Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Thanking editors to cheer them up

I wonder how many editors use the new(ish) notification system to thank other editors? I personally find this place big and impersonal at times, and wonder if others here also find it so. I see that one of the main reasons (see: Wikipedia_community#Motivation) editors come here is that "it’s fun'", and since just about anyone here has come across situations that make it less fun (sorry, original research) – I was just wondering if thanking editors more often, even those who are not aware of one’s existence, may help tide them over when when it is not fun anymore? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I use the "thanks" feature a few times a week, but more for simple things, or things I don't necessarily want to make a public fuss over. More often I use a barnstar, which I think has greater impact. Not just for accomplishments, but for when I see an editor have a hard time, but handle it well. Or when someone just steps up and admits they were wrong about something. Those are difficult and discouraging times, so a barnstar and someone saying "A lesser person might have just walked away" is helpful. I actually try to do that often. Like I've said before, the most important parts of WER aren't what we say on these pages, but what we do every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I use it often to say thanks for a helping hand or to acknowledge a fellow editors act of collaboration (even if I'm not involved). It takes a second and has lasting results. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. It only takes a second. I'm always pleased when someone thanks me, so imagine most others will appreciate this simple gesture. If one looks at a diff and finds it constructive, why not thank the editor? Barnstars are even better, but require more considered thought and effort. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
One thing I always use thanks for is to thank admins for making the edit that I have requested at RPP or ANI or SPI or even AIV. Admins have duties that are highly under-appreciated and a greater workload than most regular editors. They deserve the thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I would be careful about making such a recommendation because some admins receive dozens of notifications a day - something that only contributes to their workload (I am speculating here). I have also had a bad experience when thanking an admin who took it the wrong way and started (again I am speculating) following me around Wikipedia. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We admin probably get more recognition than we deserve, although most do appreciate a "thank you" notification or barnstar when appropriate. We are human, after all. Still, the reason that the Editor of the Week program was started was to thank people that quietly clean up articles, write new articles, gnome around, and just make Wikipedia a better place for the reader, who is the most important Wikipedian of them all. Without the reader, there would be no reason for us to even ponder these things. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that showing appreciation is a great way to encourage editors, new or otherwise. I never use the "thank" option,though, because I think that it goes against the philosophy of openness in Wikipedia communication. It bothers me that the thanks notifications can't be seen by others. While editors here at WER are thanking others to encourage helpfulness and good editing practices, and to cheer them up, other editors may be "thanking" for edit warring or uploading copyvios and undoing our good work, and there is no way to know. I prefer to thank other editors on various talk pages, where everyone can read it, and I like to read the encouraging notes left for others. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anne: FYI, there is some logging of thanks: [1] Your point still has some weight, of course, generally people aren't going to go dig into those logs, and I doubt most people even know they exist. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  - Yes, Joe Decker, I was aware of that, although it doesn't say for what the editor was being thanked, which the messages do. I should have mentioned the log in my discussion above, so thanks for including it. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: That is a good point, but what about the use of email/participation in IRC/etc? To me they are more of a concern than the use of thanks, which is at least partially open. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  - Very true, Ottawahitech. Sorry; I didn't mean to distract from the main point of this thread, which is that thanking editors for their work, by whatever means, is bound to cheer them up. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    - @Anne Delong: I appreciate all honest contributions to the conversation and don't believe they distract from the main point. I have always been curious to find out why so few editors take advantage of these notification tools. Your posting gave me one clue to the puzzle, so I thank you for making it. XOttawahitech (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that thanks aren't publicly displayed. There almost always seems to be at least one user who will object to almost any process in Wikipedia, so the fact that it is one-to-one means that you don't have these users interluding in what is otherwise a positive process. Can you imagine the disputes that would arise, where users would bring up encouraging things that editors doesn't like, disagree with the premise of the thanks for that particular edit. etc., if thanks were given regularly in the same way they are and displayed to all and sundry? --LT910001 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

While travelling today my wife and I stopped at a Long John Silver's which has a big bell that satisfied customers can ring. Ringing the bell when we left got a wonderful "thanks for the thanks" response from everyone behind the counter and in the prep area. I don't worry about why others might ring the bell. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- When someone reverts vandalism on my user pages or some article I've been working on, I send a thanks notification. When someone makes a particularly concise and powerful point in a discussion, I send a thanks. When someone says something so funny that I laugh out loud (especially if it was very inappropriate), I send a thanks. Those might not need barnstars, but a thanks is a like a tip of the hat, and I think is appropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I get thanked for all sorts of things - saving a new article from CSD is one, agreeing with somebody in an AfD debate that isn't going their way is another, the odd bit of advice I give to the ANI peanut gallery can be a third, and finally stuff like this where I just fancy having a laugh. It does keep me going and realise my work is appreciated in places. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been reminded by this thread that when I was a new editor, didn't know anybody yet, and was just working on a couple of articles that I had started myself, people from this project took the time to encourage me. It's easy to remember to thank editors who have helped with something I'm working on, but I don't often stop to notice and thank those who are working away on their own. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with thanking someone and it not being obvious what I have thanked them for. We also have private e-mail access that no one can see....well others do. My E-mail provider sucks and my e-mail is down. Carry on.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I like thanking editors. One reason I think it is good is because it is quite lonely editing in one of Wikipedia's little corners, and I think 'thanking' a user lets them know that there are other users who are appreciative of their small efforts in that little corner. --LT910001 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What a great thread! Now imagine that each of us, instead of posting here, clicked the "Thank" button. XOttawahitech would know that the post was appreciated, but to everyone else the thread would appear empty and ignored. On the other hand, I like writing (did you notice?), but not everyone does, so an automated appreciation is better than one that was never sent because you didn't have time or inclination to compose it. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, and segues on to something I feel very strongly about. "Thanks" should be part of a heirachy of positive reinforcement - thanks are easy and automated; then barnstars are templatised, and finally users may give direct or verbal thanks of public acclaim. There are also competition venues. I'm pleased that there are multiple ways to encourage editors, but still wish there were more. These 5 venues (thanks, barnstar, direct, forum acclaim, competition) pale in comparison to the 12+ dispute resolution venues and numerous other locations and methods users may be discouraged. What we need re. positive reinforcement is more ways, and more common. --LT910001 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

