Talk:Editor engagement experiments

Village Pump discussion on English Wikipedia

Please see this Village Pump proposal currently under discussion:

• en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New class of admin-moderators to resolve content disputes

One of its purposes is to help stabilize the number of active editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived:

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 91#New class of admin-moderators to resolve content disputes.

See also:

en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What the page/team is about

The page doesn't currently explain what "editor engagement" means/what's the background, it should probably link to the strategy wiki pages as there doesn't seem to be any on Meta for the purpose. See Editor engagement. --Nemo 05:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

en:WP:E3 and en:Wikipedia:Editor engagement have more in depth background material and explanation for the overall strategy. It's there instead of on Meta because most new WMF features and experiments use English Wikipedia as a proving ground. Right now meta is used primarily for research and data analysis documentation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Something about testing enwp's hilariously bad editnotices

Could perhaps the effectiveness of horrible garish editnotices versus not so horrible garish versions versus nothing at all be tested on enwp, since they use a lot of those? The editnotice for WP:SIG, for instance, is a prime example of how horrible and garish they can get, and it was put there to try to keep people from asking dumb questions, but of course some still do... so the question is, how well does that sort of thing actually work, and is it really an improvement over something shorter, simpler, and with more normal-sized text and styling? Because maybe they really could all be made less horrific and more consistent without detrimenting effectiveness! That would be cool.

You can find a list of page-specific ones here, since different pages have different ones. Many aren't that bad, but others are just... whuuut? -— Isarra ༆ 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Convert the IP editors

There is a large number of goodfaith constructive editors who does not insist to have an account because of certain prejudices. When an IP is editing a page, all he gets is a 'warning':

The message delivered by the above is editing Wikipedia will make your IP address publicly visible unless you get an account. The other benefits link to a page listing the benefits that the user gets (such as the user *ranks*). That page does not tell them how it is going to help the community and the Wikipedia. (e.g., these longterm constructive IP editors wastes a lot of time of our vandalism fighters.) w:en:User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Banning IP editing has certainly proved that "there is no reason why a person cannot register if they wish to edit on Wikipedia" and I think the only reason why they are not doing it is the poor edit intro. Remember that editing by anons are done more as a charity than a hobby. So if they are convinced that creating an account is going to bring help to all, then they will surely do it.···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"So if they are convinced that creating an account is going to bring help to all, then they will surely do it."

This is not the case for me. I have no interest in creating an account. But if you think that changing en:MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning or en:Wikipedia:Why create an account? will get more people registerd, then by all means suggest the changes or be bold and make the changes you think will help. Cheers. 64.40.54.136 05:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some garish versions of MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. :-) s:en:MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning has always struck me as pretty bad, but as I recall, there are much worse. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good one. 64.40.54.96 00:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)