Bobo.03

Welcome!

Hello, Bobo.03, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 03:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Human-centered computing wiki activity for 5125

Hey Bobo.03, You, User:Dyr429, and I are working on the same article for the Wiki Editing project and I have created a Google Doc for the proposal with my initial thoughts about changes that aught to be made. If you provide me with your umn email, I can invite you to edit. I look forward to hearing from you, and I am posting this on Dyr429's talk page as well. You can contact me via mogan002. Thanks, --Kmogan17 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Research interview

Sorry, I don't know much about turnover within WikiProjects on Wikipedia. I'm a member of two main projects, but turnovers within them isn't something I've noted or tracked. I have seen a lot turnover on Wikipedia as a whole, and some of those people have been members of projects I've worked with. But usually when people leave a project in a wayt that I notice, it's because they've also left Wikipedia as a whole. See this section on my user page for my thoughts on that phenomenon! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi UserBilCat, thanks for your reply and kind concern. I think your comment is really thoughtful and a good metaphor. The purpose of our project is just to attempt to look deeper into this phenomenon and hopefully propose some solutions to fix this leaking bucket. It is unfortunate if you cannot participate, but we appreciate it all the same! Please let me know if you come with up with thoughts on it. Thank you.

Um, hello?

How are you? Serendi^podous 15:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous, I am good. How are you? Thanks for asking and your interest in our project :) Would you like to know more about our project?

Use of the Talkback template

Hi Bobo.03. As you'll see once I post this message, the fact I edited your talk page will result in a notification to you through Wikipedia's notifications system. Thus, not only will your use of a {{talkback}} message, when you post to someone's talk page (as you posted at my and numerous other talk pages), have no extra notification effect, but it leaves a false message, advising the person that there is a message posted for them at your talk page (here), when there is no such message here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for letting me know my misuse of talkback feature. Hope it didn't bother you. My purpose was only to recruit experienced Wikipedians for interview.. Sorry again if it interrupted you. If you are interested in our project, please let me know.

A cup of coffee for you!

I am a little anxious about your research. I worry about Wikipedia community members being spammed for research. Based on what you wrote, I think you might have the idea that you are recruiting from a participant pool of many thousands of people. Actually, I think there maybe 100 people in the world who would match what you are seeking, and I would rather those people engage on Wikipedia than participate in a closed study. Your IRB checked for harm to individuals. Can you say how you planned to study to be minimally disruptive to the Wikipedia community as a whole? We need our community leaders engaged in this volunteer project and I feel protective when individuals from every university in the world seek to recruit them away. How would you feel about spending your own time editing Wikipedia a bit and coming to have basic understanding of the Wikipedia experience? I question whether you can ask insightful questions and understand community responses when you yourself are such an outsider. Thanks for coming here. I want research to happen in Wikipedia but practically all researchers neglect to demonstrate basic understanding of Wikipedia before they come here. There have been dozens of group dynamics studies in WikiProjects. How is yours different? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
170		Visualization (graphics) (talk)	Add sources
61		Jewellery design (talk)	Add sources
26		Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences (talk)	Add sources
945		Human–computer interaction (talk)	Add sources
210		Technology life cycle (talk)	Add sources
477		Ubiquitous computing (talk)	Add sources
114		Needs analysis (talk)	Cleanup
72		Digital health (talk)	Cleanup
1,764		Information system (talk)	Cleanup
418		Informatics (talk)	Expand
175		WIMP (computing) (talk)	Expand
52		Geospatial metadata (talk)	Expand
312		Collaborative software (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
181		Information and communications technology in agriculture (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
23		Technoself studies (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
70		High-altitude platform station (talk)	Merge
50		Shared decision-making (talk)	Merge
46		Nature–culture divide (talk)	Merge
80		Multimodal interaction (talk)	Wikify
34		Context-aware pervasive systems (talk)	Wikify
22		Collaboratory (talk)	Wikify
5		Social Visualization (talk)	Orphan
5		Cognitive city (talk)	Orphan
8		Citizen sourcing (talk)	Orphan
36		SIGCHI (talk)	Stub
3		Victoria Bellotti (talk)	Stub
2		Susanne Boll (talk)	Stub
9		John M. Carroll (information scientist) (talk)	Stub
52		Klara Dan von Neumann (talk)	Stub
52		Ruth Teitelbaum (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for research project

This is a response to your posting here. I don't know if it's the kind of response you're looking for.

I often see a new user appear on Wikipedia, for the purpose of creating an article about their favourite band, or their employer, or their grandfather, etc. They find it much more difficult than they had anticipated, and eventually go away disillusioned and angry. I don't see any of that as a problem.

But I sometimes (both via Wikipedia, and in real life) see someone register a Wikipedia account with a genuine wish to improve Wikipedia – and then somehow form the view that the best way to contribute is to create a new article. They also find it much more difficult than they had anticipated, and eventually go away disillusioned. This is sad, and unnecessary. A person acting helpfully and in good faith has been driven away, and a potentially good editor has been lost.

Anything that can be done to discourage the attitude "the way to improve Wikipedia is to create a new article" will be good. But I don't know how to do it (except by explaining their mistake to a few new editors). And, the structure of Wikipedia being what it is, there's no-one with the responsibility for countering this mistaken belief. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This definitely is a very helpful information. Thank you, Maproom! Yeh, for the (second) problem you mentioned, I am not sure how much the Teahouse can do to help that. I am not sure how big this problem is, but it is definitely worth further investigation. A way I can think of for it in our project is that we'd suggest project organizers who would recruit newcomers to provide them some specific tasks on some article, and to gently encourage newcomers to work on existing articles rather than starting new ones at the beginning. I think this would to some degree help at the least the newcomers who are involved in our study if it would be the reason for their potential leaving.

But that is an interesting and important observation. I am thinking how to further investigate it and have some solid evidence about it.. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I know that several of the more active "hosts" on the Teahouse see it as a significant problem. A while ago, I collected several discussions on it, which I assembled at User:Maproom/New users and New articles. Maproom (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeh, I see. I agree it's an issue, Maproom. I think even now, if I want to create some article, I wish it to be noticeable as well, otherwise, I maybe won't do it at all lol. Maybe it's personality issue, and the misunderstanding Wikipedia impressed normal editors that everyone can create something by their own, but the fact is that Wikipedia also requires experience and practice to make actual and valuable contributions IMHO. I can see the intersection between TeaHouse and our study that can potentially address this problem - TeaHouse provides newcomer guidance but cannot attract a group of editors for what the new editor is creating, while our study can help draw attentions from a group of editors but may not able to provide beginner-level help. I think a challenge from the perspective of our study is that we can hardly identify the new article and the topics it belongs to when it's just created by the newcomer, but I think definitely keep this in mind, and discuss with my collaborators to see if we can help address this! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Saw your post to ProjMed

I am interested in your post to the ProjMed talk page. I am currently a medical editor working to improve Womens health content. Our project has a difficult time retaining medical editors because of the complicated referencing and manual of style. I would be glad to work with a new editor to master these skills and bring them up to speed quickly if you would like. Otherwise, getting your contributions deleted not because the content was not good but because you didn't cross all your t's and dot your i's is very discouraging.

Best Regards.

Barbara Page

Hi Barbara (WVS), thank you for your message, and yeh, thank you for your interest in our study! It would be great to have you participate our study! Yes, glad to know that we share the same goal of helping new editors and projects. I am currently preparing some sample messages for the next round of conversation with project members to draw more attention and hopefully to attract more project members to participate our study. But again thanks for letting me know, and talk to you soon! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS), we have started to recruit study participants. I am assuming you are still interested in participating our study :) If so, please put your name in the table in the next section. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS), thank you for signup! I notice you are a member of WikiProject Women's Health. That looks like a great project. We initially didn't include this project for our study, as we were targeting at the most active projects in the past year (based on the number of edits on the project pages). But we are happy to include your project! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to our study

Hi, Welcome to our study. We'd really appreciate that. Please leave your WikiProject and your username (maybe your signature) in the table below. I will send you more instructions later.