But direct is the most flexible and powerful. Helping someone work on an article that is important to them is a way to say thanks, I've done that before. Often, that trumps everything else you could possibly say. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A very good point, Dennis Brown. That makes six ways to thank! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I read the following comment while wandering around the community looking for EotW candidates. I thought to share it here "anonomously" --- .... it seems we're of the same mind regarding hard working Wikipedians thanking each other (and constructive IP contributors) for the incredibly good work we do as a community. I love the new thank you feature. We all get wrapped up in our individual methods of contributing and it's too easy to forget that we work in solitary situations and seldom communicate unless we're a discussion (read as dispute) over content. It's wonderful to be able to acknowledge our appreciation of each other just as a pleasant reminder that our time and energy is appreciated. Keep up the great work you're doing... I think I found a good candidate! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

One more reason for using WP:Thanks instead of other options

I was hoping someone else will say this, but I guess I will have to put away my security blanket and say this myself. One of the main reasons I prefer to thank people rather than to say it openly is my quest to keep my edit history as uncomplicated as possible, so that when I get dragged to wp:ani it will be easier to defend.

I realize many here will assume that someone who is afraid of being taken to ani must be automatically guilty of some wiki-crime, but in my case I believe I am simply one of many eccentrics who is just not popular/considered part of the community. I am not uncivil, I do not vandalize, spam or any of the wiki-crimes which one associates with ani. I have never, to my knowledge, contravened any wiki-policy. However, in spite of this, I have been wp:indef-blocked in the past and have been threatened with various wp:wiki-sanctions on numerous occasions. It is my opinion that this community which started out as a model for tolerance, is fast turning into a lawless mob motivated mainly by how powerful the subject appears to the audience. Just my $.02. (thanks to wp:wer which allows me to post on such an offtopic wiki-topic) XOttawahitech (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for outrageous claims. Just kidding.... I'm not sure if that really makes a difference, a cluttered contribs never stopped me from blocking/unblocking anyone, but I can't argue against ANI often having a mob mentality. I've closed a few discussions against what appeared to be consensus to block or take action, using the larger consensus of Wikipedia as a whole as my justification. It hasn't been without it's own drama, but I can cope. I'm sure I've made a bad block or two in my history as well. I really believe that the majority of us admin really try to do the right thing, even if we flub it up from time to time. Still, I can't see how you posting a "thank you" on someone's page would contribute towards a block. Maybe I just lack imagination. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Yes, being hauled off to wp:ani is a definite concern to me (I am currently being accused of wp:disruption). I have avoided participating in ani for years until very recently when I attempted to help a fellow editor. I spent a whole week on this endeavor which did not leave me time to make any other contributions to wikipedia and found out that just by coming to someone else’s defense one becomes a target themselves to editors they have never met before.

There appears to be no set procedure for lodging complaints at ani and no firm evidence is required. All one need to do is post some vague allegations, then sit back and watch the chaos that erupts. If the target is unpopular with a noisy faction at ani then they are toast (my anecdotal observation), unless they are lucky enough to have others give up a lot of their time to defend them. At least this is my interpretation of what happened here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Skookum1_again. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. AN/I is a draining process. I wish, like in real life, there would be some threshholds or social mechanisms in place to encourage civility and good behaviour. Unfortunately there's really no lower threshhold, and the vocal, intense process appears very draining. --LT910001 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It needn't be draining at all if you do as I do and ignore it. Dennis puts his finger on the real problems at ANI below. Why non-admins chip in so frequently there would be a mystery, if it weren't for the fact that admin wannabes are encouraged to get involved in admin-like tasks such as pontificating on editors they've taken a dislike to. Eric Corbett 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: As I said above I am new to ANI, but have been around wikipedia several years. Can I afford to ignore ANI -- what if someone lodges a complaint against me on ANI? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely can avoid when you aren't named as a party, and most of the time, you can avoid if you are named and it is obvious you haven't done anything wrong. I've been dragged at ANI several times, most often I don't even bother to reply, as I have faith the admin will be able to sort it out. It is too tempting to go there and call the other accusing party an idiot, which may or may not be true. Assuming you are in the right, a single statement of fact with diffs is more than enough, even if the drama whores pile on. Always be the least offensive person in the discussion. The more you talk, the more opportunity you give others to respond to you, so don't feed them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ottawahitech

Hard to say. I ignored the most recent successfully. (Well I didn't comment, I kept a careful eye on it.) In another case I ignored for a while, and about 13 random people jumped in with criticism which they were unable to back up when challenged. In yet another case I got an admin message saying (I paraphrase) "Why the **** haven't you commented, we can all see you are editing!" - so much for WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.

But really the chance of being taken there if you are "mostly harmless" is relatively small - about once every million edits or 2 years for me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

The flip side of Echo (echo echo....)

Does being informed of every revert increase conflict? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Good question, I hadn't thought about that. I wonder if the guys behind Echo are looking at this to see? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the option to revert increases conflict. I know that it prevents vandalism, from IPs and other editors, but it is soul-crushing when it is misused. --LT910001 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung

Many have been worried about Kudpung as he just disappeared 3 months ago. I talked to him a few minutes ago on Skype, 3am his time (oops...) and he is fine. He is taking an extended break but all is well. That is about all the news I have, but there is no need to worry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your concerns. I am back, but only very sporadically for the time being. I may throw in the occasional edit such as blocking persistent blatant vandals I catch on the fly on my WL, or an occasional edit to an AfD, or RfA etc, but I cannot for the moment get involved in issues that would require my undivided attention, or participation in anything over a number of consecutive days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, even if only occasionally. The Nomination page missed you. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Editor Retention at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just commented over at the Articles for Creation project page but I discussed this with my partner last night, and editor retention and providing a better Wikipedia experience for newbies is something I am strongly supportive of, so I might be able to draft something up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've parked a draft at User:Ritchie333/WER Wikimania template, but since the deadline is tomorrow, feedback will need to be quick. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Only one real boo boo, fixed. I added EotW note as well. Feel free to reword, of course. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of merging barnstars

As this falls under our scope, it is hoped that editors here will be interested in a discussion that has begun about merging some redundant barnstars at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional venues of activity?

