Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/reasons editors leave

Reasons editors leave

Not sure how these were chosen, but from my personal experience pov editing and personal attacks are as important as the 4 listed (I'd list the top 3 as edit warring, pov editors and personal attacks, but obviously other people's experiences differ). Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

updated. You are free up update it yourself, as well. The project is only a few hours old, so watch out for wet paint and all that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that "Suspicion of admin cliques" is a major, or even minor reason. And I hope this isn't going to be part Admin bashing. I think Admins make mistakes, but I think the main thing is lack of Admin action in fields such as pov editing and editwarring. Various reasons for that ranging from lack of knowledge/stamina etc, lack of community support at times, etc. Boredom is another reason people leave, or an interest only in adding one article. An incorrect understanding of Wikipedia is another - people start to edit thinking it's like writing an essay or a place where they can tell the world something new, and find that they are expected to add references from reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of people who do think that admins are part of the problem, and the perception alone is part of the problem. Often problems are due to a lack of clarity in policies, leading to inconsistent results from admins, meaning we need to clarify the policies. As I stated early on, my goal is to get other admins like myself to join and bridge some of the misunderstandings. This should be a solutions based project, and bashing wouldn't be tolerated. I've tried to make that clear from the start, this is about positive changes, not a place to point fingers. At the same time, you have to acknowledge that frustration with admins IS one problem and where we can find solutions, like better engagement and policy clarification, we should seek to do so. The goal of retaining quality editors should encompass all methods toward this goal. Seeking out quality editors that never get noticed and finding ways to reward them is another, as encouragement is a beneficial tool in retention. And there are hundreds of great ideas out there that I've never thought of, but at least we can have one place to discuss them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add one more point about admins: I'm new enough that I've screwed up a few blocks and perhaps made the problem worse for an individual or two. Not bad blocks per se, but I've removed talk page access through ignorance or accidentally at SPI and those are problems as well. It doesn't make me evil, but it was mistakes that I would like to see the next new admin not make if we can find ways to add clarity to the new admin training, etc. From my experience, most admin "mistakes" are due to simple mistakes or not understanding policy on a point, not malice. I'm only 2 months into the mop and often find it frustrating that when I do have to block, it isn't always clear what is and isn't appropriate. These can lead to frustration that I would like to see reduced, just based on my own experiences. I don't want to be bashed either, but it would be nice to be better educated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this discussion is not merely for admins but open to all contributors. If it is for admins only, feel free to remove my edits. Reasons why editors leave :

1. Administrator problems (some, not all) : abuse of powers, rudeness especially in edit summaries and talk pages, assuming bad faith, revenge edits, threats (e.g. do as I say or I will block you), abuses of blocking policy, etc.

Solution : Better vetting and examining past history especially how they deal with people they have had problems with before being made administrators. The editing practices of current admins should also be evaluated and those who breach Wiki policies should have actions taken against them. Action must be seen to be taken against those admins who abuse their power. Normal editors sometimes feel like they have to "pussy foot" around admins even when they are in the right. This must be erradicated in order to make Wiki more inclusive and equal place.

2. Deletion of new articles especially those contributed by new editor.

Solution : Wiki needs these new editors. They must have been passionate about the subject to write about it. Nominating for the deletion of their article they had spend a long time writing is disheartening and discourages them. Wiki has too many rules and these editors may not be familiar with them. From my experience as an inclusionist, I find that in many cases, had the new page patroller done proper checks they could have established the notability of the subject and add the necessary sources themselves rather than adding a AFD/Prod tag. The problems, defensiveness and negativity in the AFD talk page could have been avoided had the patroller done that followed by a quick message on the editor's talk page of how to do things next time. This encourages and educates. Once we loose new editors we loose them. It will take a special editor not let that affect them and continue editing. Experienced editors know that they should not take the deletion of their articles personally. However, we should not expect new editors to feel the same way. All they see is that the article they spent a long time writing is not considred important enough to be included in Wiki. We should be very careful.

