IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-09-08

[09:44:55] StevenW (~textual@wikimedia/steven-walling) joined the channel.

[09:44:55] Topic is IRC office hours -- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

[09:44:55] Set by StevenW on August 18, 2012 12:05:12 PM PDT

[09:44:55] Website is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

[09:48:21] ChanServ sets mode +o StevenW

[09:48:53] Maryana (~Maryana@wikipedia/Accedie) joined the channel.

[09:49:25] StevenW changed the topic to IRC office hours with the Editor Engagement Experiments team (17:00-18:00 UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_engagement_experiments

[09:51:09] Demiurge1000 (~chatzilla@wikipedia/Demiurge1000) joined the channel.

[09:52:15] ragesoss (~sage@wikimedia/ragesoss) joined the channel.

[09:52:19] Fluffernutter (Fluffernut@wikipedia/Fluffernutter) joined the channel.

[09:52:35] Frakir (~nemesis@unaffiliated/frakir) joined the channel.

[09:52:42] Demiurge1000: I think experimenting on Ironholds would be best.

[09:52:55] Maryana: ironholds is an experiment unto himself

[09:53:06] StevenW: Agreed Demiurge1000 

[09:53:09] Maryana: an experiment to see how much caffeine and nicotine the human body can consume

[09:53:19] yuvipanda (~yuvipanda@mediawiki/Yuvipandan) joined the channel.

[09:53:20] apergos (~ariel@wiktionary/ArielGlenn) joined the channel.

[09:53:21] ChanServ sets mode +v Maryana

[09:53:31] Maryana: yuvi!

[09:53:33] Ebe123 (~Ebe123@wikimedia/Ebe123) joined the channel.

[09:53:43] Ironholds: Maryana: sorry, you don't want me to send you beer when you've had a shitty month?

[09:53:45] Ebe123: Hi everyone

[09:53:46] Ironholds: I'll remember this in future

[09:53:54] StevenW: Heh

[09:53:54] Lydia_WMDE (~lydia@wikimedia/Lydia-Pintscher-WMDE) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)

[09:53:56] Maryana: ironholds: <3

[09:54:05] Maryana: you made our friday afternoon meeting so much more enjoyable!

[09:54:19] Maryana: hi ebe123!

[09:54:20] Ironholds: bows

[09:56:55] Lydia_WMDE (~lydia@wikimedia/Lydia-Pintscher-WMDE) joined the channel.

[09:57:46] SarahStierch: Hi all.

[09:58:00] Ebe123: Hi SarahStierch

[09:58:06] Maryana: morning, sarah :)

[09:58:15] SarahStierch: hi :D

[10:00:07] StevenW: Okay, sounds like maybe we should get started.

[10:00:09] Thehelpfulone: morning all

[10:00:16] Ebe123: StevenW: yes

[10:00:18] StevenW: Hi Thehelpfulone 

[10:00:31] Thehelpfulone: well evening for normal people ;)

[10:00:36] Thehelpfulone: Hi StevenW

[10:00:39] StevenW: heh

[10:00:48] Ebe123: Not the evening for me

[10:01:02] StevenW: So what I was think we would do, is go over the current stuff we're working on, unless anyone has pressing questions?

[10:01:31] Ebe123: What if the experiment choos away editors?

[10:01:43] StevenW: chase away?

[10:01:56] Ebe123: yes

[10:02:03] Maryana: then we kill it :)

[10:02:18] Ebe123: The damage is done

[10:02:32] StevenW: It's an important point. 

[10:02:56] Maryana: well, first of all, we wouldn't intentionally choose anything damaging

[10:03:05] Maryana: that's sort of the opposite of what our job is

[10:03:25] yuvipanda: waves at Maryana :)

[10:03:28] Ebe123: What if it's not meant to be damaging, but it is

[10:03:34] StevenW: but in cases where we pick something that is unintentionally not as good an experience...