Bobo.03 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggestions (in addition to those previously discussed by phone/at WT:VG), specifically re: the table:

• The paragraph on each user is redundant—it would be enough to have a few bullet points and to have each link to a page that explains what each means in greater depth
• (For most cases, it doesn't particularly matter why the user is recommended, as I need to click through to their contribs and find out for myself...)
• It would, however, be worth knowing if:
  • the user is a content editor or mainly edits infoboxes/categories ("gnoming")
  • the user has frequently deleted notices from their user talk page, particularly without archiving them (usually a bad sign)
  • the editor is high-volume or an admin, as that will skew the likelihood that they usually edit in a given category, rather than going on a topic-agnostic, short cleanup spree

I think they are good suggestions. -B

• If the user's relevant edits were immediately reverted, there isn't a real basis for outreach unless your algorithm determines whether those edits were done in good faith. For example, an editor who is trying to help but doesn't understand WP policies might be more worth the outreach than an outright vandal. I know that other scholars have developed vandal-rating tools, which could be useful [edit: e.g., mw:ORES, from the below section]

I agree. The current algorithm is not yet considering the quality of the editing content. We definitely see the value in it, but it would bring in computational difficulty. I will try to implement it in the future. -B

• The category-based and edited-similar-talk-pages recommendations were not useful. If those editors showed any specific interest in the project's articles, I couldn't tell from their contribs list.
• The best suggestions were those who edited ### of their last ### in the topic area, and those who edited the same articles as project members.
• The tables of username suggestions look like they're sending each suggested user a ping, which should be deactivated (e.g., {{noping}}) as it affects their knowing that the outreach was prompted

Yes, I didn't see this happen at all, and I didn't wish they would know it... -B

• It isn't clear what the invitation table is for: Is your goal to have them post once on the project's talk page? To have them add their name to a list? To edit more frequently in that area or perhaps edit WP more in general? I don't know the metric for success. Usually I would contact new users just for their knowledge that there is a place (talk page/pseudo-noticeboard) they can bring questions, but that doesn't mean that they'll ever actually use the page.

The goal is to introduce organizers a set of editors who might be interested in the project, so they can help on the project tasks that need most improvement. We hope it would be beneficial for both the editors and the projects by engaging the editors more and by having more project tasks done. -B

czar 17:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your suggestions! I reply some suggestions inline, and will see if I integrate them into the system. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "Yes, I didn't see this happen at all, and I didn't wish they would know it... -B"

Too late. After receiving the notification and reading this whole exchange I hereby ask you to please add an "opt-out button" to that list. Now that the "guinea pigs" are aware of your experiment we should be given some measure of autonomy, I think. Half joking. I do request that you add the following to my evaluation though. You may blank and not archive the following too if it seems useful to you to do so. Personally, I think some Wiki Projects are actually detrimental to the editing experience and the building of a user created online encyclopaedia as a whole. I hope your study includes how many editors were deterred and stopped editing as a result of the building of -what might well be called little fiefdoms- Wiki Projects by supposedly well informed editors at the core of some of these sub-divisions of the editor base. Editors whose longevity rather than the quality of their arguments are seen as persuasive by other editors - less experienced but potentially equally or more valuable "new" Wikipedia contributors. "Opt-out" does that even make sense now that I've volunteered this feedback? Has this comment compromised the survey or is that the sort of reaction you were looking for from those on the bot generated list of which we weren't supposed to be notified? If it was all designed to solicit feedback but perhaps not here and now I do wonder what your criteria for inclusion and exclusion were going to be? ... and please respond here rather than on "my" talk page if you are going to reply.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The ping was unfortunate, but the choice on whether to contact, as always, is up to the editor. So I'll apologize on Bobo's behalf that you were pinged on my page, but notice that I did not contact you as I did not deem it appropriate. If you think that WikiProject cultures are detrimental to editing, surely that should be discussed somewhere more public. I personally think that WikiProjects should be treated more as noticeboards than clubs, but I'd also note that every "successful" WikiProject—as far as I've seen, save for perhaps Milhist—already operates this way. At the very least, I don't see how users are negatively affected by a simple (perhaps even friendly?) welcome notice that informs of a venue that can be used for basic questions and third opinions, especially when so many new users are otherwise isolated. czar 17:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious about the opt-out suggestion. Would a user (e.g. Verso.Sciolto) have to pre-emptively opt-out from receiving this kind of communication? Or would the opt-out be intended to prevent subsequent contacts related to these suggestions? Or multiple contacts in related to different WikiProjects? In the case of pre-emptive opt-out, I'm not sure how such a thing would be practical, but one possible suggestion is that if this ever became an automated feature (e.g. if it were run by bots), a blanket opt-out could be implemented by the potential recipient by adding {{nobots}} to the user's talk page. The possibility of multiple invitations should probably be eliminated, though. I notice, for example, among Czar's list that User:Wikibenboy94 has already received an invitation and so that name should not have been repeated on the list. -Thibbs (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Verso.Sciolto: Thank you for your feedback from the recruited editor side. The goal of our study is to build helpful tools for the Wikipedia community as a whole, for WikiProjects, Wikipedians, regular editors, newcomers, etc, so we definitely value your perspective, and we definitely would expect to hear different views, whether positive, neutral, or negative, which are all important to us! Honestly, I haven't figured out how the notifications were sent out to editors on the list yet. I posted the sample messages to some project pages and my own page space couple times before, and nobody complained at all.. I apologize (Thanks Czar).

Back to your suggestions. I am not sure if WikiProjects are considered to be detrimental either. They facilitate collaborations among clusters of editors with similar interest which is valuable. We will definitely measure and report the corresponding activities of editors who are recruited out by our study participants, whether they are encouraged or discouraged - this is a goal of our study. Your opt-out suggestion I think is reasonable, and as Thibbs suggested, it would also be complicated when it comes operationalization. I will discuss this with researchers in Wikimedia Foundations. Let us know if you have any other thought! Bobo.03 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't figured out how the notifications were sent out to editors on the list yet.

All plain [[User:Example]] links and similar mentions trigger a ping when signed (with four tildes) in the same post. For more, see Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events czar 20:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me the resource. This goes to the tech detail. I was using {{User|Example}} not [[User|Example]] which I guess should be different? That is supposed to show the user talk page and contribution. Do you see a notification from this? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I did, and note that it's listed as one of the templates that sends notifications in that "Triggering events" section. (The template documentation says it sends notifications as well.) Check out {{Noping}} and specifically {{Noping2}} as alternatives. Also collapsing is best for when a conversation gets off-topic or is inconvenient to scroll through—generally don't want to collapse an ongoing, productive conversation, so I moved the bottom part of the collapse below my original suggestions, if that's what you meant to collapse. czar 03:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it. It's weird that I didn't receive any notification in my previous experiments.. I think noping2 looks more appropriate in this case! Bobo.03 (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I just found an option to receive a notification when you send a mention either successfully or unsuccessfully, which you might like: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo czar 14:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This looks interesting. I turn on my failed mention, and see how it reacts to noping! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Czar has a lot of good suggestions above and I generally agree with everything he's said, but I'll make a few specific observations below:

• Regarding bullet point #2 ("For most cases...") I would say that it's still helpful to me to know why the user was recommended as long as bullet point #1 ("The paragraph on each...") is implemented.
• Bullet 3.3 - This may also be relevant for the "edited-similar-talk-pages" measurement if the frequently contacted member is an admin. I agree with Czar's comment in (bullet 5) on the weakness of this measurement, though. Mostly because I anticipate problems if there are discussions involving project members in areas outside the project. There are (thankfully) few major conflicts that spill outside of the project, but conflict resolution may be held in areas like the "drama boards" (WP:AN and WP:ANI), the mediation boards (WP:DRN and WP:M), WP:RfC, User talk:Jimbo Wales, etc. It would be silly to invite mediators or drama board regulars to join the project simply because they had had several interactions with WP:VG members at these locations.
• Bullet 4 - I agree to the extent that reversions sometimes indicate vandalism, however I'd also note that new editors whose edits have recently been reverted are likely to be among those most in need of encouragement.

-Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we thought the explanations important to help you know why our system recommended those candidates, and to save your time to decide if those candidates should be contacted. This is related to your comments about the category-based and edited-similar-talk-pages recommendations, the ideas of which is referred to identify-based attachment and bonds-based attachment editors formed to the project. Those algorithms/rationals are based on the research literature that have solid theoretical support. So do you expect to see more compressive explanations, as we hope to recommend a boarder set of candidates to the project (unless you think that editors who only edited related articles should be considered?). But I agree that there are edge cases, for example, the editors who are mediators or drama board regulars you mentioned (though I am not sure how often this would be the case), that we need to avoid. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

It was not the ping I objected to. It is a Catch 22 situation but I was actually glad that I was notified and thereby reminded that there are bots on the loose on Wikipedia instructed to profile editors. Editors should be made aware that they are being subjected to such automated profiling. Maybe it is stated in Wikipedia’s user agreement and maybe I should read those agreements and their updates more carefully but that ping / notification was the welcome part of your experiment. That bots are profiling us is itself -together with the unintended consequences inherent in their operation- where my objection comes from, primarily. My opt-out isn’t just about opting out of Wiki Projects for which my recommended inclusion was a false positive but also about opting out from being included in your bot profiling project altogether. Maybe opting out of that means I’ll have to opt out of editing Wikipedia. Ultimately it is at the discretion of a human being how the information will be used as gathered by the bots but that brings us back to my original objection and questions. Are the people the current system facilitates truly the people who should be in charge of such decisions? It appears to me a self-propagating system. You’re sending new editors into the arms of the people who may be responsible for the departure of other -new- editors. Your project is probably designed to facilitate editor retention and article improvement. Have you taken into consideration that the people who leave might leave because of the editors who are staying and thus in effect run the place as they see fit? Do the Wiki Projects “work”, in actual practice, not as you imagine them to function, ideally? In practice, new editors are not rarely intimidated - inadvertently or deliberately- by editors who have been here for a long time. Does your project address that or does it perhaps exacerbate this problem - if it exists- by directing new editors to these projects and thereby to their established members? Was the influence of Wiki Projects on the quality of edits/articles -and on the editing experience- examined before it was decided that new editors should be made aware of such projects and encouraged to join them at the present time? How, if at all, was it established that Wiki Projects which sub divide the editor base are a net positive influence on the quality of the articles or the editing experience as they exist today? Ultimately you then leave the decision who will be approached up to the editors who may well be the problem identified. Are the contributors who stick around truly the people who should be editing the articles as the Wikipdia project ages but perhaps doesn't mature. The Village Pump too is populated by the familiar faces. If the problem as outlined exists, your proposal would not offer a solution. That's the perspective I'm asking you about because I can't figure out if you've looked at your recommendations from that perspective. The perspective that Wiki Projects are perhaps based on longevity and persistence of editors rather than on the quality of their participation. Quality - judged, to get back to the Catch 22 Appearance of the scenario, by these people themselves. Self-perpetuating in other words. Unless I'm mistaken. you aren't getting feedback from people who left Wikipedia - possibly because of the people who stayed in their stead. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC) By leaving the recommendation on the talk page of a Project but not informing the editor in person you are effectively placing the current members of such projects in charge of vetting who joins such projects. Wiki Projects are not "Their" projects. If this automated system you're devising indicates that a(n) (new) editor contributes to certain articles and subject matters and might therefore be interested in the subject area covered by a particular Wiki Project you should have the automated system notify the editor directly -as well- and not -just- leave the decision who should be approached -and thus can join- at the discretion of current Project members. If you are going to proceed with promoting and reinforcing the current system, you should put the ping back in and let people know that you've recommended them as prospective members of a wiki project. Inform individual editors of the existence of the projects but also explain what the projects are not. Don't give new editors the false impression that these have authority. Don't give the current members of those projects that misleading impression either. Also, notify all Wikipedia editors of the specific criteria with which you are instructing these automated profilers. What are the parameters you are setting to either include or exclude "certain" editors from being notified and invited to join the existing projects. How does the bot ascertain the "quality" of the edits? Remove the no ping and let people know what you are doing. Inform the individual editor(s) that this system flags them. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Lots of leaps in logic here. Let's see the research in which new users are better off without anyone showing interest in them. Unless you have some specific project in mind (I have one), WikiProjects aren't run as fiefdoms: They have no leaders (nor anyone purporting to be) and anyone can invite anyone freely to anything. Editors participating in the study participate of their own accord and not as gatekeepers. Any editor could have responded to the WikiProject talk page solicitation for participation. The point is to help editors be better community members, not to coldly spam invites by algorithm. And note that the suggestions were just that—you unfortunately received a ping from my page, but [edited, see below] I chose not to contact by my own discretion. So how were you harmed (or had potential for harm?) apart from receiving a ping and having your public edits mined for relevance? I have plenty of issues with WikiProjects (mainly their over-organization and emphasis on "joining", like clubs, rather than simply being topical noticeboards, their de facto purpose), but I fail to see how helping editors engage other editors, even with their detracting features, is something you feel the need to discourage at length. czar 05:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "not as gatekeepers" [...] "but I didn't contact you by my own discretion" I see a contradiction in those words.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC) or an obvious typo, but it still would not be a contradiction unless you think I keep the gate to WPVG (in which case, there's no way anyone at WPVG would agree) czar 06:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, @Verso.Sciolto:, and thank Czar for sharing your thought. Here is a question I am thinking about, and wonder what's your thought on it. So what's the difference between the following two scenarios? (1) an editor made on some edits that happened to catch attentions from an admin. Maybe they were great edits, or maybe they were terrible. The admin reviewed this editor's recent edits (without the consent or awareness of this editor) by seeing User contributions (a feature provided by Wikipedia and is very commonly used I believe), then went to this editor's talk page, and gave him/her a banstar for reward or posted a warning message. (2) a bot analyzed the most recent 500 edits of an editor by seeing User contributions, and "told" an admin that this editor made great/terrible edits. Maybe I am wrong, but I honestly cannot tell the difference between the two cases from the publicity perspective. So I don't really see any problem to build such a system that helps those admins/editors do this identification work. Bobo.03 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Don't approach this as though it applies to you and don't take it personally but see it as an abstract scenario. New Editors aren't sticking around. That's the impression. Does the present study's mandate confirm this? If so, Why is that? Why aren't certain people staying while others do? If the present Wiki Project members are -in part- responsible for the departure of other editors -including new potential contributors- i.e. what I'm questioning if, and if so how that was examined prior to launching into this recruitment project for the existing projects- then feed back from existing Wiki Projects would be all but meaningless for alleviating the concern I've expressed above. If the current members are behaving like gate keepers and have gathered their supporters around themselves ... etc Under the present experiment these Wiki Projects members are assumed to be -and approached as though they are- de facto leaders of such projects but they might well be the cause, not the solution of the present exodus and lack of inflow, if -as I assume- the current Wikipedia environment is not conductive to the influx and retention of editors. If one such project member approached under the stipulations of this study then says "(in which case, there's no way anyone at WPVG would agree)" it would illustrates precisely the issue of self-referential reinforcement and self^perpetuation of the issue and the current environment. An independent observer would need to assess that situation and may well conclude that a particualr project member was correct and that other members were accurate in confirming that their most active member indeed did quality work in both editing and welcoming/educating new Wikipedia contributors but my primary questions include: Did the present study start with such an independent assessment first? Or did it perhaps start from the premise that the present "leaders" of such Project would be the solution based on idealistic assumptions about the projects? If the indications which form the basis of current efforts are that the current system is not conductive then the current members would not be the right people to ask because they are the product of that existing and non-functioning system. Admins are likewise the products of that same feedback loop because the people who vote for them are going to come from the existing established pool of editors who may well thrive in the current system but and are not amenable to change. If Wikipedia as it exists today functions as desired then there is no reason for my concern and you can then disregard these comments but I suspect that isn't the case. So, I ask again. What is the foundation of your assumption that people at the Wiki Projects should be assigned the duty of vetting who they will or will not approach to join such projects. If a bot identifies potential new members and recommends such editors to a project then at a minimum the flagged individual editor must be also be informed as well and the wiki project members should not be the ones deciding -for the foreseeable future at least- whether or not such a flagged editor should be approached. At present it doesn't look the recommendation system started with an independent assessment however... Verso.Sciolto (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC) That's some selective quoting [if] you think I keep the gate to WPVG ... there's no way anyone at WPVG would agree As in WPVG has no gatekeepers and you're invited to ask WPVG (or observe) for yourself instead of casting unsubstantiated aspersions. I think I'd know, though, for having spent more time there. And I think you'd have the answers to your other questions if you had responded to the points Bobo and I actually raised. The sociological question of how established users socialize the newer users is not even remotely within the scope of the study, but it would have been more direct to have just asked Bobo what literature shows that WikiProjects acclimate users better than no contact at all. Any ambassador of Wikipedia, to new users or the external world, is self-appointed, so by the other side of the coin, all interest-based outreach is bound to reflect the interests of those who choose to participate. (unwatching now, {{ping}} if you need me) czar 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

