User:Reo On/page formation for print

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How we communicate with new Wikipedians[edit]

(Documentation: 1, 2, 3)

Question
  • How has communication to new editors (on their user talk pages) changed over time?
Key conclusions
  • Since 2004, there has been a significant drop in messages including praise and thanks, corresponded with an increase in the overlap of teaching/instructional communication with criticism.
  • Currently, about 80% of messages to new Wikipedians come from bots or semi-automated editing tools like Twinkle and Huggle. (see charts)
  • Currently, about 65% of the communications to new Wikipedians are warning templates on their talk pages. (see charts)

First messages to new users over time, proportional First messages to new users over time, raw numbers

(Documentation)

Question
  • How has the content added to the different namespaces of Wikipedia changed over time?
Key conclusions
  • From 2006 onward, there was a tremendous increase in bytes added to the User Talk space. (see chart)
  • Template warnings were created in 2006 and rose steadily in number over the years, and they have contributed heavily to this byte increase in user talk.

Bytes added to English Wikipedia by namespace

(Documentation: 1, 2)

Question
  • Can rewriting templates to be more personalized and teach editors about the community have an impact on their retention and the quality of contributions in the future?
Key conclusions
  • Rhetorical analysis of the most commonly used welcome templates shows that, while their appearance has changed significantly over time, their style and content has not.
  • Virtually all templates, both welcoming and warning, are written in passive, institutionalized language that appears highly impersonal to new editors.
  • Changing the language of the standard Huggle warning template to be more personalized dramatically changed the editing patterns of new users who received a warning.
  • Blatant vandals who received a personalized or teaching warning were less likely to continue vandalizing.
  • Blatant vandals who received a personalized warning and contacted the user who warned them were more likely to ask constructive questions.
  • About 10% of editors who were reverted and warned for vandalism were making encyclopedic, good-faith edits.

Barchart of the proportion of editors who make good contact with the reverting editor after receiving various messages as part of the huggle experiment. Barchart of the proportion of editors who continue editing after receiving various messages as part of the huggle experiment.