I can well understand how the dramah levels might get to people after a while. Partially as a result of that, among other considerations, I went to doing some time over at wikisource myself. I am repeatedly stunned at the greater depth and breadth of good coverage of broadly "historical" topics we could achieve here if we had more people involved there. Would we want to encourage people with burn-out or some other concerns to findsome other WMF entities they might find interesting, and, if so, how might we do that? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The concept is interesting, but I'm not sure how to implement it. I think some people get burned because enwp is like a light switch, they either over do it, or don't do it at all, like an addiction. From my own observation, a lot of burned out people don't really realize they are burned out until its late in the game. How do you detect and intervene at the right time to make the suggestion? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating an index of 'Editor Retention'-related essays

What a fascinating threat above,  SMcCandlish, and thanks for taking the time and trouble writing it up. I hope you consider copying and pasting it into an essay so that users can think about your viewpoint in the future.

Dennis Brown, and other users, this makes me wonder about creating an essay namespace here. It'd be very useful, as different users could post their own essays about what they think could be done to improve editor retention. Essays can be uploaded here (such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Essays/user name") so that we have a central place that they can be referred to, and/or a list maintained at a central place, such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Essays/", briefly summarising the main points of essays. Then we can have a collection of essays from different viewpoints about what the problem is. It'd be both interesting and useful to have some in-depth essays from users and to help understand and document the viewpoints of multiple users. I think it'd be a benefit to the project and here. --101.171.170.143 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally, users create essays in their userspace. If they apply to editor retention in any possible way, I certainly don't mind coming here and discussing it, seeing if others are interested in helping and such, but if we put every possible essay that someone wants to develop here, the page would get full pretty quick. The above is the exception to the rule, but more of them would crowd the page pretty quickly. I've done a few essays myself, WP:IP addresses are not people, Do not bludgeon the process, WP:SOCKHELP, etc. and but it would have been too messy to develop them on this particular page, and most others would be as well. Just too much space. We never mind someone coming to ask for help on an essay, however, and pinging back here from time to time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, my specific goal would be to create an index of essays that focus primarily on editor retention and how it relates to certain issues. It'd be interesting to read and, by having a library of different opinions available, contribute to the discussion. Compiling a list would be the first goal. --101.171.170.143 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Have changed the title to reflect this. 101.171.170.143 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia essays and Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays and Wikipedia:About essay searching.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm half nodded off, but do we have a category for WER essays? That might not be a bad idea, in line with 101's idea. A cat would do the trick. Any debate over whether an essay belongs in that cat can be done here. I tend to cast a pretty broad net on stuff like that, but it would be up to the community here to decide if there is any contention. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WIkiGnomes

I had a good offwiki conversation with Dank the other day (so if this is a bad idea, he can share in the blame). One of his concerns was about gnomes, and it got me to thinking. We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. What we don't have is enough gnomes doing real maintenance, people to clean up citations, fix obvious little problems, find sources, etc. The kind of people we try to celebrate with the Editor of the Week. I started out gnoming years ago but there isn't any project that really assists gnomes, or none that I know of. We have lots of categories of articles without citation, or that have various tags, but I don't know of any centralized place that lists them all. These are all templates and categories, so I don't think that organizing or maintaining them would be incredibly difficult, but it seems that a simple, central hub of "articles that need attention" would make gnoming easier and could serve as a good place for newish users to learn and practice what they know. A "Gnome Dome" that links to all the areas that needs gnoming. In my opinion, this would be inline with our goals in editor retention, and would give us a place to direct new (but not too new) editors looking to make a difference. Any thoughts? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Great idea - no one should have to be "Gnome Alone". Edwardx (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. - maybe so, but I watchlist "pagan" Roman emperors and notables such as Marc Antony etc precisely because of high levels of vandalism and just about every day I catch some vandalism in those articles that has slipped past the bots and vandalism patrol.Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to diminish our vandalism patrolling, but there are a lot of resources in that area and lots of people patrolling recent changes and new articles. I'm just saying we should consider adding resources for gnomes, who tend to work quietly on their own, aren't interested in GAs/FAs/DYKs, they just fix things. It is more complicated to locate and list most of the articles that need gnoming, but still very possible. As we get more and more articles, this becomes more and more of a problem. Since people come here to read articles, I'm curious what we can do to make gnoming easier to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement that gnomes are indispensibe and that they would merit some sort of central discussion board and links to "gnoming" resources. "Gnome of the Week" probably merits separate consideration as well - maybe so do some of the other fauna. How to start such might be the biggest problem as lots of gnomes don't necessarily self-identify as such and might even object to any such identification. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to say "build it and they will come", because that is too cliche, but I think if you build it and direct new editors to it, you will find the natural gnomes (which I'm guessing is a fixed percentage of us all) will find it useful. Using categories, it would be self updating. Adding some additional help and how to would be beneficial as well. Very simple stuff for getting started. Gnomes with even a moderate amount of experience already know how to figure stuff out. I don't think this is a "huge" or time consuming thing to do, or at least doesn't have to. In a way, the Editor of the Week program is a Gnome of the Week. We generally avoid people with multiple FA/GA (although there is no bar against them). Probably half are truly gnomes. I'm thinking of a way to help editors with 1000 or less edits by giving them tools that make it a bit easier and more fun to gnome. Again, I'm just throwing stuff out here, I want to hear different ideas. This is how the Editor of the Week program was started, and for that matter, how I ended up starting this project. I like to gnome, so even I would want to use a simple page that linked all the "needs citations" and "has bare urls" cats together, so I could go do what I felt like doing today. In a way, I'm wanting to scratch my own itch here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ok, now my gears are moving. We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff. I can picture a page with pretty icons for each, you click, you see all the articles in that category (ie: it is just a link to that cat). It also has links to help, some essays, some policies, etc. A "homepage for gnomes" kind of thing. I would use that. Not sure how to break it all down, but something along these lines. The Gnome Dome: all your gnoming needs under one roof. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