[10:03:56] StevenW: 1. this is why we run very short term experiments that occur on a limited group of people

[10:04:31] Ebe123: How can it be on a limited group

[10:04:41] StevenW: instead of running an experiment for new registered editors, say, that also impacts anonymous people or experienced editors, we limit the experiment to just new registered editors

[10:04:54] Maryana: waves back

[10:04:57] Ebe123: What's the Code of Ethics of the WMF

[10:05:32] StevenW: There are staff and Board ethics policies, but they don't necessarily specifically talk about experiments

[10:05:52] StevenW: For us, a good read to start with is the FAQ on the English Wikipedia page linked above

[10:05:54] Maryana: we do have a pretty robust user privacy policy that we have to follow, too

[10:06:38] Ebe123: So the editors cannot be notified, as it would defeat the purpose, but they are the subjects

[10:06:48] StevenW: anyway, we can limit an experiment to not just a certain type of user overall, based on registration or edit count or similar, but we can run experiments for only a subset of those

[10:06:49] StevenW: and

[10:07:12] StevenW: we respect the opt-out preference "Don't include me in feature experiments"

[10:07:41] StevenW: we do make public Village Pump posts before experiments as well, they're not run silently

[10:07:57] Ebe123: that's good

[10:08:43] apergos: how long does a typical experiment run (if there is a typical run time)?

[10:08:47] StevenW: The code of ethics is a good idea though Ebe. Brooke started an Experiments page on Meta, and we were saying yesterday that maybe we should try to expand it more so that it's a list of do's and don'ts, regardless of what is allowed by the privacy policy

[10:09:09] Maryana: time depends on the sample size, but we've generally been running things for about 2 weeks

[10:09:23] StevenW: some experiments can be run shorter though

[10:09:35] StevenW: especially when we already know the volume of things happening

[10:10:00] apergos: ok, thanks

[10:10:05] StevenW: for instance: the fundraiser can run an hour long banner test because there are so many readers, but we need two weeks if the experiment is only for a subset of new registered edtiros

[10:10:08] StevenW: editors*

[10:10:13] StevenW: no problem :)

[10:10:14] jeremyb: spies activity

[10:10:22] Maryana: hi jeremyb :)

[10:10:23] Ebe123: I like "editros"

[10:10:31] Maryana: editrix

[10:10:34] Ebe123: "edtiros"

[10:10:47] Maryana: is that how you say it in french? ;)

[10:10:55] Ebe123: utilisateurs

[10:11:00] Ebe123: in french

[10:11:07] Ebe123: utilisateur

[10:11:42] jeremyb: Maryana: is ironholds an IRB approved experiment? does e3 even have an IRB???

[10:11:54] Ironholds: the hell is an IRB?

[10:12:00] Maryana: internal review board

[10:12:07] Maryana: for all academically-run experiments

[10:12:10] Maryana: and research studies

[10:12:14] StevenW: On live people

[10:12:23] Ebe123: You need one

[10:12:26] StevenW: as opposed to internet people 

[10:12:31] Maryana: haha

[10:12:52] jeremyb: Maryana: i though institutional not internal?

[10:12:53] Ebe123: Internet can have research experiments on it

[10:12:54] Maryana: well, that's actually a good point. IRB doesn't apply to internet research

[10:13:03] StevenW: you're right jeremyb 

[10:13:11] jeremyb: thought*

[10:13:13] StevenW: traditionally it doesn't apply

[10:13:16] Ebe123: Internet behaviour science

[10:13:34] jeremyb: i suppose there is one kinda. RCom

[10:13:34] ragesoss: (that's not actually true, is it? doesn't apply to internet research done by academics?)

[10:13:59] Ebe123: Strange

[10:14:05] Ironholds: ...like, poking their kidneys with a scalpel?

[10:14:05] StevenW: I think it depends on the institution 

[10:14:07] Maryana: ragesoss: i remember doing a research study on llivejournal in a college anthropology class, and i didn't have to get IRB approval for it

[10:14:09] Ironholds: how internal is internal?

[10:14:12] Maryana: *livejournal

[10:14:21] ragesoss: Maryana: was it interventional, or observational?

[10:14:30] Mrmatiko (~Mrmatiko@wikipedia/Mrmatiko) left IRC. (Quit: Leaving.)

[10:14:45] Maryana: observational. so, yeah, there are most likely different rules for experiments

[10:15:00] StevenW: ragesoss knows, because he's a science historian :)

[10:15:15] jeremyb: StevenW: Maryana: so, still catching up on backscroll but... karyn's (sp?) leaving or already left per identi.ca. so who's the new karyn?

[10:15:24] tommorris (u639@wikimedia/Tom-Morris) joined the channel.

