WP s/w improvement, to auto-report a user Talk containing multiple warning templates, to be reviewed by a proud "janitor".)

Ok I have reported this vandal, we'll see what happens. Unlike you I have little faith in bureaucracies. (Case in point, after requesting permanent protection to stop continued vandalism at Ludo (board game), all I got was a series of incremental protections, which in the end of course had zero impact except wasting my time, wasting the admin's time, and frustating me. [I expect the admin wasn't frustrated at all, probably even enjoying the zero-impact-do-nothing measures, for whatever reason. The article continues to be vandalized, all I gained was frustration w/ WP impotency or unwillingness to do anything substantive about it.]) --IHTS (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that worked well (due to Kudpung; thank u Kudpung!). --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thx again to Kudpung, for meaningful protection on Ludo article. Much appreciation! --IHTS (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Less viewed articles, tend to be overlooked concerning vandalism. If an IP vandalized an article with high viewership? that IP is immediately blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra. I agree, continued vandalism is a hassle to deal with. I have found, however, that if you doggedly pursue vandals you can get them blocked. If you stay on them long enough you can convince admins to block for years at a time and protect pages indefinitely. It takes work that perhaps someone who focuses on writing content does not want to do. If this WikiProject wants to hold on to good countervandalism editors, it ought to do more to recognize their work and perhaps motivate them after testy exchanges. I see very little activity at WP:CVUA and editors here could do more to promote countervandalism as a means to protect content writers from burnout. Concerted support at RfAs for countervandalism admins would help, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra." Really? How is that is the spirit of Wikipedia? Perhaps you don't understand what the free flow of information entails and the work needed. You complain of human flaws but blame humanity in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a misanthrope. It says so on my user page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvious his idea was requiring registration w/ lower vandalism. (Change suggestion to a WP premise.) You seem to miss the point that "the work needed" under current protocol potentially discourages/loses editors. This point needn't go philosophical, but yeah, wherever humans are there'll always be a dark side. If that's "human nature" then "blaming" humanity makes no sense. --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus: Coordinators

There seems to be an issue with inactivity amongst the currently listed coordinators. Dennis Brown has declared their status as inactive. John Carter has been blocked indefinitely months ago. Awilley has declined to continue coordinating. SlimVirgin‎ has declined to continue coordinating. I am still waiting to hear back from Mark Miller, Go Phightins!, Doctree. Buster7 is active. Isaacl and I continue to help out with WP:EOTW (as well as Buster). Propositions on how to move forward? I strongly think we do need active coordinators, as the project will most probably not become active again on its own. --JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The project needs active participation; it's unclear if co-ordinators are needed. If someone were to assume a co-ordinator role, it would be helpful if they first established a track record of ongoing engagement with the project. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with the active participation bit, but I do hesitate to agree on the assessment for the need for additional co-ordinator(s). I do agree with the fact that it would be helpful for the co-ordinator to have an established "track record of ongoing engagement with the project." I think it would be helpful to have at least a few editors, preferably the co-ordinators tasked with revitalizing the project, actively looking out for potential contributors to the project (extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, cordial, consistent efforts to reach out to discouraged or frustrated editors, etc.). The awareness of the project's ongoing efforts is not as broad as we may think (yes, amongst experienced Wikipedians who have been editing for some years now), which I have come to understand in my interactions with fellow editors; perhaps you may disagree with my assessment. Part of this revitalization will probably need to entail refocusing the project's efforts to a few specific sub-projects, Editor of the Week included. --JustBerry (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The key question is there any obstacles for looking for potential contributors or starting other initiatives that requires a title of "co-ordinator" to resolve? As I've said numerous times before, let's find interested contributors, and discuss what to work on, before trying to revamp anything. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find potentially interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this is editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --JustBerry (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks together; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --JustBerry (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in pursuing these things can do so, without the need of a "co-ordinators" title. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the past discussions on this project page; they suffer from the same problems with establishing consensus as in many other venues. But there are lots of initiatives that can be pursued as long as there is an interested group of people willing to commit time and effort to it, and so I think we should encourage people to raise them and follow up. It's not easy, because everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell. Nonetheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so let's start. On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues?