All Roads Lead to Dome. When new members join our community, we can't be sure where they are going to live and work. After they have been here awhile and they get their "sea legs" they will have the urge to settle in somewhere. Providing us (WER) with another interesting place to suggest to them is a great idea. It's kinda like building a new shopping mall in Downtown WikiWorld. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff." - knock yourself out. Before you start dishing out "Gnome of the week" awards, you may want to bear in mind that a number of people are likely to be offended at having a stranget pitch up at their talkpage describing their work as "gnomish" - the whole "WikiFauna" schtick is an in-joke which large numbers of users find patronising at best and offensive at worst. 84.13.54.182 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BACKLOG.—Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The one thing I might add might to a central page might be a smallish noticeboard or similar for discussions of specific interest or relevance. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what I had in mind, but it could be a subset of WER, the talk page of the main sub page would be fine for discussing. Again, I'm open to ideas. The current backlog isn't exactly user friendly, particularly for newer users, and most of that would just be confusing, which is why a single interface for newish users would be userful. I had forgotten about that list (thx Wavelength), which is lacking yet overly complicated for newer users. Since Alvin Seville appears to maintain that page, I will ping him. Arbitrarily, I'm thinking 12-18 areas that are good for newish users with <1000 contribs, although not fixed on that number. Plus a short "how to" for each written in plain English. If there is a larger group that maintains the backlog, we want to coordinate with them. I'm guessing they would be interested if it helps reduce backlogs in time. Once put together, I would want the Teahouse in the loop as well, as a place to recommend to newish editors. As for the name "gnome", I've never had a bad association with it, but would encourage larger input before marrying in to it. I like it, personally. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Assuming for the sake of argument that you're a user unfamiliar with the "WikiFauna" meme and a stranger turns up on your talk calling you "a gnome", can you see a single definition among the many listed at Gnome that you wouldn't consider a personal attack? 84.13.54.182 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I really don't. I was always called one, and even self described as one at my own RFA. At every point, there will be links to what all this means. I have a bunch of young nephews and their friends who all into gnomes, elves and such. If anything, I figure it will intrigue more than offend. This is particularly true once we define and elevate the definition of "gnome" to its rightful place of high esteem here. BTW, I'm working on a list in my User:Dennis Brown/sandbox. Everyone should feel free to jump in, add, remove, add notes free form, etc. I'm not very WP:OWNing about stuff like this so don't be bashful. It is just a scratch pad to see if this is even feasible or wise. We are still in the beginning idea stage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) So link directly to Wikipedia:WikiFauna and Wikipedia:WikiGnome instead. Having said that maybe developing a similar grouping based on fictional characters might be useful.John Carter (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Name wise, being a "WikiGnome" is way cooler sounding than being a "maintenance oriented editor", which is why the names exist in the first place. Seriously. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Community_portal/Opentask (which is transcluded onto Wikipedia:Community portal) not pretty much exactly this? I mean granted, you have to know exactly where to look for that to find it, but it's there nonetheless. Perhaps just work to make it more visible? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It may very well be, Fluffernutter, thank you very much for the heads up! I will look at it closer tomorrow, but at a glance, it looks very much like what I had in mind, but better in some ways as it is autoupdated with very specific ideas. If someone has already done the listing methods and such, then yes, I would be very interesting in promoting and helping out with that. The key would getting WER, Teahouse, Opentask and others working together, each doing what we do best to get the best use out of it. I owe you one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  - Adding, now that I have more than a few seconds at the keyboard: I found that Community Portal to-do list a while back, and then kept losing it again because it's just such a not-forward-facing place to look. But it would be so great for drawing people in who want to poke around, if only they ever came across it! I'd frankly rather have that (or an abbreviated version of it) on the mainpage than some of the stuff that gets space there now. A newbie editing TFA is going to get smacked down oh-so-fast, whereas a newbie editing "Today's article needing copyedit/translation/referencing" or something...man that would be useful. I wonder if there would be any traction for getting something like this on the front page... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    - It sounds like there are a few good pages that already exist to help with the goal here. Maybe we need a simple easy directory page that points to these other pages, and advertise THAT page, work with the other projects to steer newish editors to it. Then we let each of the individual projects do their own thing (offering to help where we can, of course), and we just catalog all the good, existing programs and help the editors get to them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There is so much to learn about Wikipedia that some really good tools need more publicity. I only learned about "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" a couple of weeks ago. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld turned me on to that some time ago. Yes, very good tool! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  - The 1.x version of RefToolbar, which can still be configured via settings will autocomplete a cite books reference from a Google Books URL in much the same way.. and it is the only way to fly. It also manages autocomplete for journal articles by DOI and NYT article references by NYT URL. Friggin' magic, I tell you. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia.—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To add an idea to the list, there is a bot (or an automated tool, I do not now) who fixes disambigs, and in the edit summary it has a link to a page (which says "you can help"). Generally, one just needs a list of easy tasks. If I have time, i may compile it here at the level of ideas later today (while waiting for the airplane).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I found User:DisambigRedirBot and User:Disambot in Category:All Wikipedia bots in Category:Wikipedia bots.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for a week with only my smartphone, which is inadequate for working on this. Of course, I'm not required for this to proceed, but I just wanted to let you my absence is from necessity, not a lack of interest. Like everything we do here, if someone feels they can take the lead and understands the consensus (and can accept that others may pick it apart and rearrange it), I encourage them to be bold. WER is certainly not a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think anywhere where users can say "I really enjoy this particular aspect of the project" we should have task forces, WikiProjects, tools, etc. for them to work together, encourage each other, learn from each other, etc. This is presuming they actually want to collaborate with others; some of the comments above suggest many gnomes prefer to work in isolation. The caveat is there has to be enough editors with an interest to gain critical mass, so that we're not building ghost towns. This only fosters disappointment when someone raises a relevant issue to a WikiProject or board and only get tumbleweeds in response. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be more relaxed about asynchronous cooperation. Yes there are some parts of the wiki that are hyperactive, but there are other quieter bits where an editor can find some hints and source lists left by others, and maybe a bunch of suggestions and queries. That mode of cooperation may not suit everyone, but for some it is empowering, the wiki can sometimes seem like a very closed community with few openings for new editors, but anyone who wants to can revive a moribund project. The time to worry is when the important and urgent boards start looking quiet. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, did not work for me (there was no internet in the airport), and then I realized that what I wanted to do does not make much sense. May be we can just have a page with tasks (similarly to the bot request pages), whoever finds a cool idea like adding geographic coordinates just posts the task with a short description.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That is what I'm kind of thinking, 12-18 links, icons with explanations, user friendly, then we need to promote it heavily within the Teahouse and other places that reach out. We would just be an aggregate for these existing links. I haven't forgotten about this, btw, RL has interfered a bit. This is still a priority for me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce a source of tension

