New contributor objections

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Pfctdayelise (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 10 August 2008 (→‎OUTREACH: rm space). It may differ significantly from the current version.

The Wikimedia Foundation is thinking about barriers to participation: why some readers don't edit. The list below is a brainstorm of barriers we have heard people cite, or can imagine people citing.

You can help us by doing the following:

  • Please add new objections to the list. Anything you have ever heard anyone cite as a reason for not contributing, toss it in :-) Ask your mom, your brother, your colleague.
  • Help reorder the list by frequency/seriousness of the objection. For example, if people are constantly telling you they are just too busy to help, push that objection higher on the list.
  • Below the list are some brainstormed ideas about how to help overcome objections, and persuade people to contribute. Please help us flesh those out.

Please comment on the talk page or change the text here on the main page: either is totally fine.

For the purposes of this exercise, we are imagining this typical non-contributor: A 55-year-old tenured professor of public policy

  • If you add a new objection that you think is unique to academics (rather than being applicable to any, or many, non-contributors), then please flag it as such.
  • Please do not add objections that you don't think -at least in theory- would apply to this type of person.

Thanks for your help, Sue Gardner 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why people don't contribute: list of common objections

  1. Do not want to learn wiki syntax
  2. Do not want to argue with people / don't like debating, hostility, hot emotions
  3. Am very busy with my work life or personal life
  4. Do not want my work to be wasted (deleted/overwritten/reverted/edited)
  5. Am not technically savvy
  6. Have heard terrible things about the quality of Wikipedia
  7. Am used to being treated with respect and deference
  8. Am not an idealist, don't want to 'give back', don't care about leaving a legacy
  9. Don't want to risk being humiliated or embarrassed if I make a mistake
  10. I have trouble using a computer for a long time (poor eyesight, RSI, arthritis, etc.)
  11. I would rather donate money than time
  12. I am daunted by the complexity of all the rules and stuff to read/learn
  13. I have never noticed the edit button, had no idea I could edit
  14. Am scared that online activities could hurt my reputation offline; I could be stalked or harassed or made fun of
  15. Have already made my societal contribution
  16. Do not possess the proper equipment, internet connectivity, etc.
  17. Computers remind me of work; I don't like using them outside of the office, when I have to
  18. Wikipedia is too biased, too left-wing, too right-wing, etc. It is made by people who I disagree with.
  19. Wikipedia is already “done” - there is nothing new I could add
  20. Wikipedia is quite flawed: it would be a lot of work for me to fix it
  21. There's nothing in it for me – no fame, no legacy, no reputational halo, nothing tactile
  22. Why should I do free work so someone else can make a profit from it?
  23. Why waste time when plenty of others are writing it?
  24. Do not get credit (in form of byline) for articles
  25. Fed up with the project after trying to remove libelous and false informations from my own wikipedia biography

Things we can do to help resolve these objections

OUTREACH

We should focus outreach efforts on

  1. the main message that everyone is welcome to contribute,
  2. overcoming common objections to contributing, and
  3. giving people the help they need to contribute successfully.

We should also use outreach activities to solicit information about why people don't contribute. We should provide people with simplified summary versions of the policies and rules of the various projects. We should also provide them with lists of topic areas that need help – both 'example' lists designed to convey the breadth of work that needs doing, and perhaps also a tool that enables them to search for articles that both match their interests and have been flagged as needing attention, and for articles that have been flagged as needing a particular kind of attention they are willing and able to offer (e.g., copy editing).

REPUTATION/INCENTIVES/ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We should strengthen the incentives for participating, particularly reputational ones. Develop new versions of the Zedler medal.

PROJECT GOVERNANCE

Can policies and rules be streamlined, simplified?


COMMUNICATIONS

We should focus communications/PR efforts on
  1. point out the main message that everyone is welcome to contribute, and
  2. redressing common misconceptions that underlie objections to participation.


QUALITY

We need to continue our efforts to increase quality, in order to make participation more attractive to new contributors. (If the projects are high-quality and perceived as high-quality, the social rewards for contributing -reputation enhancement, feeling part of a useful group- also increase.)


USABILITY

Make MediaWiki more user-friendly. Run user tests and heuristic analyses and implement changes to make it easier to use. You shouldn't need to be particularly technically savvy or patient or wiki-experienced, in order to upload a photo or read a history page. We should make the edit functions more visible.


ROLES

Create new roles for people. Currently, in order to contribute to the projects, you pretty much have to learn wiki syntax, and the social rules of engagement, policies, etc. Not everyone wants to do that, or will do that. So, foster the creation of new roles. Perhaps someone could become an “expert reviewer,” and write reports on the quality of various articles, with recommendations for improvement. Perhaps “subject matter experts” could be partnered up with “wiki experts,” with the former advising and the latter editing. Etc.

This could have the effect of

  1. protecting new contributors' time and using them to best advantage,
  2. acknowledging that some will never become wiki experts, and enabling them to contribute regardless, and
  3. protecting new contributors from snippiness and hostility.

Create tools to match up people with particular skills or interests, with work that needs their help – for example, tools to match up people who enjoy copy editing with articles that need copy editing.


COMMUNITY TONE

Foster friendly, welcoming behaviour. Discourage hostility, hot emotions, snappiness, the humiliation of new people. How?


INTRACTABLE

There are also some objections that are essentially intractable. For example, if someone doesn't have a computer or internet connectivity, it is unlikely they will ever participate in any way in the Wikimedia projects. People who see computers as solely work-related tools are unlikely to enjoy what we do. People who are fundamentally unidealistic and have no interest in making a societal contribution, are also fairly unlikely to work with us, as are people who are simply too busy.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_contributor_objections&oldid=1126256"