(*) On a side note, all these transcluded sections make it harder to link to them, and I'm not sure what is gained by having them.isaacl (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let others voice their opinion on the main discussion prior to adding on more thoughts. (Adding another note, but others can still chime in as always. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)) re to (*): Some sections were transcluded, whereas others were not. Lack of consistency makes it harder to follow the main page. Transcluded sections can be linked to individually and more easily managed in segments (rather than editing a header or main page each time). --JustBerry (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The main difference with using transcluded pages for sections is that the content for a specific section has its own separate history and so can be watchlisted on its own. But this is typically only advantageous when the page and its separate sections has many edits. In this case, since the total number of edits is small, it is easier to have just one page watchlisted where you can pick up all of the changes. isaacl (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point is valid, although the design of the page (with the "edit this section" linking to individual pages) has been sectioned for some time now. To open this up to everyone else as well, feel free to open up a new section to discuss this if you feel this is important. --JustBerry (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that anyone can do so. I am familiar with past discussions on this project page; consensus is certainly not easy to achieve. However, with multiple concurrent discussions of many thoughts, concerns, and proposals, a sense of prioritization is often lost. Any co-ordinators will presumably take more organizational and initiative responsibility as compared to other members of the project. This has less to do with a formal election process and more to do with pushing the project forward. Also, the co-ordinator role itself introduces an active, project-familiar point of contact for members to reach out to. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Starting an initiative takes more than a proposal. More often than not, well-thought-out proposals come from active discussion from its members. It is understandable, though, that these discussions do not reach a consensus. Encouraging discussion, assessing consensus, prioritizing, and ensuring that pages reflect the current work of the project are all encompassed in the role of this initiative-taking individual, i.e. the co-ordinator. --JustBerry (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum II: Excuse me for the additional addendum, but as I think about our conversation, I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised more directly. I wanted to revisit when you mentioned "everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell." I agree; this is a primary explanation for how fewer members have become involved with particular initiatives over time. My goal is to address this issue more broadly than coming up with initiatives and lead them in the short run. Having a few people tasked with inviting members or editors that would be a good fit for maintaining the upkeep of certain initiatives would help keep the project alive. --JustBerry (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I didn't say those literal words, but yes, that's what I meant when I said we should start discussing proposals that do not need consensus: like-minded persons can then refine them and run with them. As for prioritizing, since the proposals don't need consensus, they don't need someone to judge their priority, either; the interested persons can just proceed. And the reality is the number of proposals raised on this discussion page at the same time is vanishingly small. Prioritizing them has not been an issue. isaacl (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

JustBerry, would you kindly explain why you think you are qualified to "reboot" this project? Explain what factors caused it to go dormant, and what skills you posses that makes you the person to fix it. Please discuss relevant history of this project and what you would have done differently. Please cite specific instances where you have applied your skills to help direct a wondering discussion towards a productive conclusion. You want to invite people here. How would you select those people? Do you have mass message rights to facilitate that? And most importantly, explain to everyone here why it is necessary you have a title to do any of it. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a consensus that you are a project coordinator here, yet you've self awarded yourself a userbox declaring yourself the coordinator of this project. Please explain how that particular action helps with editor retention. John from Idegon (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: There is no pre-requisite to becoming a coordinator. Because Buster7, Issacl, and I have been coordinating Editor of the Week for some time, I decided to step up to the plate to help coordinate Retention alongside Buster7, the only seemingly active coordinator. I understand that you have expressed some deep concern with this, and I respect your opinion. I did not mention the word 'reboot' in this section. I understand that you are concerned about the userbox. The userbox was borrowed from the WP:Retention templates page from back when I started coordinating WP:EOTW; this is solely so people could know that they could reach out to me if they needed anything. My apologies; I have modified the existing userbox template to reflect the scope as WP:EOTW. I would kindly ask that personal comments be presented on another talk page, however, as the focus of this section is on co-ordination efforts moving forward. If anyone has an alternative for how coordination efforts can be regularly fulfilled, please present them. --JustBerry (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not take this to another talk page. You asked for this by usurping the coordinator title. You are entirely mistaken that there is no qualification to be a coordinator. The qualification is the same as for any change on Wikipedia. Support, as expressed by consensus. Your change has been opposed. There is nothing here indicating ANYONE supports your move. As with any other opposed change it is up to you to build that consensus as the one wanting the change. I gave you a perfect opportunity to do so above. Instead, you chose to take the autocratic road and dismiss it. I'm a project coordinator. I was asked to do it. Other projects have elections. Most have no coordinator. New projects frequently have a driving force who steps aside after things get rolling. I'm sorry, but if you expect support, you've got to demonstrate you deserve it. And as objection has been expressed, until you garner said support, you are not the coordinator of anything and you need to quit purporting yourself as such. It's quite contrary to the Wiki way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John from Idegon (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify regarding your involvement with Editor of the Week, you implemented a bunch of to-do lists last year (which as far as I recall were only updated by you), and then didn't participate for over a year (I appreciate there are always ebbs and flows in one's involvement). You resumed participation recently, creating the most recent recipient text, and doing a lot of page reformatting. The enthusiasm is great; it would be good if we can get to work on some brain-storming. I'll try to open up a new section later today soliciting ideas. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really like the idea of having coordinators for editor retention project. If anyone is enthusiastic about this project, I would follow the model of Women in Red as they seem to be successful with what they are doing. Alex Shih (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly. Alex Shih, are you aware of the near duplication of this to events last year? John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • John from Idegon, no I don't. I've briefly skimmed the page history here and saw what you mentioned, but did not read the actual discussions. In my opinion, EOTW, unlike WiR, probably doesn't need much "facilitating"; if folks want to get some kind of project back on track, it's probably better to start a project-wide discussion through RfC; I would also talk with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. Just no coordinators, please. Let's have spontaneous efforts. Although I wouldn't be opposed to anything – this is not something I would get too fussed about. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It is encouraging to know that we do have a model of sorts to follow. Hopefully, the WP:RfC will effectively serve as a broader invitation to the community. I do hope that these spontaneous efforts or the goals that are highlighted in discussions are sustained over a longer period of time. --JustBerry (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • There are differences, but there isn't really a need to go into details. Can we just channel this desire to get things moving into some brainstorming of ideas? I'll try to open a section later today. Regarding an RfC: personally I think this is overthinking things. Let's just start some tasks, and feel free to ping other interested parties to join in! isaacl (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • "If you build it, they will come." from Field of Dreams. PS...and they will not be coordinators. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I object to removing named coordinators simply due to not being active here for a while. That doesn't mean they don't have an active interest in coordinating or keeping an eye on things. If we wish to add additional coordinators that is fine but we already have had the discussion about changes requiring consensus, attribution required for copying work and all norms of Wikipedia are followed. The problem has been the direction to go. I have always felt this should be a noticeboard. It would certainly draw far more interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

