User:Reo On/page formation for print

How we communicate with new Wikipedians

edit

(Documentation: 1, 2, 3)

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

   

(Documentation)

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

 

(Documentation: 1, 2)

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