[10:15:36] tommorris: evening all

[10:15:45] Ebe123: Afternoon

[10:15:46] Maryana: hi tommorris :)

[10:16:42] StevenW: jeremyb: technically there is no 'new karyn'. It is actually unusual that the person who is a "product manager" type would be anyone's boss. The current situation is that the team collaborates to define experiments, and Maryana and I have responsibility for leading that. There is a separate engineering manager, however.

[10:17:18] jeremyb: StevenW: is there an active search for someone?

[10:17:23] StevenW: no

[10:17:27] jeremyb: k

[10:17:41] Ebe123: Why would there be?

[10:18:00] StevenW: Okay it sounds like it might useful to talk about one recent experiment we wrapped up? We have some preliminary results that are pretty interesting. :) 

[10:18:13] ragesoss: please do.

[10:18:21] Ebe123: Yes

[10:18:21] apergos: ooh results!

[10:18:55] Maryana: ok, so one recent experiment we wrapped up and are in the process of iterating on is post-edit feedback

[10:19:04] Maryana: anybody want to take a guess as to what that entails? :)

[10:19:20] Ironholds: it entails letting me know when the second experiment is running

[10:19:22] StevenW: Let's tell them, not make them guess. :P

[10:19:24] Ironholds: papa has a survey to run and he can't ;p

[10:19:49] Maryana: so, currently, when you make an edit to wikipedia, the page reloads. and that's it.

[10:20:09] StevenW: no fireworks

[10:20:11] Maryana: we hypothesized that maybe this is a bit confusing for new editors, who aren't sure if their change actually went through

[10:20:19] Maryana: especially on longer articles

[10:20:43] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) left IRC. (Read error: No route to host)

[10:20:50] StevenW: I've actually heard new editors ask that. At Wikimania I helped a guy make his first edit, and he then asked, "So what happens to it?"

[10:21:00] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) joined the channel.

[10:21:16] tommorris: we could have a JavaScripty 'flash'

[10:21:25] StevenW: There's lot of different types of feedback we might give someone about their edit.

[10:21:37] StevenW: How many they'd made, who else edited the page, that kind of thing.

[10:21:41] StevenW: But we started simpler

[10:21:50] Maryana: tommorris: yep, that was the idea

[10:21:52] apergos: hmm I've had the same thing, someone edits (in a workshop for new editors) and they think it didn't get "vetted" yet, they are sure it isn't actually *live*

[10:22:04] jeremyb: diffstat? ;)

[10:22:14] aude: waves :)

[10:22:17] jeremyb: broken down by page section

[10:22:19] jeremyb: aude: !

[10:22:25] Fluffernutter: the javascript "flash" for watchlisting is driving me very slightly nuts - it lasts too long and blocks out text

[10:22:27] StevenW: So what we did was… take two weeks of new editors, and give some of them a confirmation message after every edit. 

[10:22:36] Fluffernutter: so maybe do some user testing on exactly how to implement a flash

[10:22:49] StevenW: Not as big as the watchlist bubble :)

[10:22:53] StevenW: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PEF-1-Cropped.png

[10:23:03] StevenW: and it faded out after three seconds

[10:23:04] Maryana: fluffernutter: that watchlist thing was not us!

[10:23:27] jeremyb: maybe i haven't seen this watchlist thing

[10:23:34] Fluffernutter: Maryana: I know, just saying that while the flash is a clever idea, it needs some fine tuning before you guys make it yours :P

[10:23:49] StevenW: we gave one group no change, to act as a control, one group the message in the screenshot "your edit was saved", and a third group "Thank you for your edit"

[10:24:12] StevenW: We're not 100% finished, but the interesting news is

[10:24:15] Ironholds: Fluffernutter: if only we had a team tasked with improving design!

[10:24:21] Maryana: hehehe

[10:24:24] StevenW: the group that got the plain confirmation message "Your edit was saved" every time

[10:24:27] Fluffernutter: well that would be downright silly :P

[10:24:28] StevenW: did quite better 

[10:24:32] StevenW: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Post-edit_feedback/PEF-1

[10:24:46] Ironholds: Fluffernutter: mw:Micro Design Improvements. Add it to the list. Done. Now lets let the adults talk.

[10:24:58] StevenW: They made 26% more edits than people who got no confirmation

[10:24:58] Maryana: the tl;dr: people who got confirmation messages edited more

[10:25:35] Ebe123: Maybe a coincidence

[10:25:44] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)

[10:25:48] Maryana: and we filtered for not blocked users, so no obvious vandals or socks

[10:25:56] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) joined the channel.