ORES

Hi, I just came across your project and found it very interesting. I noticed that you're planning to welcome and recommend newcomers who made their first edit on an article that is tagged with a WikiProject banner. However, the welcoming and recommendation may not be very helpful and appropriate if the edit is vandalism, spam, or of very poor quality. I think you can use mw:ORES, an automated edit quality scoring system to determine if the contribution was good-faith or not, and the quality of the edit. Perhaps you could exclude newcomers whose edits which are likely to be vandalism or only include newcomers with good quality edits. Maybe you can incorporate this into other aspects of your project as well. I'm not sure how exactly you would program the technical end of this but I'm sure it's very possible. Hope you find this idea useful. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Darylgolden:! Thank you for pointing out this helpful resource. Yes, I am aware of this tool. Actually, the creator of ORES is also helping this project :) We have tried our best to filter those editors who are vandalism or blocked based on the current content on user page or user talk page, but there are still some technical challenge, for instance, the editor might archive previous discussion, or remove content. It will also be computationally expensive to look into the history records as well as evaluating the quality of editor's contributions, but we will figure out ways to improve it! Also, if you are interested in our study, please feel free to signup a project you are participating. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red recruiting

As you may have seen, both Megalibrarygirl and I have been sending out invitations. I must say I'm rather disappointed with the low level of response. Up to now only one editor has registered as a member of WiR. I think one of the problems is that those dealing with sports are very much involved in their own area of interest and don't see much benefit in being informed of the various activities of WiR. Of course, our invitation must have many more active editors aware of the existence of Women in Red. Anyway, I'll continue to monitor developments over the next few days and see if we have any other successes. I still have a few names lined up from your August list. Are you going to send us a new version so that I can tick them off? (cc Rosiestep).--Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be right, Ipigott. Sports is its own niche. I know there's a lot of jargon and such that I really don't understand (or care to understand). I did notice on the list I used that there were several individuals who were writing about historic women and politicians. I can invite them and see what the response is. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: - Thank you for sending out individual invitations. I think some people (e.g. me) don't like "joining" projects and/or adding their names to opt-in lists... at least not immediately. But they still do the "work". So recruiting efforts aren't in vain. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, many/most editors have pagestalkers so the invite is as much "project promotion" as an invitation to an individual editor.

Bobo.03 - I think we need to reach out to more editors and do it more efficiently. (a) I'm thinking that the lists you provide should include editors who created 2 or more articles (1 or more articles?) within the scope of WiR. Right now, it's 4, I think. (b) Also, instead of inviting each editor individually (that's a lot of clicking on our part), we should use the MassMessage tool (Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, and I all have the permissions to do this). I know your university project probably keeps track of the individual invite clicks but I'm hoping you can create a workaround so that a project of our size can be more efficient in recruiting efforts. Note, we have 11 other language Wikipedias who are also "Women in Red" and they want to be better at recruiting, so your efforts will gain a lot of international attention if we can get this recruitment method to really work for us. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Rosie, I don't think in this case mass-messaging will be of much help. Bobo's clever device picks out editors who are not members of WiR but who nevertheless have contributed to writing about women. The first time around (i.e. July) there is a long list but this should become shorter and shorter month by month. It's really just as easy to invite them individually as I have been doing in the past for our focused editathons. If the approach is not very successful on the English wiki, then I doubt whether it will work any better on the other language versions. In answer to Megalibrarygirl, I had pointed out quite early on that I thought the potential of this system would be revealed in inviting non-sports editors, thus the list I put together after Bobo's first August listing. I have now invited those from the revised July list and will go ahead and invite the others soon. One problem with Bobo's approach is that it includes many editors who are active only for one or two days in connection with a physical editathon. Unfortunately, in most cases they never return. I still think that the most effective use of this approach would be to combine the raw output with a more careful analysis of the work of each individual in recent weeks. If we could continue on that basis, I would be happy to help out. In any case, I'm glad that we have attracted at least one enthusiastic new member - Marquardtika.--Ipigott (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My thought here (and hope!) was that you don't burn out, Ipigott, doing the careful analysis. If you (and Megalibrarygirl etc.) are comfortable with this task, thank you; it is appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott: I don't mind doing it at all. I was hesitant to start, but now that I started, I feel more confident. I'd like to work on inviting the folks from the list I was using who are non-sportsy. I just don't want to duplicate any efforts. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Bobo.03: Certainly no question of burn out. This was far less demanding than the preparatory work I try to do every month for our focused editathons. I always try to invite suitable editors and am pleased to say that on average about four or five of them sign up as members of WiR or simply add their names to our participation lists. I think Bobo's system could help us down the road if it were used as an additional means of investigating potentially interested editors rather than as a direct means of inviting lots of people to join every month. I have a feeling most of those who were invited would rather not have had their talk pages interfered with. As a footnote, I'm pleased to see that Vejlenser has also become a member as a result of our invitations.--Ipigott (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott, and Rosiestep:, thank you for your efforts and work on inviting those editors! I am traveling abroad now, sorry for any late reply.

I want to echo some points here: 1. I think it’s fine if editors do not “join” right now. They now are aware of WiR, and will make contributions one way or another if you could. Let’s give it some time to see how the editors react.

2. The lists in the future would be shorter and shorter (I am not showing editors recommended before). I will try to add another column to show the infobox info (rather than the current mouseover) to save your time. Also, I believe we will generate the list in a less regular basis in future (maybe just a monthly list?), so I hope the workload will be reduced.

Two more points to discuss. 1. About the source of our editors. I remember in an earlier conversation, Rosiestep told me the main goal of WiR is to create articles. That’s the reason we decided to recruit editors who created articles on the monthly Metric page. I am not sure how those articles are identified and tagged on the page, but I think that decides the pool of editors we can choose from. If there is any other way you’d recommend to find creators of related WiR articles, I’d like to look into it. Otherwise, I’d hypothesize that those editors might be the most relevant ones to WiR (or maybe I am wrong). I think it would be also helpful if you could fill the survey questions while you are inviting those editors. That’s also a way I will evaluate the system.

2. I could send the recommendations for August soon, but just want to make sure if you’d like to do it now, or maybe wait for one or two weeks to digest/observe the editors you’ve invited?

3. I will also monitor the activity change of editors maybe after one or two week, to see if they would become more active in Wikipedia overall after being invited. This is part of our evaluation. Bobo.03 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobo, for all these suggestions. First of all though, I'm pleased to announce that Warofdreams has also joined as a result of the invitations - so that makes three new members as a result of your efforts. Interestingly both Marquardtika, a Texan, and Warofdreams, one of the earliest British Wikipedians, are interested in politics while Vejlenser, who is Danish, is keen to translate biographies from other languages. It looks as if all three could be useful participants.

Some of those invited might well respond over the next few days but I think it would be useful to have an updated version of the August list fairly soon as in the next few days we will be sending out invitations to all our members for October, giving them our editathon priorities for the month. It would be good to be able to include any who join up on our main mailing list. As I've already selected several names from the August list, I am ready to invite them without further delay. I might just go ahead and invite them today and tick them off on your August list later.

