Topic on Talk:Growth/Article creation for new editors

Generally, the older admins and New Page Reviewers on enWiki have a wealth of institutional knowledge of the processes involved and how the envelope of the stream of new articles has evolved in recent years.

The trends and requirements are well known to the enWiki editors and admins who are concerned with patrolling new pages, and who have decades of first hand experience.

This empirical evidence needs to be tapped into, and the proposals for inexpensive solutions should be closely examined by the Growth team. Wire frames exist, and basically all the Foundation need to do is provide the .js. There is no need to delay the development by further embarking on costly, further research.

@Kudpung Thanks for the feedback! I am not suggesting an extensive research project at this stage; rather, I propose conducting initial research to provide guidance for our work. Here is what I have been contemplating:

1. Engaging new page reviewers and experienced editors to gather initial feedback on this project. As you mentioned, this group possesses a wealth of institutional knowledge. (This is already underway; we have initiated informal discussions on six different wikis to gather feedback.)

2. Acquiring additional data to aid our decision-making process. You previously mentioned some of the data questions you have. I want to ensure we have the necessary instrumentation in place to determine the success of this project.

3. Conducting a few open-ended conversations with newcomers regarding article creation. These qualitative interviews with new editors who have recently contributed their first article will not be time-consuming, just brief, informal chats.

4. Testing design prototypes with newcomers. This practice is common for all major features released by the Growth team, as newer editors don't readily provide feedback.

The Growth team's engineers have a few other projects to work on prior to prioritizing this project (assuming the communities endorse proceeding with this idea). Hence, we have ample time to collect community feedback and data before commencing any engineering work.

Does this approach appear sound to you, or do you have any concerns about the extent of the proposed research?

@KStoller-WMF

1. I think I and other experienced editors who work in this area have already provided the feedback you need - or are still in the process of contributing to your discussions. While other wikis have a similar requirement, in contrast to enWiki, their workload may be small enough to contain these issues more easily. They may therefore not see the need for any urgency although they would almost certainly benefit from the implementation of any new solutions.
2. I felt the data questions are important. I don't know how to obtain them but it should not pose a technical challenge. They would certainly help to focus on the the most relevant aspects of the processing of new pages and onboarding of problematic new users, and concentrate the scope of the design work..
3. I'm not sure this would help. The situation with enWiki is so vast that any brief, informal chats would never be a large enough sample size.
4. Newer editors do in fact provide feedback, but only of the negative kind. Currently nothing is done to inform them up front of what is acceptable for new articles, They have a typical misconception of what an encyclopedia is within the concept of Wikipedia and they are often aggressive towards patrollers when told their articles are either unsuitable, or require much more work. Approaching these people for feedback will only reinforce what we already know.

In all, I have a concern that much of the proposed research may not be necessary. As I mentioned, the empirical experience is already available. History has shown in major developments such as Page Curation, and the need to restrict who can create new articles (ACTRIAL) that the community was always right. Research that was undertaken at the Foundation's insistence proved it so. This is what I mean about tapping into those resources without duplicating the effort.

I am however very pleased at the progress that these dialogue have made so far, and it heralds a new era in Community-Foundation collaboration on major issues affecting the core principles in encyclopedia building.

Thanks, @Kudpung! I fully agree that seeking guidance and feedback from experienced users is crucial in this particular domain. It is encouraging to see the interest generated by this project idea, with a diverse range of opinions including support, questions, and constructive criticism.

While we highly value the insights of experienced editors who specialize in this field, it is equally important to incorporate the perspectives of new editors. We can seamlessly integrate this approach into the agile development process without incurring significant costs or impeding progress. Gathering feedback from newcomers during the design stage proves to be more cost-effective than waiting until the feature is launched and discovering that certain steps or instructions do not resonate well with them.

I am however very pleased at the progress that these dialogue have made so far, and it heralds a new era in Community-Foundation collaboration on major issues affecting the core principles in encyclopedia building.

That's so nice to hear! I look forward to continuing these dialogues and being open and collaborative throughout Growth's product development process. I truly believe that together, through collaboration, we will reach more informed and superior conclusions. Thanks for being willing to offer your time and feedback to help guide this project!

We are having a conversation with several of the NPP members and other English Wikimedians about this project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Article_creation_hypothesis

Please feel free to join in! Do you have any thoughts on the first step we should make towards addressing the underlying needs of new editors while ensuring it also helps lighten the AfC or NPP workload?

@KStoller-WMF New editors have many different underlying needs - reiterating here of course that we are seeking solutions to help those who are determined to create an article as their first edit(s). This is why it would be helpful to obtain the kind of stats I listed, to which could possibly be added the kinds of new articles that get deleted most. I do realise however, that such stats might pose a technical challenge.

Probably the need most often encountered would be "I've created an article on Wikipedia!" which might reflect the motivation of the more younger users, while many users want to write a seriously missing article or biography but who understandably do not have the patience to wade through over 300 policies and guidelines when brusquely told to go off and do so. Then there are users who after several years of editing persistently create articles in good faith but which do not follow even the minimum guidelines for inclusion; they remain incommunicado and immune to all messages and offers of help. I came across a classic example only today.

As a first step therefore, possibly asking the more prolific New Page Reviewers to state their experience with new editor types and single out some examples. It would help to focus the design of new on-boarding systems which should nevertheless be simple but explicit and help good faith users from wasting their time and that of the reviewers at NPP and AfC.

I have never come across such new editors to whom the mastery of Wiki markup presents a challenge, but statistically, it might also be a worthwhile exercise to establish the ratio of new articles created by new users using Visual Editor to those edited in normal markup.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Article_creation_hypothesisexcellent ideas are are being thrashed out by some of the highly experienced reviewers, and many salient points have been highlighted, so I don't want to join the discussion there by just repeating all the good elements of the discussion.

I think Trisek (Benoît) will soon be in a position to consolidate those ideas before the page becomes an overspill into many tangential suggestions that would make a decision more complex. Areas to focus on are the registration page (and what happens immediately afterwards), and a truly interactive Article Wizard that encourages users to comply with guidelines and continue, while discouraging those who can't (or won't) and bringing their creation to a rapid close.@Trizek (WMF)