3. Also linked to the above, do not be too quick to assume lack of notability just because you cannot find much on the internet. A small typo in the name or a variation of spelling e.g. French, English or the local language may explain for this. A short message to the editor's talk page to verify the spelling or add all the possible variations can sometimes establish notability. Assume good faith. Tamsier (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tamsier for your useful contributions. I especially appreciate your suggestions in regard to new editors. It might be possible to set up a list of experienced editors willing to assist newcomers as mentors. They could be supported by a facility providing access to recently deleted articles from newcomers (or those threated with deletion) allowing them to review the articles and the reasons for deletion so they can offer assistance. Maybe there should also be safeguards against immediate deletion of articles from new editors for at least an initial period of a month or so. Bots could also be reprogrammed so as not to pick up newcomers' articles such as biographries for deletion just because they do not contain references. On notability, I also agree that many of Wikipedia's checks are suspect. They do not take account of the vast amount of published literature which is not accessible on the internet or of newspaper or journal articles which are purposely restricted to paying customers. Nor do they appear to take sufficient account of Wikipedia articles on the same topic in other languages. What we need is a safeguard mechanism for newcomers which is just as efficient as the methods now in use for negative criticism and deletion. - Ipigott (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments.

1) First, it would be very useful, if possible, to identify editors who are primarily or exclusively POV pushers of some sort or other. Regarding content about such things as religions and/or other "belief systems", like maybe communism, atheism, socialism, political liberalism, conservatism, and maybe specific aspects of the paranormal in general, and such. I think we have now and have had a number of editors, including some who have been around a long time and have gained some respect from their colleagues, who are, basically, here to push their POV. Such editors when forced to face their POV pushing will, at least sometimes, blame other editors for their situation and leaving, accusing those other editors of being POV pushers and forcing them to leave as a result. This allows them to see themselves, and perhaps have others who seek to misuse Wikipedia in the same way see them, as being "victims" of other established POV pushers. I have seen several editors falsely accuse others of POV pushing, and in some cases retire, at least in the short term, from editing on such bases. This misrepresentation of some other editors, including admins, probably helps contribute to the perception of evil admins. Perhaps establishing some sort of more active, perhaps informal if necessary, admin conduct review board where such retiring POV pushers' claims could be examined, and, if found baseless, rejected, might contribute to the general level of respect for admins who haven't engaged in misconduct.
2) A greater emphasis on creating "child" articles, like perhaps on books and individual theories, would probably be very useful. Again, working primarily in religion, paranormal, and other related fields, there are a number of theories out there which are certainly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia as individual articles, but whose acceptance or respect in the relevant fields is perhaps such that they are not significant enough to be included in the main articles on the topics, where supporters of such theories seem to very often consider to be the first and primary place material about those theories should be placed. This seems to be particularly common in hotly debated issues about controversial topics. I don't know how to address this, but I think if we could help promote creation of these child articles in such topics, that might help a lot.
3) Again, in religion and other articles about belief systems, paranormal, and the like, there is and I think has been for some time a disagreement about which sources are considered most reliable. Does perhaps the most recent book on a given topic count as the most reliable, even if it is clearly presenting a fringe or minority opinion, as many books do? Bart Ehrman said in I think Newsweek? that the way many academics quickly establish themselves today is by at a comparatively early stage writing some book or paper promoting a plausible, if not likely, sensationalist idea. On that basis, they get invited to several talk shows, TV documentaries, and the like, and their names become known. Unfortunately, many people who know little if anything about a topic can be predisposed to believe in some sort of "conspiracy" about it, and accept these often ludicrous ideas right away. The DaVinci Code comes to mind here. Providing better, clearer, indications of how to deal with such questions, and where to find the more respected and accepted sources, would help a lot.
4) One specific idea which maybe could be directly acted upon. I think we should very much encourage all editors to enable e-mail. Many editors of some standing will retire when they are faced with POV pushing or other misconduct which for whatever reason they personally cannot effectively work against. As a "last chance," I would hope to see some sort of way that after announcing a retirement an editor known to them, whom they might respect, could contact them and see if they could somehow deal with the issue which caused the retirement.
5) Finally, and he is shutting up now, I would like to see maybe, perhaps even in the welcoming templates and new editor pages, some sort of clear indication of some kind of "reunion" period once or twice a year. I'm thinking here of college students and the like who write articles because, basically, they wrote them in school and wanted to share the results of their research with others. If they had e-mail established, and they kept it active, we could notify them of the times of such "reunions" in their topic areas, and maybe, if nothing else, get them back for a short time once or twice a year to help improve the articles they already developed and/or work on related articles. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This last idea is even to my eyes maybe the weakest and most easily exploitable, which is why I myself have serious reservations about it. But, maybe, perhaps with editors who have been active for some time, editors who specifically request it, and/or as a regular event, such as perhaps every two or three months, we might have, either at ANI or elsewhere, the equivalent of a morbidity and mortality conference regarding editors who have either formally retired or otherwise left active editing. One of the editors I most miss is User:Pastordavid, who left because his wife had just given birth to their first kid. I can imagine few better reasons to leave. Others, just as highly thought of by several remaining editors, like User:Hiding, left for I think different reasons, not all of which I know, but some of which might relate to problems he and other editors may have had. Some sort of M&M meeting might help find any recurring problems that might exist among such editors as Hiding. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think John Carter hit on a number of areas that do indeed have long term POV pushers. But we do have to be careful, some editors have talk pages that would lead you to believe they are, but looks can be deceiving and many of these editors do not recognise the fact that they can't let go of things even when faced with a consensus against them in great numbers. If the project members were to cross participate in greater numbers this could well be a way to help filter the Dispute Resolution Notice board etc. Sign up and participate in dispute resolution projects and in peer review. Editor rentention members could help a great deal with editor retention with just that alone, but then there are so many other areas where improvement can be made. More Admin interaction on Article talk pages would be a great help, not as moderators but as experianced wikipedians to help guide everyone peacefully to a solution. Perhaps we could add a section to our Project page to begin addressing different ways to seriously address ways to work towards keeping more editors. Task Forces could be created to work on ideas geared at specific goals or groups of editors like a "Second Edit - Task Force" to look into ways to get single edit, editors to make another edit. Stuff like that.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of facilitators in endless debates

