This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the idea of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. No one who discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is completely against our entire mission, and will neither be endorsed nor tolerated.
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."
OUTCOMES as a means to prevent editor frustration at AfD/MfD
Hi. I've been burned at AfD plenty of times and I think unintended results hurt editor retention. (No one wants "their article" deleted. Some people favor specific types of articles.) I think that OUTCOMES can help prevent needless head-on collisions between editors. I want to craft a nutshell for that essay so we can share a common understanding and stop the headaches and editor alienation. Please chime in at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much 'their' articles, as the needless sprees of serial listing at AfD of absolutely non toxic articles for which a clear precedent has been established. Some articles are listed at AfD by relatively clueless newbies who think it's cool to join Wikipedia and start patrolling new articles without any experience. Some are listed by established editors with a vengeance for some kinds of articles they just don't like. Either way, the people who get hurt are new users who have created non toxic articles in good faith. That's what has to stop. Many people still fail to realise (or pretend not to) that Outcomes is neither a policy, a guideline, nor an essay. It's just a factual report on how some types of harmless articles have traditionally been handled - sometimes in their 1,000s. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)