Research talk:Newcomer quality/Blog

Conclusion: Feels like it's giving a lecture on AGF

The draft looks excellent! My only concern is that the conclusion ends with a lecture on AGF. Although I think our results support the need for this lecture, I'm not sure that it is the right place to give it.

I think we might be better off discussing future research (bold-revert-discuss analysis with Staeiou) or initiatives that are aimed to target these good newcomers (teahouse). Thoughts? --EpochFail (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I love the idea of going into the tea house in depth :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally. Conclusion was written right before I headed home for the day, so it was more of a placeholder than anything else :) Anybody who wants to take a crack at editing should do so! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Steven feels we should keep the conclusion general, so as not to distract from the (very important) overall message with any one particular method we've used to try to solve the problem. I see his point but am on the fence (I'd kind of like to link to template A/B testing and maybe Teahouse). Thoughts? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we tag a bit on the end that feels like an appendix that points out the WMF's current efforts in this area. This would serve two important purposes:

1. Show that we (WMF) is not just looking for problems but actively doing something productive about them.
2. Gather interested Wikipedians to get involved in such projects.

--EpochFail (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I like! I'd also suggest we use it as an opportunity to tout hand-coding and research involvement as a community exercise. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)