I'm starting to draft an RFC User:WereSpielChequers/Private Space RFC with a view to reducing one of the primary sources of tension within the community, comments and collaboration from observers here would be welcome. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Great idea! I hope you don't mind if I borrow your userpage template, mine seems to be violating all kinds of Wiki-regulations and I've been advised to use your approach. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary pre-concept initial draft pre-village pump submission proposal: Siduri Project, v1.2

Like the above, this really isn't the right place to draft stuff like this. You need to draft it in user space, then by all means come tell us about it and discuss it, but having the full drafts here simply drowns out the regular business we do here. See how ϢereSpielChequers did it above? Like that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I am really sorry for bringing this mess here, I really didn't know where else to go. I have followed your advice and started a new userpage using the template you advised, but I am still not certain if my userpage will be deleted anyway. I'm currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. If this forum is not appropriate, and my userpage may get deleted at any moment, where else can draft RFCs be developed in an open Wiki-compatible way? Hopefully my apologies and good faith efforts to correct my mistakes mean I will still be allowed to use the userpage space to develop a RFC draft. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider giving me permission to develop this draft here? Is this an appropriate location for this? I'm not sure how to go about this. Perhaps I can insert an initial draft version of the type of Wiki-project I am thinking about for you to review and decide on, and will only move forward with your consensus approval. I may be new here, but please know that I fully support your editor-retention efforts as well a few other Wikipedia reforms that I suspect some of you might be interested in discussing. One of the reforms which I personally think may be very important, is to help facilitate the careful, standardized adoption of high-quality, article-specific audiovisual content that would be user friendly to make, edit and integrate into any Wikipedia page. Short videos on the subjects we're passionate about, allowing children who can't read yet to still see video-versions of any encyclopedic article. Whether or not we can do this already, under the current Wiki-regulations, is somewhat unclear, and the basic goal of the proposed "Siduri" project, the minimum criteria for success, will be to get a clarification from the Wikimedia Foundation as to their copyright policies regarding multimedia, such as educational audio/video-based versions of Wikipedia's articles.

Here's the initial draft version, and I promise to immediately remove this text if at any point I lose consensus support for this preliminary pre-concept initial draft pre-village pump submission proposal :)

Mission statement

Mission statement: facilitate fully informed open discussion regarding the predicted advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia adopting a new optional “multimedia license” and then propose a new Wiki-project to see if Wiki-consensus can be achieved for the proposed new “multimedia license”, or at a minimum a consensus-supported statement from the Wikipedia community that we would like more clarification from the Wikimedia Foundation as to their copyright policies regarding multimedia, such as educational audio/video-based versions of Wikipedia's articles.

Step 1.1 Identify appropriate location for preliminary pre-concept initial draft pre-village pump submission proposals. Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Why_should_I_contribute_here_and_be_a_part_of_this_community_.3F appropriate?Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim-Siduri. This is pure forum-shopping to try to recreate material which is about to be deleted. Mogism (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The WMF have no specific "copyright policies regarding multimedia". How about actually familiarising yourself with Wikipedia policy and practice before wasting more of our time on your vacuous and ill-informed pseudo-project? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He knows this perfectly well, he just doesn't like the answers he's been given. See his talkpage. (ATG, I know you know this already, this is for the benefit of third parties). Summary for those unfamiliar with this user's one-man crusade: he wants Wikipedia to abandon WP:CC BY-SA to allow him to upload a batch of material relating to the religious fringe outfit he runs without having to allow commercial reuse of it, and is venting at great length about how if we don't give in to his demands Wikipedia is doomed. Mogism (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus-decided Wiki-project name

For my more serious Wikipedia colleagues and my many critics, I would suggest:

1. The “Multimedia Facilitation” project

For my friends, I would suggest:

2. The “Siduri” project.

For those of you (on and off Wikipedia) that keep asking me to stop being such a hypocrite and have little more fun and “joy” myself, I would suggest:

3. The “Defeat Humbaba” project, part 1. For those of you conversant with both memetic theory and the Epic of Gilgamesh (not many I suspect, but I would personally recommend both subjects as conceptually fascinating areas of study), it is important to note that, conceptually, in the third title “Humbaba” does not refer to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or to the fantastic people who work there, but rather to the nefarious multimeme that has been choking Uruk, sorry, I mean Wikipedia, with such a ridiculously restrictive copyright policy that multimedia, such as video, is barely even mentioned in their copyright policies.

Abstract of conceptual explanation behind Epic of Gilgamesh and Meme concepts

The Epic of Gilgamesh provides multiple other interesting analogies, metaphors and conceptual parallels to the current developments in this early virtual world of Wikipedia, but this discussion would take up far too much space and would almost certainly violate one-or-more Wiki-regulations that I’m sure would be pointing out relatively quickly. But I will say that this is a battleground that extends out of the digital into the neurological arena. That idea (that “all content, must be free for anyone, including companies, to sell”) which has worked astonishingly well for the text-based portion of the encyclopedia, has to be, I would propose, updated to include an amendment for multimedia. It is close to impossible to make multimedia without using copyrighted materials. Multimedia is not text, it should not be exclusively included under the same license as text, there should be a second “non-profit educational-use only” licensing option for future multimedia. You can not simply create a video from scratch, like you can write an article, you need access to the world of copyrighted encyclopedic materials, which we should have access to under non-profit “educational-use only” 107 “fair use” copyright law. It is the one major change needed to make Wikipedia significantly better as an encyclopedia and closer to Diderot’s dream of what an encyclopedia should be.

