Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/A Band of Farmers

Editor retention threads
Regarding this section, rather than putting it on the talk page, I think it would be more suitable on a subpage from the main project page, with a link to it from the project page. In this way, the subpage can be used to extract commonalities from the different threads.

I'll confess, though, that I'm not too optimistic about trying to draw upon so many threads. For better or worse, there are a variety of directions from which comments are being made. Some focus a lot on fundamental changes that aren't going to get a lot of traction just on the Editor Retention talk page (I will make passing reference to these, but I don't expect much to come out of it until something changes so the portion of the community interested in driving changes become more receptive). Some are looking for redress for individual situations, generalizing them to all cases, which is problematic when dealing with anecdotes (I too make certain generalizations based on my own experiences; it's hard not to). Some make proposals seeking people to implement them, seemingly without realizing that in our volunteer environment, often it's wiser to make incremental proposals that can start small and scale up (not to say that big ideas shouldn't be aired, but sometimes the proposers have unrealistic expectations about how the proposals will get received, leading to frustration when they abruptly learn other people are just like them: they have limited time to invest on change).

Personally I'd like to focus on achievable proposals, which means small, incremental steps, but it seems more people want to discuss big, overarching changes. If a discussion on these changes could be a little less free-wheeling, and contained to those trying to craft a specific proposal addressing specific issues, then there might be an advantage to holding prolonged discussion on the Editor Retention talk page. But I don't think this can work anymore: the Editor Retention project has attracted too many eyes (consensus doesn't scale, and English Wikipedia's version of consensus has structural problems). I'm struggling to figure out a role for the Editor Retention WikiProject: I think it could be a place to float ideas to find people interested in working on a proposal or implementing an initiative, and then they could continue this work on a separate project page. And yet, the track record of finding people on the Editor Retention talk page who sustain their interest beyond a few posts is rather poor to date, and so it may not have the right audience for this role. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a real quick response before breakfast. My plan is to move this section to its own page very soon. See where I reached out to (User talk:Bbb23see her talk page) for my idea but that was a dead-end. we can discuss later. Back soon.  Buster Seven   Talk ''' 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC),
 * As noted in that archived thread, we did start subpages for different topic areas—and the discussions in all of them died off. For better or worse, editors participating on the Editor Retention talk page generally have prioritized other forms of contributions to Wikipedia over sustained engagement on any of the attempted focused discussions or initiatives. Coaxing people to fully take the bait after an initial nibble is challenging. isaacl (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As you say elsewhere...no one has taken ownership of anything new...many come to visit but no-one pulls up a chair and gets busy with the work required. For years it basically been you and me. Buster Seven   Talk  15:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Even the recent flurry of activity around EotW turned out to be no more than a dust storm. Which...when I think about it......is OK with me. Too many chefs, etc. Buster Seven   Talk  15:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...except I'd say a lot of the time, not even me... It's easy to be discouraged; instead of "for better or worse" I originally wrote "unfortunately". But who am I to say that people should spend time on this particular WikiProject when, as I noted above, it can't address the structural problems? The part that frustrates me are tourists who complain about how easy it would be to fix your country and then go home. Their comments would be more appreciated if they put some skin in the game, in addition to also demonstrating a greater understanding of the practical problems of making changes. (EotW is kind of an example: whoever's doing the work can make the changes they want, but given the small number of volunteers, it's an imposition to propose changes and expect someone else to follow through.) isaacl (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

WP/WER/Band of Farmers
In reading the oldest archives I keep running across Dennis's earliest theme of "We are farmers". That's what stirred me to start harvesting from the conversations of the past. After all, we have a rich cornucopia of many focused discussions on important topics with participation by quality "silverback" editors and administrators. It seems like such a waste of fertilizer. I'm willing to take the time to gather up the fertilizer and put it in one warehouse somewhere, with a "current discussions" link from the Main Page. That's what I was asking Bbb23 to create....call it "Band Of Farmers"...which is eye catching and playful....a more "wiggelly worm". Hmmmmm? Question: Does the farm have a pond? Buster Seven   Talk  19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Buster Seven   Talk  19:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest: I'm not a big fan of having my text bolded as if I wrote it that way, but your clarification note (and this addendum) should suffice to let anyone know that there was no bold originally, so feel free to leave your modifications in place. If by any chance you happen to quote this elsewhere with your modifications, please note that you added the bolding. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do...for sure. The bolding is very temporary...a quick way for me to remember and find where I read stuff during this construction period. I'm reading so much stuff {archives, old editor talk pages, etc.) and trying to put it together coherently. This Band of Farmers idea is kind of a way to bring a little whimsy, a little playfulness, in the hopes that it may be an attractant toward participation. I'm even thinking of constructing "The Pond" in the middle of the Farm somewhere ... for editors to go fishing for ideas. This all may never see the light of day but I'd rather do this than waste my time arguing... Hand.jpg... Buster Seven   Talk  21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

✅

I like your wording
I keep running across word collections and phrases all over the archives that are concise and precise. I want to collect them for use as header "ingredients" for possible discussion sub-pages like this one. Buster Seven   Talk 
 * the subpage can be used to extract commonalities from the different threads.
 * it's wiser to make incremental proposals that can start small and scale up
 * achievable proposals which means small, incremental steps
 * contained to those trying to craft a specific proposal addressing specific issues
 * too many eyes, ((too many voices))
 * it could be a place to float ideas to find people interested in working on a proposal or implementing an initiative
 * continue work on a separate project page
 * editors have prioritized other forms of contributions to Wikipedia
 * ((rather than)) the sustained engagement on any of the attempted focused discussions or initiatives.
 * Coaxing people to fully take the bait after an initial nibble is challenging.
 * Buster Seven   Talk  22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "There is a time and place for everything, but this thread is no longer about "editor retention", so I am recommending it be moved to a different venue, or dropped altogether". Said by Dennis Brown @ 13:42 on 22 December 2012.

Saved from Archives

 * I have never liked that we are called "Users". I was a user back in the sixties during my hippie days. We should be called what we are: "Editors" or "Collaborators". I suggest that this Project support a Wikiwide shift from calling them the User and User talk pages to start calling them the Editor and Editor talk pages. I seriously think it would elevate the millions of discussions that take place on WP. If right from the start, newbies are called "Editor" I think, sub-consciously, they will be less likely to be vandals. I think they WILL be more likely to listen to and follow the lead of veteran "Collaborators" than they currently are to follow the lead of just another "User". Just a thought...and I think a valid one. Said by Buster7 @ 12:36 on 24 June 2013