I think you should continue to use the Metrics lists as your main source. They are automatically updated to list women's biographies (mainly on the basis of appropriate categories) and I systematically scan through the Alexbot results for Women in Red once or twice a month in order to add all the other articles on women (works, organizations, sports, lists, etc.). You are quite right that WiR's top priority is to encourage editors to create more articles about women - so that should continue to be your focus. As for filling in the survey for each person invited, unfortunately I think this would take far too long and would not add much to my general impression that the majority of those in the sports sphere are not really interested in joining WiR although they continue to write short biographies and articles about women in the sports they cover. Those most likely to join are those working in other areas, especially if their interests coincide with our priorities for the month. Nevertheless, to keep you happy I'll fill in the survey for a few of those I invited. ((cc. Rosiestep Megalibrarygirl Victuallers --Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I'd say getting 3 participants is big. Recruiting editors is tough. Wikipedians are like cats: difficult to herd. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I agree with @Megalibrarygirl: in that getting 3 new members is big.

I think we should expand the August recruitment list to include editors who have contributed 1 or 2 articles, assuming these editors are not contributing sports figures. During the 65 interviews I conducted this year for the Wikimedia Gender Diversity Mapping project, the topic of Imposter Syndrome came up, and the need to be encouraging with women editors who think they aren't as skilled/welcome as male editors. Our invitation might be just the thing that someone who has written 1-2 women's biographies might need to become more active in general and/or to become a WiR member and/or WiR participant. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl Rosiestep : Three additional members is not bad over a couple of days but if you look at the stats over the last year or so it's not all that great. The edits to our mass-messaging list show that last year we had 5 more in June, 1 in July, 16 in August, 9 in September, 9 in October, 8 in November and 6 in December. This year we have had 1 in January, 5 in February, 9 in March, 9 in April, 3 in May, 4 in June, 11 in July, 7 in August 2017 and up to now 4 in September (excluding the three from Bobo's lists). In fact we have had even more on the members list but I did not add those who were encouraged to register during physical editathons but did not edit after the end of their introductory sessions. That works out at an average of over nine new members a month in 2016 and about six new members a month in 2017. I think this has mainly been a result of the focus we have given to our editathons and the trouble we have taken to attract new participants by sending invitations to the corresponding WikiProjects and to editors active in the areas we have chosen to cover. (I have tried to do this every month.) Unless we get a surge of new interest from those identified by Bobo, I still think this is the best way to attract new participants. To complete these statistics, we now have 172 on our mass-mailing list and 130 on our membership list. The difference is explained partly by the fact that members names are removed from the list if they have not been active for three months or more. In addition, I know we have many additional editors who have registered as participants for our editathons but have chosen not to register elsewhere. I hope all this provides some overall perspective. (cc Bobo.03)--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

On rereading my last message, I see that Bobo might find it rather disconcerting. That was not my intention. I think Bobo's system is interesting in that it reveals the names of editors whom we might not have identified otherwise. If we can continue month by month with Bobo's lists, I think we should be able to personalize invitations to those who look like potential participants. The lists are also useful in identifying areas of interest which we might not have emphasized sufficiently in the priorities for our editathons. So keep up the good work Bobo!--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Bobo's lists provide the names of editors who have created two or more articles. In his initial list for July, he gave the names of 161 editors but did not include 411 editors who created only one article. As someone who frequently reviews new articles, I do not think it would be constructive to go through all of the one-article creators as many of their creations are certainly extremely weak, in many cases attempts at self-promotion. In any case, it took me quite some time to look through the list of 161. The only suggestion I have in this connection is that perhaps Bobo could "store" the names of the editors who create just one article in a given month and examine whether they subsequently create another article in a later month. That might provide a sensible approach for inviting them to join WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I think it's a fair compromise to look at the lists over a larger period -perhaps a quarter vs. a month- so if an editor creates 3 articles/quarter (Jul/Aug/Sep) vs. 1 article/month, we could invite them. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting but I don't know if Bobo's system can be adapted to come up with candidates along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a follow up with editors who decide not to join Wiki Projects in the wake of recruitments? To establish the reasons why such editors decide not to join (and/or stop editing)? If Wikipedia editors are indeed like cats should the Wikipedia editing environment and Wikipedia recruitment efforts perhaps be adjusted to accommodate its cat-like editors? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Verso.Scioltoa, Sorry for my delayed response. I am thinking to create a template that you can use to put on your user talk page to indicate that you are not interested in any recruitment. Do you think it would work? Thank you. Bobo.03 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to report CAWylie, an experienced editor, has become a member too. That makes four.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated WiR recruitment invitation

Here's the latest version which includes October activities:

Extended content

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive messages about our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. If you would prefer to not receive additional notices of our monthly activities, you can let us know on our opt-out list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.1% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for September: Hispanic and Latina women Women in the Olympics Women from New Zealand Coming up in October: Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries Continuing from month to month: #1day1woman Global Initiative (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I have updated it in the system, and will use the new one for the next batch of recommendations! Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject page copy

You created WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/August 2017 when Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/August 2017 already exists and is where it belongs. I've submitted the one you created for WP:G6 deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo, Thank you for your monitoring! I forget the page already exist. No contest. Bobo.03 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Milhist batch 2

G'day Bobo.03, have been through the latest batch. Mixed bag, some too new, several really good ones. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Peacemaker67: Thank you! The study is still on. Just wonder what's your opinion if your project or some members in the project would receive such a recommendation list every month? Bobo.03 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would. Our coordinator election is on at the moment, and once that's finalised, I'll promote it with the new tranche. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

WPVG editor recommendation

Hi Czar, Thank you for your help on our study! It's been two batches of recommendations. I have read each of your feedback carefully, and tried to make improvements (some of detailed information, such the type of edits, is hard to identify). I wonder what's your overall thoughts about this recommendation system, and how's your interactions with those editors so far? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Czar

 – to centralize discussion

I think the tool is useful for surfacing work relevant to the topic area by users who don't regularly frequent the WikiProject's talk page. I don't have a metric for success—you'd have better data for that—and I haven't personally seen the users participate on the project's talk page or respond on my talk page, but as you said above, I think it's fine to just let editors know where they can go if they need help, similar to the existing welcome messages other editors like to send. @Thibbs's talk page had a lot of activity after the first batch—I don't know whether one editor's post created momentum, or if Thibbs's message was worded more effective than mine. I can see myself sending welcomes on a regular basis, hoping that the goodwill might stick, and I'd be particularly interested to see whether they can drive more participation on the lower-activity projects I listed in the template above. I've never heard of such campaigns actually reviving a project (reviving a talk page would require a handful of active editors), but I'm willing to try. For next steps, besides the "type of edits" feedback I already gave (read: distinguish editor styles, such as infobox editors vs. depth/breadth content expanders), your work could become a social tool that surfaces projects other editors have been making in seclusion. For instance, I might be working on a draft in my userspace or going through a cleanup queue (fixing {{cn}} inline tags in all articles in a topic, for instance), and others might want to join in or ask questions if they only had the bird's eye view of my recent history. (And that's not so far off from "wikifriends") czar 04:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Czar: Yeh, helping the project identify potential interested editors who are not aware of / hesitant to approach the project is our main goal. It's a bit unfortunate that not many direct responses from those editors yet, but yes, I am in the process of collecting and analyzing editors' consequent activities. I will let you know once I have some findings. Thank you for your great suggestions for the next step! I definitely keep them in mind. They would be our future work. In the meanwhile, I wonder if you could contribute a post maybe to Wikipedia Signpost to help promote our work a bit if there is any chance? We think it's a very helpful way to draw attention from the communities. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Signpost, are you looking for more participants? More feedback? Or just raising awareness with something like a short notice? czar 15:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Czar, One is for more participants, and two is to let the community know that this project is having some positive impacts. Do you think it will be helpful? Bobo.03 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to positive impacts (at least yet!) besides it being easier to surface relevant users, but if you were to prepare a little blurb on the project, its goals, and a call for participants, I can edit and help find a place for it in the Signpost czar 16:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Czar Yeh, after I made the previous post, I realized that it might be too early to say its positive impacts, especially from your perspective (sorry about non-response again..) Maybe I will produce some results first, so you could be more confident in editing something to support our project:) Bobo.03 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Czar: I have done some preliminary analysis on the impact of recruitment on editors in our first batch. The results are very promising! I compare the number of edits those editors made before the recruitment in two weeks and the edits after the recruitment in two weeks, and find that their edits increased by 73% on articles within the project on average, while the number of edits of editors who were in the control group (editors who were also recommended by our system, but were not shown to any organizer nor recruited) decreased by 42%. Currently, we only have about 40 editors who were invited, so it would be very helpful if you can help us publicize our study to have more data points. Here is the writeup that I wrote before. Do you think it would help you contribute a post on Signpost? If you'd need more detailed data or description, please let me know. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good—I have some other questions too but let's see how its longevity works. If you put together a recruitment blurb from the study proposal, I can help fit it into the Signpost. I see two options: (1) a short blurb that we fit into the Signpost's Research or WikiProject sections, explaining the study's purpose and how to participate, or (2) an op-ed (read: lit review) on the role of WikiProjects in editor retention, and a plug for the study at the beginning and the end, but you would need to write either. I probably have an op-ed in me on the role of WikiProjects but it might not be suited to mention the study/recruitment in it, and in any event, I likely won't find time to write it for a while. czar 01:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated WiR recruitment invitation for October