            Note: Per your mentioning "That doesn't mean they don't have an active interest in coordinating," Awilley has declined to continue coordinating, and SlimVirgin‎ has declined to continue coordinating. I do agree that this may not mean that other named coordinators do not have an active interest in coordinating; they have been asked on their respective talk pages. Regarding adding additional coordinators, the discussion of having explicit coordinators versus low-key editors that keep discussions organized and efforts ongoing was to hopefully have some form of increased responsibility in addition to a point of contact for additional members. However, because the notion of having coordinators appointed has received strong opposition thus far, for a variety of concerns, my feeling is that this will probably not be pursued for now. I am glad that you're still interested in the project like others here. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested reading

This diff is one of the early pages explaining what Dennis had in mind. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Pact. Except for Dennis, there never was a Primus. Dennis warns, "...it is necessary that we do not form a project that itself is top heavy. As such, no "leader" will ever be chosen. Leadership comes from within, not thrust from outside, and all members are welcomed to participate fully without restriction from a ruling force." ―Buster7 ☎ 22:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

On the edit I reverted earlier

@Buster7:, with your consent, I propose the following:

All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder.

This project is pretty much dead, excepting the Eddy, which of course Buster should remain in charge of. As such, a coordinator is not needed. If a go-getter wants to jump start the project, just do it, for Pete's sake. No authority or appearance of same is needed. (FYI... project coordinators don't have any authority anyway). John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Last year was enough. I don't want to do this again. It's frankly pretty childish. John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• There seem to be three proposals to be voted on here, so this will be a multi-part vote:
  • Support: "All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder." This can easily be done by Buster7 with some consensus.
  • Support (to keep the same): The Editor of the Week bit is being handled just fine at the moment.
  • Oppose the co-ordinator bit. There have been multiple, faint attempts to start other retention projects, but the efforts do not seem sustained due to a lack of focus, i.e. without the help of an active co-ordinator. Replying to the nominating statement, who said the co-ordinator is a point of authority? No editor has 'authority' over another. Wikipedia is a community. The co-ordinator's role is to organize the project, encourage discussion, assess consensus, and highlight important goals/tasks. --JustBerry (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO DICTATE? DON'T THINK YOU AREN'T? this will be a multi-part vote: Who died and made you king? This is NOT how Wikipedia works. Do not replace my talk page comment please. And try to remember that you have no authority. You continue to state you know this, whilst continuing to act in an authoritarian manner. If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we take a step back and work towards an approach to move forward? This discussion was opened to specifically discuss the language on the members page regarding co-ordinators. The earlier thread is discussing the need for co-ordinators. Editor of the Week isn't within the scope of these discussions. If we establish that a co-ordinator role is not necessary, (*) then this discussion becomes moot, so perhaps this discussion can be put on hold for now?

