User talk:Fabrice Florin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Welcome!

helpme
}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on

sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian
!

— This, that, and the other (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Baklava

No problem! If you need any help with anything, let me know. What sort of areas on Wikipedia are you interested in working in? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Fabrice and thanks for the kitten. Just let me know if you have any questions or want to collaborate on any articles. Cheers,--Rosiestep (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fabrice

I see from Signpost that you've been hired as a "New Editor Guy" by WMF. This request might be slightly outside your purview, if you could pass it along to one of your colleagues it would be appreciated...

Thus far, WMF has attempted to identify the core cadre of "active editors" by the metric of number of edits. See, for example, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The raw COUNT of edits — "X edits in the last month" or "X edits in the last year" is regarded as of decisive importance and the population of such editors is being tracked over time.

This has a real defect, however, in that it counts mundane quality control tasks, such as adding square brackets for links or switching n-dashes to m-dashes, on a par with actual CONTENT CREATION. The fuzzy language of calling everyone an "editor" is largely the cause of this.

What the foundation needs to do is to begin differentiating between quality control workers (copy editors) and content creators (writers) based on use of a new metric — the number of characters added to article space. Checking any history page for a wikipedia article you will see that each edit comes with a SIZE after the end of the signature. Each of these produces a delta figure, the amount of change over the last edit, see for example Recent Changes.

This means it should be technologically possible — and probably comparatively easy — for a WMF tech guru to begin collecting data for each editor based on the metric of characters added to mainspace. This would be far more useful information than a total count of the universe of (quality control workers + content creators) making X edits in a given time frame, which is the way WMF has traditionally looked at the population of Wikipedia volunteers.

Asides: (1) It is important to see changes in ARTICLE SPACE, not just changes overall, since some people spend all their time and massive amounts of prose on ultimately unproductive talk page debates and noticeboard dramafests. (2) Total characters of content is superior to total count of edits to mainspace since some solid content creators prefer to write their contributions out of mainspace and then to launch with a single edit containing 5,000 or 10,000 characters of content — which should be counted as more than 1 edit if you are trying to identify content creators. Others start small and peck along, creating the same amount of content with two dozen editors or more. The key metric is CHARACTERS OF CONTENT ADDED, not the raw EDIT COUNT.

Why is this important to you? I speculate that the number of actual writers is a small, relatively stable, and chronologically older population. There are all sorts of charts and graphs showing a dramatic decline in participation and retention and theories being advanced about how to "win" new editors. I argue that there are maybe 300 serious content creators on English WP, that number is pretty steady, and this population is not who you might think they are. I'm 50 for example, and I know that many of the most serious and prolific content creators are of a similar age. Trying to boost this core cadre with "feedback tools" etc. is probably fruitless.

How many of these content creators are there? What is their particular demography? What are the obstacles to participation by others of a similar demographic background? Those would seem to be big issues if one is given the task of expanding quality and quantity of WP content through the preservation and propagation of the writing pool.

Thanks. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Carrite :). This is actually on our to-do list; Dario (our chief researcher) and I had a catchup a couple of weeks ago, and worked out pretty much how to do it, what it could be used for and how to go about it. I'm a strong proponent of more granularity in how we identify users. At the moment, Dario is taking 2 weeks of (rather well-deserved) holiday; when he gets back, I'll drop him a line :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Carrite, pleasure to meet you! (and thanks Oliver, for chiming in). Carrite, I generally agree with you that the current implementation of the edit count is not the best way to track a user's contributions. We will definitely be looking for alternative ways to measure these contributions in the future. But please be patient with us, as we have a lot on our plate and are just now starting the planning process for the next round of editor engagement products. Thanks again for reaching out to me and stay tuned for more! Fabrice Florin (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's worth considering the net number of characters added. This is because some apparently new articles will actually be
splits from existing content. In such cases, a short summary may remain in the original article, with much of the original content being removed. Another thought: this would penalise for removing vandalism, but the edit summaries could be checked to filter out undos/rollbacks etc. -- Trevj (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Great to see you at the Teahouse :)

Hi Fabrice - great to see you at the Teahouse...and at WMF :)

SarahStierch (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

cherry blossoms
.
  • Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
  • A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the
    Your hosts
    page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
  • Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

Sarah (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

You have a response at the Teahouse!

Teahouse Q&A board
. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are
Sarah (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply
]

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Teahouse logo
 Dear Fabrice Florin, I just asked a
Sarah (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
  • First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
  • Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
  • Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
  • Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one:
    Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055
    . Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
  • Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

Sarah (talk
) 21:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

A cookie for you!

Just wanted to drop by with a cookie. Thanks for your edits! Nathan2055talk 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue FourHi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

  • What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
  • ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
  • Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
  • 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
  • Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
  • New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
  • Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
  • New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
  • Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
  • Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
  • Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
  • Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.