Subject: Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for October: Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries Continuing from month to month: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bobo.03/signup post draft

A tag has been placed on Bobo.03/signup post draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Non encyclopedic content in mainspace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ammarpad (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ammarpad, The page I created is under my own user page space. Could you please revoke the deletion? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was missing "User:" but resolved now czar 21:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Czar, Yeh, I just noticed that.. Thanks for your help! That's the post I drafted for Signpost. Please feel free to add a quote on it for support. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you created it on mainspace not userspace. But it has now been moved to your user space by Czar. You can find it here now. You should know that userspace content always start with prefix "User:" Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Signpost article Reply

Hi Bobo.03! I'm ready to help write up the signpost article. I needed to get through my RfA first, because I knew that would be distracting. How do you want to go forward? I can either edit the information you do have or write something up from sources or we can collaborate more closely. I'm very flexible about the process. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Megalibrarygirl: thank you for your message! Yes, I was also thinking to send you a message to put this on agenda :) I am honestly not sure about the process. Two questions I have. (1) What's the difference between a signpost article and a WikiProject report? (2) If we need to make it as a WikiProject report. What else we need to do based on the draft I have? (3) You mentioned to do interviews. Is that a usual piece in a report? (I have no objection to this) I think our main purpose of this post is to publicize our study, draw more attention from the community, and hopefully attract more projects to signup to use our system. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I've actually only ever done WikiProject reports, but they always include information about the WikiProjects and interviews of members in the projects. I imagine that if we go this route, we can interview the folks on each WP that are working with you and get some quotes about how your work is aiding the project. I know that we've gotten a lot of people involved at WiR with your project. I think we can use the information you have drafted and incorporate it into the final article, too. I usually email people to as questions about their WikiProjects or post on their talk pages. I imagine you have contacts at each WP, so we can start with those. For WiR, for example, we can try to interview Ipigott if he's amenable to that. :) The WP report in this case will be slanted to describe a new technique to aid WikiProjects. If you'd like to round up some contacts, we can work up some questions to ask them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I see. So I guess I will provide a list of participants from each WikiProject who might be able to participate the interview, and a set of interview questions, right? How many questions / How long the interviews in general would be? How should I participate in the interviews? Do we just record the interview, and pick some quotes from it, or do we have to analyze the interview results in a systematical way for the post writing? Bobo.03 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I usually use the same questions about 4 or 5 that would help me get some insight into the WikiProject. In this case, we could ask questions such as: 1) How easy was it to use the new tools? 2) How has the project helped your WikiProject? Have you recruited new members? 3) Have you received any feedback from new members or even from established members about the project? 4) What kinds of features would you like to see? ... etc. I'm sure you can think of a few, too, but those are the kinds of questions I'd ask for a WikiProject interview. I find it easiest to email willing participants and have them write answers to the questions since I'm not great at transcribing audio. As I'm going through the answers, I use them to get a general sense of things and pull quotes as appropriate. We can brainstorm some questions first and then when we have all of the answers we can figure out where to go from there. Of course we will incorporate your original information from your draft, too. I'm sorry this got a bit wordy! Feel free to email, me, too, if that's easier. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Email sent! Bobo.03 (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I'll get into my email later this morning. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Megalibrarygirl: Not sure if you have a chance to look at my email that contains the interview questions. Let me know what you think, and we should be good to go!:) Will you send them out, or will I do it? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Bobo.03. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Women in Red October metrics

Hi Bobo. The list has now been fully updated for October. You can run your application whenever you wish. Please ping me when it is accessible and I'll handle the new invitations.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Signpost article about getting new contributors

I found the article and the tool really interesting. Please tell us if this tool is to be made avalaible in other languages in the future. --Nattes à chat (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nattes à chat:, thank you for your interest! For sure, we will consider to expand it to other languages if our system show success in helping on WikiProjects and Wikipedia newbies. Also, which language are you thinking about, and if there is WikiProject structure in that language version? Bobo.03 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Probbaly French Wikipedia. And yes, there is kind of similar system of Wikiprojects (from technical POV). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Thank you for letting me know! I will look into it, and see if I can make it happen in the future. Bobo.03 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Nice work on the recruiting bot. There is a small typo in the output in the Signpost article, ‘... and you project member ...’, should be ‘your’. I wasn’t sure if this is a bot bug, or just an editorial error. Stephen 23:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen: Thank you for helping catch the typo. Fixed now! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject bot

I'm not the one who started the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject, but I'm trying to revive it. Would I be able to use your wikiproject recruitment tool? Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @Antrogh:, of course! You are very welcome to sign up! Please put your name and the project name in the table up in the welcome to our study section. We will send out recommendations in January. Will keep you updated. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WiR recruitment for January

Here's the invitation you can use for January:

Subject: Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.34% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for January: Prisoners Fashion designers Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: Got it, thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you, Bobo.03 and Ipigott, for being on top of WiR's recruitment campaign. It's working! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Bobo. I think you can now go ahead with the analysis for December. All the best for 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott:, happy new year! Yes! It's on my today's todo list:) The list is here. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite a long list. I'll start working on the invitations today.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you for your hard work! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And for February

Subject: Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.40% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for February: Black women Mathematicians and statisticians Geofocus: Island women #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Rosiestep also wondered whether you could use your routines to provide us separately with a full list of all the editors who create WiR articles each month. This would help up to monitor participation more closely for our statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Ipigott, I don't know any easy way of doing that. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, @Rosiestep: Thanks for sending me the template! I think we are using the metrics now, is this the full list you mentioned? For now, I just have a cut off to filter editors who created less than two articles. Do you want to have a separated full list of editors names based on the metrics page? Bobo.03 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes please, if you could give us that it would be very useful. There's no rush, though. Just take your time.--Ipigott (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Sure, I think I should be able to do it. How do you want to see the list? A similar table but includes all the editors? Bobo.03 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's easy to do, it would be fine. Otherwise I think what we need most are simply the names of the editors and the number of articles created. We can find the rest from other sources.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Ok, that should be not bad. I will create a separated page that has the full list then. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's very kind of you. You could perhaps provide the normal results on new potential WiR participants before you work on the other list.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Ipigott: The list for Jan is ready! I will work on the full list later. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start working on it as soon as I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey on rebuilding the WikiProject lists

Thanks for your encouraging efforts in improving the abandoned, ignored WikiProjects by conducting surveys to rebuild these assessments. I hope even you can also contribute to these WikiProjects if you have leisure time to create most wanted articles. I noticed you have used a different approach to attract newcomers to the WikiProjects. Thanks in advance. Happy editing. Abishe (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Abishe: Thank you for your encouragement! Yes, I hope to create tools to help projects survive, especially those small projects - we will see how it goes. At the same time, please help fill the short survey for our recommendations if you have a chance - whether it's a good or a bad fit. That would be the best support for us:) - I will improve our tool based on those inputs. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on bot results, and some questions...

Dear Bobo,

Good first effort. The bot has much potential. I hope you are dedicated to improving its performance. Such a tool could be useful indeed.

Currently, its performance is weak. The bot, amongst its results, presented editors who had 1 edit in common with the WikiProjects. The highest overall Wikipedia activity of any of the editors was 391 edits in 13 years (about 30 per year). I don't feel that posting invites to them would be worth the time spent doing so.

By comparison, the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits is more useful.

There are 2 things I would like to know about the editors on that list:

Which of the editors listed there have edited Wikipedia more than 500 times in the past month.