I guess that most of us have been involved in a talk page situation in which it seems that one or both sides merely cover the same ground over and over but never seem to move an inch closer to resolution. Here at WP we use consensus to reach agreement even though it is known that without a facilitator the process does not work very well. Has it ever been suggested that WP use facilitators in the more difficult, long drawn out disagreements? I've been familiar with the use of consensus for years and in my experience a good facilitator can practically work magic. Gandydancer (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The dispute resolution noticeboard, Informal mediation, and formal mediation are all available. However, as with any mediation process, all sides have to agree to engage in the process, which can be a sticking point. isaacl (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN doesn't seem to help much, IM is no longer functioning, and FM seems pretty drastic. I am still wondering if we are being expected to use consensus and yet nobody here has a clue about how to use it. I think it would help if WP would have some trained facilitators look at WP discussion pages and give some ideas about why editing has gotten to be so frustrating in so many articles. If we are going to use consensus we all need to understand how it works. It's time to start training classes. Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue I mentioned underlies the problems in the existing mediation mechanisms: disputants must be willing to work towards a consensus through mediation. Without co-operation from the interested parties, it doesn't matter who is mediating the matter, since the editors just won't be constructive or show up. A binding arbitration process for content disagreements may be required, and perhaps having professional third-party arbitrators to mediate this process would help it be accepted by the community. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other reasons people leave

Why people leave Wikipedia?

some people are too busy.
some people loose self-confidence, and editing Wikipedia requires a lot of self-confidence.
some people get tired of Wikipedia’s sometimes-fighty culture.
the information they bring to Wikipedia is too likely to be reverted or deleted.
they find its overall atmosphere offensive to their beliefs.

extracted from here. --Ne0 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioritizing major reasons for leaving

With the goal of retaining more editors, then the focus could be to "fix" the major factors which cause many editors to leave, rather than simply work with each frustrated user to fix their specific concerns. I think we need to recognize how people leave because of lack of time, and there are limits to what can be done to save time when working on numerous articles. However, other factors might be easier to fix, such as resolving deadlock debates for some key articles, or controlling some specific rude editors who drive many people to leave. Meanwhile, we should remember that every person could benefit from specific assistance, just as users asking for help are not all handled by reading the common questions in HELP:FAQ. The key concept is to seek a balance, to allot time to fix major problems, but also understand that retaining some editors would mean spending many endless hours in handling their specific concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience with the wiki MMA debacle, which saw a mass exodus of editors from the subject, the problems are well identified by Tamsier above. To generalize, contentious departures are not something caused by some defect of the departing editors themselves, but the friction that's inevitably caused by any significant interaction between the "content editor" and the inner bureaucracy. The prime objective of content editors is "doing the right thing" for their topic of interest, while the goal of the insider is intertwined with the personal politics inherent in any sizable org. This wouldn't be a problem in and of itself but for the unequal distribution of power between the two. This results in the former feeling helpless against the often closed ranks of the latter (admins who instinctively help each other to get repaid in kind down the road). This problem naturally leads from the consensus process, which is kind to those who follow it regularly while confusing to those uninterested in legalistic technicalities and realpolitik. To resolve such a pernicious problem, perhaps the only escape is to avoid it altogether by assigning, even if informally, admins who have a subject's interests at heart (content/navigation/etc) to dealing with its specific issues. This alleviates the pain point where the content editor is sometimes essentially talking to a wall who doesn't grasp what's being said yet has the power to lord over its future. It also bypasses the fear and discouragement to editors that their contribution might be arbitrarily deleted on a whim by someone on a power trip. Agent00f (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not educated enough to write about certain topics. -- RexRowan Talk 14:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Personal Perspective

I may be one of those that folks on this thread consider a "POV pusher" and will be glad to see go. But just in case it matters, here are a few of my thoughts on the way out the door. I realize that this may come across hopelessly narcissistic in tone; if so, kindly disregard.