What happens if we do not achieve consensus for this multimedia amendment?

If we don’t get this amendment allowing use to generate multimedia under standard non-profit “educational-use only” 107 “fair use” provisions, then Wikipedia will continue to be the same text-based encyclopedia it is today until some better multimedia-rich Wiki- and/or commercial-based competitor comes along offering to work under standard “non-profit educational” practices. All of our hard work here will be for nothing if we can’t even protect Wikipedia from itself. If we lose our prime Google search position to another encyclopedia then we have lost the war to improve and protect Wikipedia. The Wiki-concept is powerful and has been driving Wikipedia’s success to date, but the Wiki-concept combined with enhanced multimedia, that fusion concept/multimeme is significantly more powerful and is the inevitable future whether we are willing to admit it now or not. I want to make sure we, Wikipedia, the original Wiki-based encyclopedia demonstrates that we, together, can put our differences aside and discuss, in an open, civil, inclusive manner, the possibility of proposing a “nonprofit educational-use only multimedia license” and whether or not this is, as my critics say: “impossible, unnecessary, a waste of time, dangerous, and just a cover for a new Wiki-religion” or as I propose: “hopefully: possible, necessary, not a waste of time, safe if performed in a slow and prudent manner with all aspects decided by consensus from interested Wikipedians, initially inspired by an ancient and powerful multimeme, but now almost entirely conceptually separated aside from a few very minor conceptual bridges, inclusive of, but largely limited to: 1) the possible name (I still like “Siduri Project” sue me!), 2) the location, I still propose we start, or at least I intend to start with the Siduri/Epic of Gilgamesh articles, because that is a subject I am passionate about, but please don’t feel limited to this location, I’ll help you make videos for any subject you want, the same step-by-step easy-to-follow instructions can be used by anyone with a laptop, no prior experience is necessary. Multimedia technology is getting easier and easier to use and if successfully implemented, would make Wikipedia significantly more effective as an encyclopedia. The first easy-to-make educational video, the lowest hanging fruit for me, would actually be the Epic of Gilgamesh article. It’s pretty easy to string a few section-relevant images together with an short (or complete) audio summary/version of the article within a high-quality educational video, but there would need to be a consensus-based process in place for video creation so that certain levels of quality, article-specific accuracy and professionalism, can be maintained across our many Wiki-articles, as I hope Diderot, in respect to his desire to educate our children, would have wanted. Hmmm, I just re-read what I wrote and realized that the preceding paragraph I was me trying to be less serious… I think I failed :), I can do better, 3) this last piece of Gilgamesh text:

Thou and I will go down to the forest,
with the axe I will destroy,

the covering of the forest,

reveal the dwelling of Humbaba.

Whoever, my friend, overcomes terror,

It is well for him with Shamash for the length of his days.

Mankind will speak of it at the gates.

(Epic of Gilgamesh)

I know I am not always serious enough for some, and too serious for others , and my esoteric ideas/philosophies/passions probably aren’t helping me fit in. Perhaps my biggest faux-pas to date has been my “off-the-wall” idea of performing a conceptual experiment to investigate if “creating a safe space which included de-identifying conceptual/textual modifications” could theoretically reduce Wikipedia’s surprisingly high hostility and ad-hominem attack/insult levels”, my so-called “Twilight Zone” conceptual experiment. That experiment was widely misunderstood and/or feared, for reasons that are in themselves understandable, but I would suggest perhaps a little misguided, and unfortunately it did not achieve consensus to exist, at least not on my userpage, which apparently is the wrong location (according to one of a mountain of fascinating Wiki-regulations I only just recently became acutely aware of; and am now buried underneath).

Why I deleted the “Twilight Zone” conceptual experiment

In addition to the consensus decision that it should not exist, at least not on a userpage, I also think the “Twilight Zone” may be a conceptual step too far for Wikipedia, at least currently, and I suspect the “Twilight Zone” experiment will also become counterproductive to the larger project goals of improving and protecting Wikipedia, so I have deleted it from my userpage. I would be grateful if any of you could please let me know if any of the rest of the content on my userpage violates any other Wiki-regulation so I can quickly remove it. I want to work with Wikipedia, within Wikipedia, using Wikipedia’s rules and mechanisms to help Wikipedia fix itself. We the people are Wikipedia, we decide its future. I am personally committed to changing, only with your consensus support, the minimum of Wiki-regulations and/or proposing the minimum number of Wiki-projects, in order to improve and protect Wikipedia in the long term. Retaining editors is just one of many issues we must resolve together.

Open forum, comments/suggestions/advice?

My lack of Wiki-regulatory experience means I have and will probably continue to make mistakes. But please know that will do everything in my power to make a good faith effort to learn from every mistake, to internalize the advice I have been given, and to push forward to do whatever is, in the consensus view, in Wikipedia’s best interests. I know some of my approaches to Wikipedia are highly unconventional and some of the changes I’m suggesting are radical. But I believe in my heart that creating a new optional “non-profit educational-use only” multimedia license is absolutely the right thing to do for the Wikipedia dream, for Diderot’s “encyclopedia”, and for us, to protect all the hard work we are putting into Wikipedia. At the very least we should discuss it.