(*) Some of the confusion may lie around the role Dennis assumed and thus what he was passing on. He sought to guide discussion with a light touch if it seemed necessary, but not lead it. Nor did he seek to drive all initiatives. Thus the "co-ordinator" role, such as it was at the time, was primarily to facilitate discussion as required. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's do this step by step instead of making it confusing. If we are going to do a straw poll, let's start with one question only. Alex Shih (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the talk page for the project page. By the nature of this project, this is its primary page. However, consensus for changes does need to be established somewhere. However, I agree we need to solve this puzzle. Suggest you hat this, Isaacl or Alex Shih. Also suggest we move to a straw poll. Their is a pretty clear consensus forming already. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis had a golden touch that no one has been able to replicate. When he left, he did not actually "give the keys" to anyone. He assumed the front door would stay open and editors would continue to stop in and share. Since I was facilitating the only viable result of Dennis' effort (EOTW), I have kept the place tidy and ready for visitors. There was a eclectic beauty in the lack of coordination. If this project is going to come back from the dead, we should not forget what made it special in the first place... No bosses! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of keeping the golden touch, we can continue our active discussions, which will presumably inspire efforts, to revitalize the project. --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are bigger projects than this that don't have/don't need coordinatition. Apart from EOW I don't see anything here that needs coordinating. Be aware everyone, that there is currently a general apathy across Wikipedia for Wikiprojects - see how I recently saved The Signpost from going on the rocks. Don't use that as an example though, because although I 'self designated' myself into the open slot of E-in-C, that project needs a huge amount of coordination and has deadlines to meet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Initiatives to revitalize

I pulled the following from the "Seeking Consensus: Coordinators" section above:

On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues? --Isaacl (diff)

"Reasons editors leave" page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Lack of a supportive community Creating an account only results in negative feedback, easier to edit without an account 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 Boredom 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, Russian trolls, 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

--JustBerry (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Under "Personal Feelings," the following caught my eye: Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith. This can surely lead to long term editing fatigue. --JustBerry (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reasons people leave? Burnout, death, lack of time. Frustration with various factors such as paid editing, the over emphasis on news, the lack of understanding that the Wikipedia of last decade cannot work in this decade. Walled gardens (pro wrestling comes to mind immediately.) The inability of projects such as this to effect any change; and repeated efforts to repeat failed efforts (like the notion at hand). The lack of institutional memory or any effort to acquire it dooms the current effort to failure. This project has never really accomplished anything. It gave people a safe place to vent when Dennis was here. The Eddy is the only positive thing that has come out of it, and it has strayed so far away from its original purpose that its shelf life is close to experation (sorry, Buster). This project started with one of the most respected and charismatic editors ever to grace Wikipedia driving it and still never once took one single idea and developed it to the point where any change was effected. No policy changes, not even a RfC. Wikipedia is a political beast. For all your good intentions, JB, you simply do not have the status or connections to do any better. I can only think of a couple individuals that might. I actually think disbanding this project would be the best idea. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with John. I can not think of a single editor in 5 years that was directly retained because of WER. In it's best times it was a robust Speakers' Corner-type page with as little governance as possible. Dennis called the shots and editors were provided the freedom to vent with very little over-sight. There were a handful of editors (that had been involved from the start) that were what might be called 'undercover hall monitors' that did their best to keep a conversation focused and as on topic as possible. But free speech and lack of censorship ruled the day. Not everyone was happy but there was an energy that is rarely seen here in WikiWorld. In the early days there were ideas galore, but nothing came of them. The archives are loaded with great ideas that never even made it to the drawing board.―Buster7 ☎ 20:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC) ALSO....No one was every told to take it to another talk page. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I can agree with you, John and Buster.

      I don't see any practical value in disbanding the project, though. Also, I don't think the aim is to do better or prove past attempts as inferior to current attempts, but there can potentially be a value in trying to re-lift a project, even though trying is never a guarantee (or may be far from it as seen in the history of WP:WER). I understand that the history of the project has overwhelmingly demonstrated a lack of tangible change.