As a retired scientist, I made the decision to start participating as an editor in response to some of the articles on the fluoroquinolone antibiotics, which in early 2011 were (in my opinion) characteristic of Wikipedia at its worst. The articles had been completely taken over by the "Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation", an activist group of individuals pursuing litigation against the manufacturers. They were pretty much an object lesson of what violations of Wikipedia sourcing standards (extensive reliance on links to the activist group website, primary source cherry picking, extensive use of case reports) and NPOV look like. The articles were rambling 100K diatribes against the drugs, with every case report of an adverse event that could be scoured from the internet receiving extensive discussion, while what the drug was used for (20M Rx's per year) was barely mentioned. Many of the cited articles were misquoted, having reached conclusions different from or even opposing the statement they were cited in support of. At least one physician had written in the Talk page that his patients were refusing therapy after reading the article and requesting that it be fixed.

While this example is extreme, it is in many ways typical of Wikipedia's coverage of areas that are of interest to advocacy groups and/or those who are politically active. The guidelines are brilliant in their examples of what NPOV does and does not look like, what constitutes a reliable source, and what a specific source can be used to support or not support. But these guidelines bear little resemblance to what shows up in the articles. A typical article on a pharmaceutical product contains at least 2x as much column space dedicated to rarely seen side effects as it does to clinical utility. The fluoxetine article, until recently, dedicated more column space to hypothetical side effects derived from cell culture experiments than it did to the drug's approved uses in anxiety disorders. The article on triazolam quotes primary sources with a negative viewpoint and does not mention that the safety of the drug was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine with a favorable outcome. In many cases if the name of the drug was removed from the article, a physician could not read the text and correctly guess what drug it describes.

I think this is a central defect of the entire Wiki approach. The content of articles does not improve over time, it merely drifts. And it drifts in the direction of those who are motivated to spend a lot of time arguing on the internet because they have an ax to grind.

One thing that would help would be some more rapid way to get administrator rulings on some of the more clear-cut cases of improper sourcing. It makes no sense that one has to go through 10 or more rounds of "is too"-"is not" arguing with someone about a point regarding which there is no ambiguity in the guidelines before dispute resolution can be engaged.

Otherwise I'd just say that the time commitment needed to accomplish anything of value here is out of proportion to what can actually be achieved. I think you guys are doing a great job, but overall the issue seems to be the one that I cited above: No matter what you put in the guidelines, the writing and editing is often done mainly by people who want to promote a certain POV, and who consider ignoring the guidelines perfectly ok because of the greater importance of communicating what they "know" to be true about the subject matter. I don't know how to fix it, but for better or worse, I probably won't make much more effort here.Alfred Bertheim (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal perspective: why I left and why I came back

I'd say my reasons for both are typical, after reading through archives at Wikipedia:Teahouse.

I left in 2007 because of frustrations over the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process.

Some details: one of my articles was nominated. The reason given to me for the deletion was that the article was 'blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person' - note that my article was about a British government department.

From my newbie perspective:

I thought 'nominated for deletion' was as good as deletion with no comeback. There was little guidance given.
I didn't think the AfD reviewer had actually read my article, going by the reason for refusal. So what hope did I have for arguing my case, even if I was allowed?
I suspected the AfD reviewer was deleting me at a glance - no assumption of good faith and that really hurt
Zero apology from the AfD reviewer when I pointed out their mistake, only more apathy and criticism of my article
A horrible dead feeling of powerlessness against the faceless bureaucracy of Wikipedia - and that was exactly what I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be
Perhaps the biggest reason I left - no clear guidelines about how to protest the deletion (how to do it, how long it would take, criteria for success)

I got the article reinstated, but only by sheer luck, and being mouthy when I was angry. That's out of character for me, but it worked. I decided I didn't want to be in that kind of adversarial environment and left.

Why I returned in 2013, six years later:

The Wikipedia:Teahouse

It's a huge reason why this editor was retained.

As above, if this isn't the place for POV talk, please delete this. Penguin2006 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]