Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Single-Purpose Editors in AFC

This page is being used to abbreviate an on-going conversation at WP:WER about retaining SPA editors. Buster Seven   Talk  13:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

= Single-Purpose Editors in AFC ==
 * The topic is single purpose account editors who come in to create an article about themselves, etc. that typically isn't notable. As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I am sure that a majority of the drafts submitted at AFC are conflict of interest or autobiography drafts. These drafts are declined and after two or three resubmits, the SPA gets the message that they or their business is not notable, and they go away.
 * 2 comments--- First, these editors result in a downward-skewing of any metrics on editor retention. They come in, they edit, and they quickly go away.  One may conclude that this means that Wikipedia isn't a welcoming environment, or even that new editors are typically bullied and leave quickly.  The departure of these editors doesn't prove that Wikipedia is an unwelcoming environment.  It illustrates that many people misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it works.  As a result, analysis of editor retention metrics needs to take this influence into account.  They don't indicate something wrong with Wikipedia, and there may not be much that can be done to retain them. Second, there may be something that can be done to recruit these editors.  There could be a mechanism to welcome them to participate in Wikipedia in general. They generally don't get one of the usual Wikipedia welcome messages.  They do usually get an invitation to the Teahouse, but then they are usually more concerned, at least briefly, with getting their article approved, until they give up.  We should consider some way of welcoming these editors, who came to Wikipedia for a "wrong" reason, to participate in Wikipedia for a "right" reason, such as to edit existing articles.  User:Robert McClenon