And for each of those, I'd like to see the activity on the articles within the scope of the 2 projects your bot reported on my talk page, but even more so for Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries.

Can your bot be developed to provide such figures?

In addition to the above, I would like to see a ranked list of all the editors on Wikipedia who contributed to articles for which their talk pages sport the {{WikiProject JavaScript}} tag, along with the total of each of these editor's contributions to that collection of articles.

Can your bot be tweaked to do this?

Turning the bot's eye upon the rest of the Web to recruit from the community-at-large would also be interesting to me. Can the bot be modified to find users out there on the WWW who show an interest in these subjects? Especially JavaScript programmers. And provide urls to forums where they can be contacted, or better yet, their email addresses?

And one last question...

What language is the tool written in, and what is the link to its source code?    The Transhumanist 08:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: please {{ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT

Hi @The Transhumanist: Thank you for your great comments! I'd like to discuss with more about it if you'd like to!

• About our targeted users. Actually, our goal is to target those relative new editors in Wikipedia who might not know much about WikiProjects and who might still look for other editors to work with - we think sending invitations to them would be more helpful in engaging them (they are larger populations and might need more help). For those very experienced ones, like the editors who have edited Wikipedia more than 500 times in the past month as you mentioned. We think they should have known WikiProjects, and have developed their own ways of editing in Wikipedia. Not sure if they would feel interested when seeing an invitation. What do you think?

• We haven't started to focus on WikiProject Outlines, Indexes, etc, yet, whose purpose is to help "editor collaboration" in Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, we are working on topical projects for now. They are different in nature somehow. But we will definitely think about ways to help those collaboration projects in future.

• Yes, our tool identified editors not only based on their edits on articles that are tagged by projects, but also other algorithms. For the ones on the list, they might be the ones who have the most edits on project articles already except project members.. So what do you think? Do you have any suggestion?

• It's a very interesting idea to look at editors outside Wikipedia communities, but more challenging technically as well. I'd like to think more about it. In the meantime, if you have any concrete suggestion, feel free to let me know! The code is written in python. I haven't published the source code anywhere yet unfortunately..

• Also, it would be great if you have a chance to fill the survey question for our recommendations as the best support for us - whether it's a good fit or not. We will improve our tool based on those inputs. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As the discussion has become multi-threaded, I've broken it up into subthreads. Feel free to answer after each signature...

About our targeted users. Actually, our goal is to target those relative new editors in Wikipedia who might not know much about WikiProjects and who might still look for other editors to work with - we think sending invitations to them would be more helpful in engaging them (they are larger populations and might need more help). For those very experienced ones, like the editors who have edited Wikipedia more than 500 times in the past month as you mentioned. We think they should have known WikiProjects, and have developed their own ways of editing in Wikipedia. Not sure if they would feel interested when seeing an invitation. What do you think?

Please post an invitation, so I can see what it looks like.

I wasn't thinking in terms of invitations to seasoned editors, but of more specific communications. Finding out what the seasoned editors are working on, or which ones are working on certain things are those whom I would like to initiate discussions with. My communications with them would be in the form of heads ups notifications (like of new tools they might find useful), questions, and requests. Finding people to simply add their names to a participants list is unhelpful.

Which algorithms from the field are you using?

Come to think of it, finding new users who are editing more than 100 edits per month would be useful. They are actually getting involved in a big way. Can your software find them?    The Transhumanist 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi @The Transhumanist: Thank you for your interest in the details of our tool. I am replying each thread inline with my signature. Here is the meta writeup about our project. Believe you will find more information you want to know - about our motivation, algorithms used, collaborators, etc! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We haven't started to focus on WikiProject Outlines, Indexes, etc, yet, whose purpose is to help "editor collaboration" in Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, we are working on topical projects for now. They are different in nature somehow. But we will definitely think about ways to help those collaboration projects in future.

The Outlines, Indexes, and Glossaries WikiProjects are topical, it is just that their topic, "knowledge", is not included in their titles. They could each be called "WikiProject Knowledge". Knowledge is the broadest topic of them all. Being focused on knowledge means that their topical scope overlaps with and is shared by all other topical WikiProjects.

The main difference from other topical WikiProjects is the format of the articles they work on. In addition to being topical, these WikiProjects are all focused on lists. Wikipedia articles have 2 formats: prose format, and list format. Some articles are in all prose, some are mixed (having prose and lists), and some are stand-alone lists. These 3 WikiProjects are all focused an a particular type of stand-alone list. The format of the articles they work on shouldn't affect your treatment of these WikiProjects in any way.

Their purpose is not editor collaboration, any more than any other WikiProject. They have two purposes: 1) working on articles that provide overviews of subjects (which is what regular articles do, but lists do it in a more structured way). 2) List articles also serve as navigation structures.

Anyone who has worked on any topic (because all topics belong to knowledge), are within their scope. So, to find people for them, perhaps you could set the scope to all articles.

Besides looking at contributions for tagged articles, how does the software find people for a specific WikiProject?    The Transhumanist 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just updated our dataset, and retrieved articles tagged by WikiProjects Outlines, Indexes, and Glossaries from the Wikimedia mirror database. So it should be able to make recommendations for those projects next time! It identifies the tagged articles for a project, and then looks at the editors who contributed to those articles as potential candidates. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, our tool identified editors not only based on their edits on articles that are tagged by projects, but also other algorithms. For the ones on the list, they might be the ones who have the most edits on project articles already except project members.. So what do you think? Do you have any suggestion?

You said "our tool". Who wrote it?

Of the 5 editors recommended for the JavaScript Project, two of them were listed twice. They were each identified as a newcomer and an experienced editor, even though they had 28 and 35 edits to Wikipedia, respectively. It takes more than 35 edits to be an experienced editor.

The list WikiProjects (Outlines, Indexes, Glossaries) also have tagged articles. Therefore, finding people for them should work just like any other WikiProject. Have you tried your software on them? Please do.

So, for JavaScript, the software recommended 3 editors (not counting duplicates). When I send out invites, it is usually to hundreds of editors, and perhaps 2 or 3 join up. What chance is there of anyone joining from a list of 3? I would have more confidence in the system if it recommended 100 editors, which would increase the odds of successful recruits.

To be able to make further suggestions, I would need to know more about the algorithms. How many are there? What do they do? What parameters are they given? Is there a users manual for this software?    The Transhumanist 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Very sorry about the duplicated recommendations for project JavaScript.. I've fixed the bug in the code.
• I think a problem with recommending 100 editors might be that not all project organizers would have the time and energy to go through such a long list, and it's not even sure there would be so many relevant candidates. Therefore, we want to concentrate on the "best ones" for the project. I would send another batch of recommendations in a week or two. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a very interesting idea to look at editors outside Wikipedia communities, but more challenging technically as well. I'd like to think more about it. In the meantime, if you have any concrete suggestion, feel free to let me know! The code is written in python. I haven't published the source code anywhere yet unfortunately..

What is the name of your machine learning program? When and where will you publish? Is the program open source? What license is it created under?    The Transhumanist 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if you have a chance to fill the survey question for our recommendations as the best support for us - whether it's a good fit or not. We will improve our tool based on those inputs. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Who is "us"? And what did you mean by "inputs"? Are the survey answers input data for the program? What training dataset did you use?    The Transhumanist 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• The survey answers for now are not yet the training data for the program, and it will be soon as new algorithms are being developed. Right now, those survey feedback is the main source for us to collect feedback and know which algorithms work or not. Hope it makes sense to you. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A little more feedback...

