Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2018-2019/Audiences

Talk pages consultation

Is there a page yet somewhere on this? If not, I'd be grateful if someone could ping me with a link when one is created. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee: I haven't started a page yet, but I will soon. I'll ping you when I've got something up. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "In-context help"

Please see my comments at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2018-2019/Draft#Regarding "Support new and existing contributors through a richer suite of onboarding tools...". --Pine^✉ 03:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

About "The number of maintenance issues related to Translate Extension & translatewiki.net is reduced quarter on quarter"

If this is goal, that this is good goal.

If this is current outcome, that this is illusion. See as example User:Kaganer/Translator's feedback: each item of this list will be converted into single task in the Phabricator. Only first section was done, and was stopped because no any reaction from maintainer. This list - is approximately 10% potential tasks.

Efforts to formulate these problems and tasks and turn them into tasks of the Fabricator are quite a lot of work. This is not interesting to do "in the void," when there is no structured discussion, within which such a work makes sense. --Kaganer (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft#About_"improved_translation_tools". --Kaganer (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

understand the social problems around making visual-based editing the default across wikis for mobile editors

I would suggest there is one main social problem with making Visual the default: The large majority of editors consider visual to be a fundamentally inferior to tool for the job, compared to directly editing the wikitext. Note that this does not merely apply to "old" users with a preexisting preference for wikitext editing. I checked the editing stats for new users who have been defaulted into each mode. When new users are initially defaulted into the Wikitext Editor, nearly 100% retain wikitext as their primary editing mode. On the other hand when new users are initially defaulted into Visual Editor, large percentages of them quickly switch to wikitext editing. I'd have to re-check the statistics, but I believe that percentage rapidly increased to a majority of edits by those new users.

The May 2015 research VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors found that offering Visual Editor side-by-side with Wikitext Editor helped an additional zero percent of new users make a first edit, it increased new user retention by zero percent, and it increased total contributions by zero percent.

The WMF has not yet researched the effect of defaulting new users into Visual. We do not know whether defaulting new users into Visual Editor might decrease the number of new users who successfully make a first edit and/or decrease new user retention.

Most editors have no objection to having Visual available as a secondary editor, for anyone who might prefer it. The main driver of hostility towards Visual Editor has been the WMF's repeated efforts to push Visual as primary.

The real question is, why does the WMF keep trying to push Visual as primary? Alsee (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup, recently posted WMF data on Per-interface retention rates shows user retention for the wikitext editor is almost twice as high as the Visual editor user retention figures. It appears that VE is severely driving away new users. Alsee (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Working with Analytics Engineering

Just writing here to say that we saw this effort, and are happy to help in any way needed. I will say that depending on what data is requested, it could range from easy to infeasible to collect data for a specific user, but ping us on IRC or analytics-l and we'll discuss. Milimetric (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)