[10:26:08] Maryana: we have statistical experts on the team who tell us otherwise, ebe123 :)

[10:26:21] Ebe123: Ok

[10:26:23] Maryana: that's what statistical confidence is all about

[10:26:40] Maryana: hence all the complicated math in our documentation pages

[10:26:55] Ebe123: So they tell you what you want to hear

[10:26:56] StevenW: The way you look at a sample of editors can change whether it matters if you just had one person who was super productive, or whether it would not throw off the numbers for the whole group results, is one way of saying that

[10:27:06] Ironholds: Ebe123: for 26 percent to be coincidence it would have to be an incredibly improbable coincidence

[10:27:24] Ebe123: A coincidence can be 100%

[10:27:28] StevenW: Well, not necessarily. I thought the "Thank you for your edit" would result in way more productive new people. 

[10:27:29] Maryana: we don't "want to hear" anything in particular. we want to see what happens when we run a test. if confirmation doesn't do anything, that's great - another product we don't have to make

[10:28:05] Izsleepz is now known as DeltaQuad

[10:28:32] ragesoss: what is the sample size?

[10:28:43] ragesoss: for each group.

[10:28:53] StevenW: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Post-edit_feedback#PEF-1:_Confirmation_vs._Gratitude

[10:28:58] Maryana: it was about 8k users total, i believe

[10:29:02] Maryana: split btw 3 groups

[10:29:36] tommorris: StevenW: is the idea that the thing would stop appearing eventually. I can see the first 100 edits it being useful. when you hit a few thousand, it might get a bit annoying to be told 'thanks for your edit' or 'your edit is saved' etc.

[10:29:59] StevenW: Yeah how we make something a permanent part of the interface is different than just a test

[10:30:15] SarahStierch (~SarahStie@wikipedia/SarahStierch) left IRC. (Quit: Ta-ta!)

[10:30:20] StevenW: another approach would be to have a preference accessible from the message, that let you never see a confirmation again

[10:30:29] jorm: yawns.

[10:30:44] StevenW: sleepy jorm 

[10:30:53] jorm: yes

[10:30:56] ragesoss: tommorris: I don't think so. I would think you'd just stop noticing it, but seeing it would become part of the routine of editing.

[10:30:58] Maryana: that may be why the thank you message wasn't as effective, too -- people probably got tired of being thanked for each edit. but a confirmation message kind of gets tuned out after awhile. like, have you noticed that twitter does a confirmation message for each tweet you submit?

[10:31:23] ragesoss: yeah, what Maryana said.

[10:31:32] Ironholds: there should be a way of measuring that

[10:31:37] Ebe123: Also, could the WMF be using other wikis too

[10:31:41] Ebe123: Not only in English

[10:31:46] tommorris: StevenW and Maryana: is there any reason why long term retention wasn't included on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Post-edit_feedback/PEF-1 ?

[10:31:53] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)

[10:32:00] Maryana: a very good reason: not enough time has passed yet :)

[10:32:09] tommorris: ah okay. that'd be interesting to know

[10:32:30] Amqui1 (~Amqui@d50-99-201-71.abhsia.telus.net) joined the channel.

[10:32:33] Maryana: but we will almost certainly take a look at those users in the future. it's just not very likely that 2 weeks of seeing a message is going to radically transform their editing behavior long-term

[10:32:37] tommorris: is there now a standard Foundation measure for measuring retention on these kinds of engagement experiments?

[10:32:42] StevenW: Testing in English is the current status quo, more because the infrastructure is there, we know the community a little better, and it is the biggest site, which means that if it works under the stress of English, then it is likely to work elsewhere with the appropriate localization

[10:33:13] Maryana: tommorris: we're getting there. dario and ryan faulkner have been working on standardized retention metrics. lemme pull up the meta page...