Whether you take Wikipedia seriously, not so seriously, like drama, want to avoid drama, I hope we can all agree that Wikipedia is not perfect, and if anyone has any suggestions about how to improve and/or protect Wikipedia, I for one would love to hear their ideas. I don’t know if I need a formal “Wiki-project” to be able to suggest this, but perhaps you could just let me know your ideas/comments on this thread? Am I too serious? Am I not serious enough? I welcome your feedback, suggestions and advice regarding me, Wikipedia, or whatever else you think is relevant to helping us achieve Diderot’s dream of what an encyclopedia should be. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Constructive and unconstructive criticism

Please add your constructive and unconstructive criticism here and I will do my best to respond to you in a timely manner. Please ‘’’do not’’’ intimidate and/or harass any of the members of this forum, I feel bad enough about bringing this request here and don’t want people feeling like I am bringing a lot of associated negativity through the door. Let’s please keep it civil, open and, if at all possible, friendly. Please? Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how this is directly related to this project, WikiProject Editor Retention, and I'm positive this isn't the right place to develop a proposal for another area of Wikipedia. This is the talk page of WER, not a sandbox. I'm tempted to hat this, and maybe the above giant section by another user as well. It makes it very difficult to work on what we are already working on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, I have a great deal of respect for what you and your colleagues are doing here and while I of course acknowledge that I could be wrong, I would suggest that facilitating the adoption of multimedia may be the single greatest change we could perform to bring in and retain new editors, contributors and talent, and as such it is a relevant discussion point for your Editor Retention WikiProject to consider. My apologies for the noise I bring with me, I will do whatever it takes to not drown out the fantastic work you and your colleagues are doing. And will, as always, abide by the consensus position. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

- - Start it in user space, then ping us here. People may be interested, it is just too much for this one single page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do Dennis as soon as the ongoing deletion discussion is resolved. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op

Hi folks. I posted some time ago about the Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship proposal to obtain feedback. Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on the project. This proposal has graciously been funded by an Individual Engagement Grant, and we've just finished our first month of work. We're calling our space the Co-op, and I have started a makeshift hub for the project here on en.wikipedia, and have posted our first monthly report describing what we've been up to so far. If you are are curious about the project, have interest in participating as a mentor later this year, or have general questions about it, please check it out and feel free to get in touch with me here on on my talk page. Thanks. (FYI, that hand image on the page is just something I found that I thought looked decent-- it's not our official logo or anything like that.) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation.—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Argh, no, do not see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation has nothing to do with this (I hope and assume) since they "facilitate collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia... provide education and outreach to public relations and marketing professionals..." for the purposes of using the Wikipedia for promotion of commercial companies, brands, and products (depending on whom you talk to; another editor might describe their remit far more positively, but at any rate it's complicated and contentious.) Stay well clear of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation I'd advise.

If you want their name -- they're marketing people and so they chose Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation instead of something neutrally descriptive like Wikipedia:Commercial Editing Facilitation or whatever because that's how marketing people roll (I'm just thankful they didn't go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wonderful) and it's not very descriptive, so they're not really entitled to it, nor are they very active anyway, so I'm sure you can have it if you want. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, that project has a completely different scope than what we are doing. I also noticed they weren't very active, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, I left a message there about it and haven't gotten a response for 5 days now, so I've taken the WP:CO-OP redirect, which is all I was really after. I'm not sure I really need WP:COOPERATION, though we can add a hat note or something down the line once the project gets some legs. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COOPERATION seems to devolve to Wikipedia:Civility so you probably can't get that, at least not easily. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Bird names in lower case

This is related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#WikiProject Birds‎ and "downcasing" imposition (#WikiProject Birds‎ and "downcasing" imposition —Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)).

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation (WP:BIRDCON), the closing decision at 01:33, 1 May 2014, contains this statement.

Thus, bird names in WP should follow the general rule for animal names, which I understand to be lower case except when the word would otherwise be capitalized in English.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The original poster doesn't explain what this has to do with editor retention. The issue is that some bird-oriented editors are very committed to the ornithological convention that species common names are capitalized, and that, when the decision was made that there is no exception to the usual MOS rules for local conventions, some of them said that they would drop out of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, is it more important to enforce global consistency, or to retain local communities who have "eccentric" conventions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That is answered at great length above. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting and retaining women-- WikiProject:Women's Corner

Disclaimer - I'm male.

Would women be more likely to stick around if there were a well-publicized "Women's Corner" of some kind? Women only post, anyone can read. Purview is whatever they want to talk about. In my idea, the Women's Corner would have no authority to make binding declarations on anything other than their own opinions. But they could critique, opine, recommend, scold, whatever, and without male editors getting in the way of their talking to each other. As result, more women might stick around. If this already exists, then is it being adequately advertised? I've been around 3.5 years and have never run across it.

Thoughts - especially from women editors?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. There was something on Meta a couple of years ago, the WikiWomen's Collaborative. The idea was engage with each other via a Facebook page, blog, wikiwomen's bootcamps etc.. But it's basically defunct. This would be an impossible project to "enforce" (so to speak) on Wikipedia itself. With anonymous editing, there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming to be a woman. But even if it were possible, and speaking as a woman, I wouldn't touch something like that with a 10-foot pole. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some wikiprojects about women, listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject women (which is a DAB right now). Perhaps that page may be turned into a general parent wikiproject for all things related to women? A Portal:Women may be a good idea as well. Or perhaps not. Something that would help a bit more would be if the general forums of wikipedia (Village Pumps, noticeboards, talk pages, nomination pages, etc) were user-friendly to both men and women. I suspect that most women would not be interested in joining wikipedia only to edit or talk about the articles of "girly" topics (or to stay confined at a special "girly" area of wikipedia). Instead, I think they will want to take part on the general interest articles, those who talk about things that have weight for all people of either gender (politics, economy, history, science, arts, religion, etc.); and for that we should see that those talk venues do not become too "manly". Still, most things associated with manly talk are not allowed by our civility rules anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my original idea was making no assumptions about what women at such a venue would want to talk about. Maybe they want to critique the writing at the top article in my main subject area Global warming. Great! If they want to do that, women to women, I'd really be keen to know if they generate observations that would not come up at the article talk thread, just because they were talking women to women. Or they decide to talk about civility issues, and whether AGF is working well, or how XYZ could be improved, or whether ANI is women friendly? The very notion of girly talk vs manly talk is sorta repugnant, sorry, and not what this idea is about. Unless, of course, that's what interested women want it to be about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think ANI is PEOPLE friendly, let alone friendly or hostile to a specific gender. I would, however, be concerned about the creation of any sort of "xyz group only" area. That, to me, seems discriminatory and rather against the open aims of the project as a whole. Intothat darkness 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As a male who knows a few females, most if not all the ones I know would consider such a group to be well-intended segregation, but still segregation and perhaps a step to further segregation, maybe less well-intentioned. They would tend to revile it and avoid it. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiChicks? The back pages of Wikipedia sometimes resembles a bunch of old men sitting in the underwear, scratching, farting and hitting each other with rocks and stick, but we are blessed with some strong and capable women at Wikipedia. Like John, I think that many may find the idea segregationist, which is why they haven't. Personally, I think many of Wikipedia's problems would be solved if half the editors were women instead of 10% or less. Hope I don't sound old fashioned or sexist, but the mere presence of women has a civilizing effect upon most men. I'm a fan of chivalry, not because I think women are weak, but because I understand they really ARE the stronger sex. I will always open a door for a woman out of sheer respect and awe, not from being condescending. We certainly need more women at Wikipedia, and if they want a Wikiproject, they are more than capable of starting one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of sheer respect and awe and FEAR, little Dennis, admit it! bishzilla _FART!! 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

