Wikipedia policy and administration and mature editors, Musing about a Fellowship idea Options

[Eppur si muove]

I notice that Wikimedia are inviting applications for fellowships on the themes of boosting participation and retention.

One of the facts noted here is that half the editors are under 22. My impression of many of the most vocal Reviewers, especially those of you who have a history of serious quality contributions before being blocked/banned, is that you are well over 22. This has led me to wonder whether Wikipedia's main policies for moderation (i.e. the use of admins who often have little life experience) is better adapted to managing adolescents and youths, who are used to being spoken in a particular way by their elders, than to working with mature adults who get riled by that sort of behaviour. I think a dip in my participation on Wikipedia was certainly associated with posts by the likes of Ironholds and Jimbo ticking me off for using candid language about some jumped up troll and therefore wonder whether this is a common experience among adult contributors.

I'm sure that floating the idea on WR first is not the best way to get an application accepted, but what does the panel of mature adults here think?

[thekohser]

Most of the older participants here on WR would likely fail one or more of the Foundation's tests for Fellowship consideration:

* Do you want to help attract and deepen engagement with more new contributors?
* Do you want to improve retention of our existing editors?
* Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?

[Eppur si muove]

Most of the older participants here on WR would likely fail one or more of the Foundation's tests for Fellowship consideration:

* Do you want to help attract and deepen engagement with more new contributors?
* Do you want to improve retention of our existing editors?
* Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?

Well, Malleus, for example, was already a graduate in May 2007 and Wikipedia is in danger of not retaining him. Also the pattern of contact with PD, for example, might be informative as to what might go wrong with others in the future if Wikipedia continues its current ways.

[Fusion]

* Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?

I can think of a few admins who would fail on that criterion.

[Kelly Martin]

This has led me to wonder whether Wikipedia's main policies for moderation (i.e. the use of admins who often have little life experience) is better adapted to managing adolescents and youths, who are used to being spoken in a particular way by their elders, than to working with mature adults who get riled by that sort of behaviour.

Well, duh. Adults don't like being treated like children by children pretending to be adults. No big surprise there.

But really why should Wikipedia want to focus on retaining older users? How does that help them achieve their goals?

[Eppur si muove]

This has led me to wonder whether Wikipedia's main policies for moderation (i.e. the use of admins who often have little life experience) is better adapted to managing adolescents and youths, who are used to being spoken in a particular way by their elders, than to working with mature adults who get riled by that sort of behaviour.

Well, duh. Adults don't like being treated like children by children pretending to be adults. No big surprise there.

But really why should Wikipedia want to focus on retaining older users? How does that help them achieve their goals?

On one level I don't have to justify it as it's a given in the background material that Wikimedia has provided which talks about wanting to broaden the variety of its participants. As well as the gender bias and the predominance of editors from the Global North, they mention age as one of the ways in which the profile of Wikipedians does not reflect that of the world overall. They presumably feel that broadening the range of editors will allow them to cover a wider range of topics well than just what falls within the range of Western geek male youth culture.

Widening the age profile of editors on the English Wikipedia might broaden the range of editorial interests to include such things as, just off the top of my head, 18th and 19th century poetry or medieval philosophy. Or if we compared the coverage of top 40 hits in an English-speaking country for the last 20 years with that of the equivalent number of major businesses, then I'm sure that we'll see that the coverage is uneven. An older range of people might include former employees, shareholders customers etc of such businesses.

And, yes, well duh. But it will be interested to see it the Foundation is prepared to look at how the community alienates a lot of their better article writers in particular those over 30, 40 or whatever.

[Malleus]

Most of the older participants here on WR would likely fail one or more of the Foundation's tests for Fellowship consideration:

* Do you want to help attract and deepen engagement with more new contributors?
* Do you want to improve retention of our existing editors?
* Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?

Well, Malleus, for example, was already a graduate in May 2007 and Wikipedia is in danger of not retaining him. Also the pattern of contact with PD, for example, might be informative as to what might go wrong with others in the future if Wikipedia continues its current ways.

I was a graduate way before 2007, as I believe was PD. The problem Wikipedia is inherently unable to address is that adults generally don't take kindly to being treated like children, therefore it's a project for children, not adults.

[Malleus]

This has led me to wonder whether Wikipedia's main policies for moderation (i.e. the use of admins who often have little life experience) is better adapted to managing adolescents and youths, who are used to being spoken in a particular way by their elders, than to working with mature adults who get riled by that sort of behaviour.