[10:33:34] Maryana: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Metrics

[10:33:46] tommorris: #include <obligatory_omg_foundation_don't_care_about_other_wikis.h>

[10:33:46] tommorris: ;-)

[10:33:54] StevenW: For this experiment, we got pretty fine grained about it. They looked at retention as whether people edited 1day, 7days, and so on in to the future

[10:34:09] StevenW: So not just one measurement

[10:35:09] StevenW: The next version of this post-edit feedback 

[10:35:36] StevenW: is similar but different in that we're going to let people know when they reached an editing milestone

[10:36:01] StevenW: so when you make your first edit, you'll get a custom message for that

[10:36:10] Ebe123: The WMF is french, German, Quescha, Kannada, and more languages, not just english

[10:36:15] StevenW: Yep

[10:36:21] StevenW: But we try to work in baby steps

[10:36:24] StevenW: not all at once

[10:36:33] Ebe123: One at a time

[10:36:33] StevenW: and so on, with 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 edits completed.

[10:36:39] Ebe123: But not always enwiki

[10:36:41] Ironholds: if this experiment was run on the Kannada wikipedia there wouldn't BE 8k users

[10:37:01] tommorris: Next week: Wikiversity editor retention.

[10:37:09] tommorris: Make sure all four of the trolls continue editing.

[10:37:25] Ironholds: not speaking for the experiments team, but if you want me to deploy something with non-enwiki-first, find me another project that is suffering from retention problems that have progressed to the same degree, that is in contact with us, whose needs we understand, and who have more than 8 editors

[10:37:40] Ebe123: What about the french wiki

[10:37:48] Demiurge1000: We don't understand their needs.

[10:37:52] jorm: Let's calm down for a bit.

[10:37:55] Ironholds: sure! We're deploying some new software to fr.wiki as soon as it's stable.

[10:38:06] StevenW: Trizek and others are working up a list of new features that French Wikipedia might request enabled.

[10:38:12] Ironholds: anyway, I'll shutup and go back to grumping

[10:38:15] Ebe123: And enwiki when it isn't ready

[10:38:35] Maryana: it's not just a matter of understanding user needs. there's also the question of data collection. we simply don't have the resources yet to collect data on all wikis

[10:38:37] tommorris: from what I gather, wikis other than enwiki don't have such a big problem with assholes.

[10:38:53] Maryana: we'd need to double our budget. e.g, double the length of the fundraiser :-P

[10:39:10] Ebe123: People would get sick of it

[10:39:15] jorm: There's also the fact that the only common language shared on the development teams is English.

[10:39:16] Maryana: indeed

[10:39:25] StevenW: Maybe not double, but it would require a ton of work just to get ready to test on one new language Wikipedia

[10:39:32] tommorris: anyway, what's the next plan for editor engagement tests?

[10:39:41] tommorris: attempts to right the ship.

[10:39:42] aude: thinks editor retention would be interesting on another language

[10:39:51] aude: e.g. community dynamics vary

[10:40:00] Ebe123: agrees with Aude

[10:40:00] StevenW: Next is the second iteration of post-edit feedback

[10:40:02] jorm: The next plan is to start kidnapping children and forcing them to edit in sweatshops.

[10:40:14] Ebe123: No, not smart enough

[10:40:19] StevenW: where we only give feedback when you reached an editing milestone

[10:40:20] StevenW: also

[10:40:30] Ironholds: jorm: that's an atrocious idea. make sure they're orphans.

[10:40:38] Ebe123: a WMF milestone is 100 edits

[10:40:38] Maryana: i should mention that haitham and tanvir in global dev are doing some really interesting editor engagement projects on small wikis

[10:41:08] Ebe123: Why not help them

[10:41:26] jorm: We are.  Just not with these projects.

[10:41:39] StevenW: we are working on account creation as well to make some very very basic improvements. 

[10:42:17] Ebe123: Not the big problem

[10:42:34] jorm: Okay.  What do you think is the "big" problem?

[10:42:45] Thehelpfulone: StevenW, did you give a link yet to that account creation improvement? I remember reading about that somewhere but can't quite remember where

[10:42:54] StevenW: For now, we're thinking of a lot of experiments that happen either soon before someone might want to register (asking readers to join, or inviting anonymous editors who were successful). Or things immediately after you join, to help new people get up to speed. 

[10:42:55] Ebe123: Very basic improvements?

[10:43:12] jorm: Are you aware of how difficult "very basic improvements" are?

[10:43:17] StevenW: If the account creation process is slow or frustrating, then that's a barrier to either kind of experiment

[10:43:26] Ironholds: there's a reason they're basic improvements. because the current setup is worse-than-basic

[10:43:30] Maryana: thehelpfulone: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience

[10:43:55] Thehelpfulone: thanks, ooh the mockup looks much better already

[10:44:33] StevenW: The short list of changes is: making it so you don't have to submit all things via clicking "create account" to have them validated. So if you enter a username that already exists, you know immediately without the page reloading.