Ok, maybe a little. I've seen birth, we men could not do it, we aren't tough enough. We are bigger and stronger on average, but in no way tougher. And the two gents below me need to be nicer to each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You know...I always thought that myself...until my sister told me the Gout was more painful than child birth.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I know I certainly am in fear of another, um, explosion like that last one. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to ask what the last explosion was.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Explosion take place in Bishzilla's special sig above, modded for this occasion only. Note incidentally, all genders welcome in Victorian Poets' Corner in Bishzilla's pocket! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

It would be segregationist in my opinion. There is no place on Wikipedia for any specific gender only posting. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and is not a social networking site. The above seems very much geared to that. Also, I can't help but wonder why the OP had to drop a link about global warming, a topic they seem to have been mentioning in a number of places. I can't help but see this as possible spamming and cross posting.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How ironic to be accused of dastardly deeds at the editor retention board. And we wonder why retention is a problem! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

_{Sure...dastardly...whatever. That isn't an accusation. It is a legitimate concern. Especially after my comment here to go to my talk page and accuse me of stalking you to this talk page. Pretty odd since it was you that brought up editor retention on the village pump where I said it was a important to me and then you show up the next day to post this and the minute I criticize the proposal you attack me on my talk page, accuse me of stalking and harassment and threaten me with AN. Dude...go for it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}

I'm not into attacks on the OP directly, for what it's worth. And having worked in a number of female-majority or female only environments I can say women are at least as capable of Dennis' scratching and farting behavior (if not worse) as men. We are all people at the end of the day, and no gender has a monopoly on either caring behavior or bad behavior. Social stereotypes do more to develop that than anything else. Intothat darkness 21:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that I have no interest in participating in a discussion where only women can take part. I can't think of a single topic in which I have any interest where men's input would not be welcome, and I hope the same is true in the other direction. I am a human being first. Yes, there need to be discussion areas for topics which are about issues which affect women more than men (and the other way around), and about dealing with the editor gender gap, but why should only women have opinions and ideas about this? If these subjects don't become of interest to the general community, they will go nowhere. Also, I expect every talk page on Wikipedia to be civil enough for me to participate without cringing, not because I am a woman - plenty of men object to boorish behaviour. Even if the discussion area was created and some cutesy "girly" topics were found, there is an assumption that all men are "tough guys" and would have no interest in these topics. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What problem is this proposal intended to solve? I've always been extremely dubious about the accuracy of the headline claim that only 13% of editors are female, as I'd say that about 50% of the editors I come across and work with, perhaps even more, are female. And none of them seem to be even remotely interested in girly topics unless you classify coal mining, medieval history or folklore as girly. Can you even begin to imagine the outcry there would quite rightly be if someone suggested a male-only corner? I have no stats to back this up, but I'd be prepared to bet that whatever gender imbalance there is would be easily addressed by requiring all editors to be adults. In other words the real demographic imbalance isn't gender. Eric Corbett 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not all of us are as sexy as you, Eric Corbett. Now that I think of it, I can say that over 13% of the people I work with are women. Maybe not half, but still a lot more than 1 in 8. On a different note, I added a couple photos on my user page, you might like them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
But it gets worse, just listen to this: "Ought Wikipedia to endorse an affirmative action program adapted to incentives for showing preference to edits originating from women editors".[2] So any edits I might make are to be considered of lesser value than any edits made by a female? Eric Corbett 00:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That is insulting to women, I would think. That their edits are so poor, we have to give them "extra credit" when considering them. Wow. There is plenty of individual sexists (and racists of every flavor), but this flat out sounds like they thinking women can't compete on a level playing field. Just....wow. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A final comment on "girly topics". I'm the fourth-highest contributor by number of edits to an article on one of the Disney Princesses, Ariel (The Little Mermaid). Does that make me an honorary female? Eric Corbett 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK Eric...as a gay man, I formally advocate for you to be an honorary "Female". Women may now add their opinion. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

My proposal would be that only female editors work on Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OP here

(A) It's hilarious that only two of the gender-identifiable eds (by statement or name) are female.

(B) The real question is what do women who are former editors think? After all, women who have self-selected to stay in are not really the target demographic of this idea.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This kind of proposal came up a few years ago and there were various objections which I don't remember off hand, but the WP:Teahouse came out of it. I think every corner should be a women's corner, with the other women's wikprojects supporting them in the different ways that they need it. The Gender_gap_task_force which is slowly coming together is working on some forms of editor recruitment/support/retention and the projects and resources listed there (and at Wikipedia:WikiProject women) also have different kinds of aid and assistance. Expanding those up with new members and activity is probably a better idea. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for constructive remarks; I wonder if readers are familiar with research on Muted group theory, though my university grapevine says that article needs someone who knows the subject to update it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this discussion from some time ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/gendergap. Perhaps it can be kick started back up.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of it. For now will put it down as a resource on the main page. Unfortunately, we're having to put time into dealing with disruption of the task force on the talk page, leading members to quit or stay quiet. So focusing on what we want to do and who we want to connect with is quite difficult. Have note into the larger Countering Systemic Bias taskforce which hopefully will help out. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)