Well, duh. Adults don't like being treated like children by children pretending to be adults. No big surprise there.

But really why should Wikipedia want to focus on retaining older users? How does that help them achieve their goals?

It shouldn't, just as it shouldn't obsess over the number of female editors. Unless of course an argument can be made that there is content females are uniquely qualified to provide.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 23rd December 2011, 8:09pm

[Silver seren]

Wait, so does that imply that all adults are rude and insult other people?

[Malleus]

Wait, so does that imply that all adults are rude and insult other people?

It implies that there ought to be more of that all so unusual thing called common sense.

[Silver seren]

Wait, so does that imply that all adults are rude and insult other people?

It implies that there ought to be more of that all so unusual thing called common sense.

But most of the "adult" people who get blocked are blocked because they were insulting to other people (not counting sockpuppetry and all the other possibilities).

Does that mean that the "adults" are more like children than the "children", I wonder?

[Kelly Martin]

Does that mean that the "adults" are more like children than the "children", I wonder?

Only if you have a very childish idea of what it means to be an adult.

[EricBarbour]

But most of the "adult" people who get blocked are blocked because they were insulting to other people (not counting sockpuppetry and all the other possibilities).

A good number of those adults were blocked because they actually knew something,
and found themselves in a pointless argument with a teenaged boy who thinks he knows something.

[Silver seren]

Does that mean that the "adults" are more like children than the "children", I wonder?

Only if you have a very childish idea of what it means to be an adult.

True, I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative. Considering that most of the edit warring topic areas are probably made up of those other half of the editors that are adults.

But most of the "adult" people who get blocked are blocked because they were insulting to other people (not counting sockpuppetry and all the other possibilities).

A good number of those adults were blocked because they actually knew something,
and found themselves in a pointless argument with a teenaged boy who thinks he knows something.

More often than not, that means that the adults want to insert original research on what they know. Or using sources that only suit what they "know" to be true.

And since when were adults over 22, anyways? Where did that number come from? Might as well choose over 30.

This post has been edited by Silver seren: Fri 23rd December 2011, 8:52pm

[Doc glasgow]

Defending your right to say "fuck" and "cunt" with impunity is not the mark of maturity. But I suppose if you only graduated from kindergarten a little before 2007 I suppose there's an excuse for mistaking a potty-mouth for sophistication.

[Silver seren]

Defending your right to say "fuck" and "cunt" with impunity is not the mark of maturity. But I suppose if you only graduated from kindergarten a little before 2007 I suppose there's an excuse for mistaking a potty-mouth for sophistication.

Considering how much Malleus seems to like words like those, mayhaps it is quite the opposite. Perhaps it's more that adults are so fascinated by how widespread these words have become with the internet that they now think it actually brings some sort of emphasis when they speak.

Hint: It doesn't.

[Peter Damian]

... I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

Why shouldn't short temper be consistent with collaborative working?

[EricBarbour]

... I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

Why shouldn't short temper be consistent with collaborative working?

Quite right--some of the most contentious battles have been academic ones.
(But of course, Seren wouldn't know about that, because he's a young man who thinks he knows things....)

[Silver seren]

... I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

Why shouldn't short temper be consistent with collaborative working?

Quite right--some of the most contentious battles have been academic ones.
(But of course, Seren wouldn't know about that, because he's a young man who thinks he knows things....)

But do those battles ever go anywhere? I mean, dear god, the biologists still can't decide where to classify the lophotrochozoans and they've been arguing about it for 20 years now. Make then argue about something that's actually bigger and it would be hundreds of years before any sort of consensus is made.

All the while, both sides will be trying to push their argument, even if it involves including fallacious information and faulty data.

[Peter Damian]

... I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

Why shouldn't short temper be consistent with collaborative working?

Quite right--some of the most contentious battles have been academic ones.
(But of course, Seren wouldn't know about that, because he's a young man who thinks he knows things....)

But do those battles ever go anywhere? I mean, dear god, the biologists still can't decide where to classify the lophotrochozoans and they've been arguing about it for 20 years now. Make then argue about something that's actually bigger and it would be hundreds of years before any sort of consensus is made.

All the while, both sides will be trying to push their argument, even if it involves including fallacious information and faulty data.

I was thinking more of the situations where somebody makes patently idiotic remarks and short temper is the only way to resolve it.