[10:45:03] Ebe123: That's good

[10:45:28] ragesoss: StevenW and Maryana: are you planning to incorporate any of the Fellows' projects into your experiments? Like, seeing what happens if you point new users straight to the tutorials Peter has created?

[10:46:02] Maryana: ragesoss: in the longer term, yes, we definitely are interested in testing some kind of workflow post-registration

[10:46:08] StevenW: or Teahouse. It depends on the context.

[10:46:18] Maryana: because right now only 25% or so of registered editors actually go on to make an edit

[10:46:33] StevenW: on Englsih

[10:46:43] Maryana: probably because they're just abandoned after registration. no call to action, no mentoring or help, nadda

[10:46:45] StevenW: ha. English. 

[10:46:49] ragesoss: might be something to try after X edits (like, X=1)

[10:46:52] Ebe123: What about french?

[10:47:26] StevenW: It's slightly different but similar for most projects. There are weird exceptions like Wikinews, where the majority of new signups edit.

[10:47:42] StevenW: Because no one goes there without already being an editor in some way 

[10:47:56] Ebe123: Don't like Wikinews policies

[10:48:39] Thehelpfulone: StevenW, thinking longer term to avoid potential SUL conflicts, does that username already exist check on just that one wiki or all wikis?

[10:49:01] StevenW: I think the SUL issue is being dealt with by Platform

[10:49:18] StevenW: I know on test.wikipedia.org, for instance, usernames already have to be SUL-compliant

[10:49:23] Thehelpfulone: Maryana, also on that mediawiki page - under "Team" in the info box, it's empty - could you add the staff members that are working on it to the | team = parameter?

[10:49:29] Thehelpfulone: ok

[10:49:38] Maryana: thehelpfulone - ah, good call

[10:49:42] Maryana: will do!

[10:49:45] StevenW: it's always the whole team, which makes that a little repetitive

[10:50:24] StevenW: Maryana is also working with the community (naturally) to redesign the Community Portal. 

[10:50:48] StevenW: It gets 10,000 page views a day, and there should be some way we can help people interested in joining find things to do

[10:51:15] Maryana: user:nettrom who runs suggestbot is helping out with the to-do section

[10:51:32] ragesoss: oh, oh, oh, test a prominent link to The Signpost in the sidebar.

[10:51:53] StevenW: Everyone wants the Sidebar. :)

[10:51:56] Ironholds: oh god no

[10:51:59] ragesoss: it gives much more of a feeling of 'hey, this is actually a real community' than anything in the community portal, IMO.

[10:52:21] Thehelpfulone: StevenW, also, will that validation check still do the usual no # @ and whatever other characters allowed? It'd be really cool if it could say it's too similar to existing usernames too

[10:52:21] ragesoss: have you done tests with the sidebar?

[10:52:27] ragesoss: I mean, everyone wants it for a reason.

[10:52:29] StevenW: Thehelpfulone: yes

[10:52:53] Maryana: ragesoss: true, but it's not a very good place to send brand new editors. they don't know what a wikiproject is, or what the arbitration report is all about..

[10:53:09] apergos: rats

[10:53:12] StevenW: We eventually may try adding new checks as well that are based on community policy, so if you include 'bot' in your username, then we will suggest that you don't do that unless you want to run a bot. ;)

[10:53:18] ragesoss: right... but they don't know any of what's in the Community Portal either.

[10:53:20] apergos: gotta run (family stuff, they haven't seen me since october eaither)

[10:53:30] apergos: I'll leave the tab  open to read stuff later, have a good day!

[10:53:31] ragesoss: and a newspaper is something people understand.

[10:53:32] StevenW: thanks for joining apergos :)

[10:53:38] apergos: yw, thanks for hosting!

[10:53:47] yuvipanda: (+1 on Signpost, it did make me feel a lot closer to the Editing Community!)

[10:54:01] Ironholds: hmn

[10:54:07] Ironholds: I can think of a different reason to display the signpost

[10:54:08] Thehelpfulone: great, one more thing - the captcha can we have a refresh button in case you can't read a particular capture

[10:54:08] Maryana: ragesoss: perhaps. there actually is a prominent signpost template on the community portal

[10:54:10] Thehelpfulone: captcha*

[10:54:23] Ironholds: we know we've got this massive gap between "core community" of people who engage in governance and "everyone else"

[10:54:26] StevenW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal/Redesign_2012

[10:54:30] Thehelpfulone: or are we planning to use a different captcha (recaptcha?) in the future?