      John, is there someone (or a few people) in particular who is (are) active and has (have) the connections and status you referred to? --JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I guess there's an irony that a discussion looking for new ideas has been sidetracked by a thread that touches upon the difficulty of keeping discussions focused. (I'll open a new subsection to restart the brainstorming.) We could debate what's happened in the past all day, but I'd rather not. There are lots of other venues where people can vent and kick around ideas for major structural changes that need broad consensus. How about we make this a place where people can discuss smaller ideas that incrementally improve the editing environment, and can be implemented with a small, dedicated team? Yes, I realize this is like trying to bail out the ocean. But it's community that counts: if we can get some small teams building camaraderie amongst its members and those who are affected by their work, then this can be our small contribution to making Wikipedia a more enjoyable place. isaacl (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  On point! I caught sight of your mentioning that you would start the thread later in the conversation; sorry about this. We can keep this section for venting if need be, but Isaacl's section might help push things forward a bit (hey, let's try...) --JustBerry (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• John has hit the nail on the head with his comment above. Probably best to look at this and see who the major contributors are - though I guess they might be disinterested. I suppose all those of us who are the original signatories to the project share the guilt for letting it go. Perhaps a mass mailing to all 215 members might be an idea but the message however short, would need to be crafted very carefully - but first, move your mouses or trackpads down the list of signatures and let pop-ups tell you their edit count and when they last edited. Be prepared for some surprises then stop to think again what WER is all about. No one joins a club that does nothing or where most of the members have already left. It's very hard work to raise things from ashes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Brainstorming ideas for initiatives to bolster the editing community

Ideas to improve the editing environment fall into different categories. I suggest that we brainstorm ideas to provide support and encouragement to editors. I understand this isn't a high-impact approach and will likely only affect a small number of editors. However I think that other venues are better suited to tackle changes that require broad community consensus, or major structural changes. I believe that working towards a common purpose is rewarding in itself, and it is a feeling that can be spread through small initiatives amongst the involved editors, potentially percolating outwards to others.

What ideas do you have that can be implemented by one to three persons? In this brainstorming phase, I suggest we not comment on any ideas yet. Let's just agree that 9 out of 10 ideas will have obvious flaws, and not worry about describing these flaws in detail right now. In a later phase, we can take the most promising-sounding ideas and refine them further. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add your idea to the following list:

• A welcoming committee, to provide a bit of engagement with new editors, thereby making Wikipedia feel less impersonal. The committee would not try to replace the Teahouse; it would basically be an orientation buddy to help the newcomer get situated. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A milestone committee, to provide some levity by recognizing non-serious milestones passed by editors (for example, "50th (golden) talk page edit"). It doesn't have to be a continuously running program; there can be periodic blitzes to recognize those passing the milestone in a given week, for instance. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A instructional video, similar to commons:File:New medical editor.ogv, to help orient new editors regarding expected and best practices. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A Cohort Committee, to save the editor that just joined but is now disillusioned, to be an advisor when it seems all have turned away. A friend when one is needed. To give interactional advice about how to work in this environment but without judging what they may have done. To keep editors, especially new editors, editing...keep their spirits up.―Buster7 ☎ 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Newbee User Page Creative Assistants - Help new editors create their User page. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• An impact highlighting committee that uses tools like the pageview tool to provide impact statistics to new users on how important their contributions are to Wikipedia. For example, the articles that Example user has contributed to are seen, on average (collectively), by 130,000 people daily. If this idea gets positive feedback from new users, further development can be done to create more customized tools for the project. --JustBerry (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is a bit of a meta project, but I'll still put it on the drawing board: creating an interactive survey (using some of the visually-appealing, interactive features of WP:Article wizard) to gauge the most enjoyable parts of Wikipedia, least enjoyable parts of Wikipedia, what editors need help with or understanding, etc. This will not serve to create another laundry list of ideas, but rather to get a feel for the most common, important issues that new, active contributors to Wikipedia face. By actively listening to editors, a more organic project/solution could arise. Alternatively, the survey could be informal, i.e. a "surveying" committee asking users a few questions to gauge relatively newer editor frustrations, etc. and putting them down on a page. The surveying would most likely be done on active editors who have been around for a few months. We don't need mass messaging features; an initially small and increasingly larger (in small increments) sample of people (10? 20?) over time is fine. To make this a less impersonal experience, the committee would really have to do an extensive job meeting the editor, collaborating with them on a few tasks/projects/articles, and then gauging their responses to questions over time. --JustBerry (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)