[10:54:34] Ironholds: it'd be interesting to see if we could get non-core people interested merely by flinging it in their face

[10:54:45] yuvipanda: +1 to Ironholds

[10:54:53] StevenW: Thehelpfulone: perhaps, there's an RFC on MediaWiki.org for it. But we won't be changing it on the experiments team.

[10:54:59] Ironholds: "LOOK. PEOPLE DISCUSS STUFF. THEY DON'T JUST EDIT. YOU CAN DISCUSS STUFF TOO"

[10:55:03] yuvipanda: you miss a *lot* of -drama- stuff if you don't have the right pages on your watchlist

[10:55:12] Ironholds: but you also miss productive things

[10:55:18] Ironholds: decisions are made by those who show

[10:55:23] yuvipanda: indeed

[10:55:51] Maryana: i'm actually interested in featuring things like editing collaborations, rather than the high-level community stuff that goes on in the signpost/RfC/VP, etc.

[10:56:00] Maryana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maryana_(WMF)/sandbox

[10:56:24] Maryana: going to try this one out to give WP:TAFI a shoutout :)

[10:56:36] ragesoss: Maryana: right, but there's an order of magnitude difference between finding that one the community portal page (once you already made the first click to get there) and finding it right there with one click.

[10:56:59] StevenW: In addition to just trying to improve this one page, this is interesting because the numbers will help us figure out whether new people are interested in finding tasks, or if they're here because they want to edit a specific topic. 

[10:57:08] StevenW: or both

[10:57:14] Maryana: or if they just want to find a human to talk to

[10:57:29] yuvipanda: ragesoss: but Signpost as it is now is completely useless to new editors. It has no news of significance to them.

[10:57:30] ragesoss: Maryana: I'm interested to see how highlighting collaborations would work. In my experience, they've only very rarely been vital and engaging.

[10:57:47] Ironholds: the problem here is we're talking about two different groups of users

[10:58:00] Ironholds: on the one hand, we have people who are new to editing. they don't know what to write, they don't necessarily know how to write it.

[10:58:02] Maryana: ragesoss: yep. that's why we're trying to get some numbers on the matter :)

[10:58:04] StevenW: Okay, so we've got only a little bit left.

[10:58:08] ragesoss: without better realtime collaboration tools, I'd think it wouldn't make much difference to noobs. But that's why we test.

[10:58:09] Ironholds: those are served best by editing collaborations

[10:58:10] ragesoss: :)

[10:58:25] StevenW: Before we continue down this path, I want to make sure… did anyone have more questions about the other experiments?

[10:58:27] tommorris: Ironholds: sounds like what we need is a real time IRC based Teahouse type thing but with a guided topic

[10:58:39] Ironholds: oh god no

[10:58:41] Ironholds: it'd be uncontrollable

[10:58:43] Ironholds: also, IRC.

[10:58:46] tommorris: ah, but it'd be controlled

[10:58:52] tommorris: you'd put a benevolent dictator in charge of it

[10:58:55] tommorris: like, oh, me

[10:58:57] Tanvir (~tanvir@wikimedia/wikitanvir) joined the channel.

[10:58:59] Maryana: :D

[10:59:16] Maryana: hey tanvir, folks were just asking about editor engagement projects on other wikis :)

[11:00:26] ragesoss: what we need is an integrated microblog, so you see a stream of messages from people about what they are editing right now.

[11:00:45] Ironholds: what we need is an apache helicopter

[11:00:47] ragesoss: Like, a little twitter feed on the side, but only from editors and about editing.

[11:00:48] yuvipanda: ragesoss: also, ponies

[11:00:51] thekaryn (~kgladston@50-0-133-213.dsl.static.sonic.net) joined the channel.

[11:01:00] StevenW: Okay, it's 18:00. I need to go. 

[11:01:16] Ironholds: holy hell, 7pm

[11:01:20] yuvipanda: ragesoss: but I see what you mean. The IRC firehose of current edits is something that people found highly useful when doing outreach

[11:01:24] StevenW: Thanks for coming everyone!