A little more feedback: I also had a few editors with only 1 edit in common, but I particularly noticed that 2 editors had all their edits reverted. It might be worth getting the software to disregard any edits that are no longer in the article — or at least those that did not remain in the article for some period of time. Of the 8 editors you recommended me, I've invited 3, declined 3 and I'm still thinking about the other 2. Thank you! Let's see if that breathes some more life into the project :) — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @OwenBlacker: Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, I will probably not list editors with only 1 common edit next time, and also add back the revert detection feature in the tool. I will also monitor the activities of those new editors as well! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Preload parameters

I was possibly going to use the suggested invite text this time around to see if it would fare better than the custom text I used last time. Many of the parameters that currently must be manually filled can be automated, however, especially if you're generating the invite URLs in your bot. For more, see mw:Manual:Creating pages with preloaded text#Using parameters. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Can also preload the talk page message's subject line too (for example) czar 23:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Thank you for pointing me to these resources! I will incorporate them in the template next time. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on round two

• Some users listed as "experienced editors" had less than 50 edits (not quite there yet)
• "edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits" doesn't appear to be a good qualifier. (Better to not show anything for this category of recommendation than to suggest connections where none exist.)

czar 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Sorry about the "experienced editors" part. That's a bug in the code - it has been fixed. I will add filters for one-article-edit editors. They look indeed a bit awkward. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Same user suggested twice in same set (Tiago Dias, Marcs Wiki, Hawler05, Lean Anael)
• When suggesting experienced editors, might be more useful to consider whether they have any topic interests at all before suggesting them for having edited a single article. For instance, Mikewhitcombe doesn't appear to show strong topic affiliation, so I wouldn't recommend for any project. But Wadaad, in contrast, clearly shows multiple article topics related to Africa edited recently. Williamsdoritios is another example of editing broadly rather than within a topic (so wouldn't use for recommendations in a specific topic—happenstance that two of those recent articles overlapped with another user's edit history)
• The spaces in {{noping2 | Wadaad}} add an underscore to the "Contribs" URL, so recommend removing them
• Another weird case are users who have exclusively edited a single article. I don't know whether they're even interested in editing other articles nevertheless within the same topic. I've found that most single article editors at AfD are only here for promotional interest, but does that mean they're not worth the invite? A provocation for research perhaps
• "edited 2 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits" (might exclude these less-than-four counts too, but even better would be listing the articles they edited in common with links to their respective page histories or some other view that shows them interacting)
• For that last one, could also privilege editors who engage in talk page discussions with editors active within the topic area
• Done with all four—appeared to work best with Kurdistan, actually, and worst with visual arts and especially with books. (It's fitting, though, that the most focused topic areas get the most focused recs. I'd presume that the WikiProjects with larger scopes function less as communities, hence why they haven't retained much of an editor base on their talk pages.) In the case of visual arts and books, the vast majority of recs were rated "not a good fit"—might be better off lowering the tolerance in those instances (better to not recommend any than to spend time sorting through irrelevant recs). On that note, would it be possible to get recs for the anarchism project? Hoping it's a good fit for the tool

czar 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I've fixed couple bugs and suggested issues - duplicated recommendations, single (less-than-four) edit recommendations, template parameters, etc. It should look better next time.

Anarchism is a sub-project of Philosophy? Looks like there are quite some related articles. I will try to make it work next time!

The case about editors intensively edited on a single article is interesting! I will try to get rid of them. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "37 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project." When an editor has less than 500 edits, "of their first 37 edits" or "of 37 total edits" would be more helpful and accurate. I'd prefer this qualitative, actually: "Almost all of this new user's edits are within your project's scope." czar 16:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Good catch. 500 might not be accurate - depending on the actual number of edits editors really made. I will fix it next time! Hum, I wonder if qualitative might be a bit vague? Numbers might give people more direct sense? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Almost all" would capture the sentiment quite well when that phrase is accurate. Alternatively, "most" or "a few", depending on the strength of the overlap czar 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please revive this page...

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits.

Updated monthly, would be incredibly useful.

As a table, by namespace, would be even more useful.

Sincerely,    The Transhumanist 07:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Thank you for sharing! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is producing such a list something you can do?    The Transhumanist 17:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: It's not in the code yet. Sorry. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean you, as a programmer. Is that something you could whip up a solution for?    The Transhumanist 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: It should not be too hard. Here is the link to the Quarry where you can make SQL requests to the mirror Wikimedia database for the data you need if you want to try it out. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a fish out of water there. Not familiar with SQL. Was hoping you would know what to do.    The Transhumanist 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sending invites on behalf of projects

I don't think this is a good idea. Wikipedians are very opinionated on automated messaging and many see it as an annoyance (or worse, a privacy invasion). For instance, recall the editor who was pinged in the original notifications related to this project on my talk page. We prefer opt-in notifications, and any automated messaging is subject to lots of advance discussion. This effort has worked around that caveat so far because the tool provides suggestions for individuals such as myself and I only message others at my discretion, as if I would message any other individual. Additionally, in terms of the experiment, you'll likely receive even fewer results from automated, non-personalized messages, if the action doesn't also create larger IRB consent issues. There is also the matter of whether invites would be more indiscriminate if automated (I didn't send many of my recent first round recommendations) and whether editors would be invited to projects without having the backing of other editors to support them. In any event, I'll get around to my most recent second round requests when I have a moment, but wanted to drop a line on this based on the WikiProject talk page messages. czar 22:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Got it. The message would be sent by my account, not a bot account to be clear. Yeah, I definitely see your point, and am also concerned about it. I've asked other participants of me sending invitations, and received mixed responses so far.. The problem is many editors who signed up to receive recommendations do not respond to my message.. As part of a research project, I also want to see the impact of receiving invitations of those editors. I understand you have a long TODO list. Thanks for your efforts! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Recruiting for contest?

Hello! I'm trying to organize a contest similar to the Women in Red contest in November. First, however, I want to poll interest. Is there a way you could generate a list of users who might want to participate in a contest involving the Northeastern United States? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891, thanks for reaching out to me. Could you please let me know a bit more about the contes, like the goal and the background of it? Bobo.03 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure! It's a contest, with the same goal that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest had, and many of the same rules, just focussing on all content from the Northeastern United Sates. Dr. Blofeld got me started, and I really want to carry on his memory. Ser Amantio di Nicolao may help out, especially with applying for grants and dishing out prizes, as I 'Dramatic Sigh' cannot deal with the financial aspect. WOE IS ME! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I see. I didn't really follow the contest held by WiR. So what kind of help would you expect from me? I don't really know what I can do if I'd be able to help. Bobo.03 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering if you could generate a list (like the one used for recommending users to WikiProjects) of users who might want to participate in the contest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Do you have anything in mind about what to look at to generate the list? WiR provide me a list of articles every month, and request me to identify those article creators. Do you have anything similar in mind? Bobo.03 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps things like frequent editors (especially creators) in the categories like this category, This , and this; participants in Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge/Northeast etc. There is no rush at all, so take your time. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation on behalf of WikiProject India

Hi, I generally collaborate a lot with Krishna, I had a talk with Krishna, and I feel that involving new members in the project. You may use: {{WikiProject India invitation}}. Feel free to ask questions. --Titodutta (contact) 08:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Thank you for letting me know! I will use the new template for your project. In the meanwhile, please feel free to invite those new members that I sent on Krishna's page (and fill the short survey to let me know how do you think about those recommendations)! Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• This can be done easily using Special:MassMessage or umm, perhaps WP:AWB. However manually posting invitations is always a good idea. Could you tell me a little more about the survey? --Titodutta (contact) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Absolutely! If you have a chance to look at the table I sent to Krishna. You can see a short description about each recommended editor. There is an invite button where you can click which directs you to write a message on that editor's talk page, and survey on the side just ask you if you think the editor is a good recommendation. Does it make sense to you? Yeh, I agree that sending personalized message is always a good idea for new members! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. Let's start with manual invitations. It would be great to see new editors working on the project. --Titodutta (contact) 15:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Absolutely, that's the goal of our tool - to help invite more new members for the project! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Objection, and suggested solution

At WT:HEALTH, you wrote:

Hi, I haven’t heard anything back from any member in the project yet. But based on the feedback from other projects, it seems to be a welcomed idea. If I don’t hear any objection, I’d help send a small number of invitations to selective editors with care. Bobo.03 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's because there aren't any active members. Therefore...

I object. The project is inactive, which means there will be no one there to greet them, or to get them up to speed. It seems awkward that they'll be being invited by nobody whom they could talk to. The context of your message would be off. I wouldn't object to the sending of a request to those people to revive an inactive WikiProject. Then the context would fit the situation.     — The Transhumanist   17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Got it. Yeah, it makes sense to me. Sorry about the current status of the project. Thanks for letting me know. If you know a list, or people whom I can send messages to revive the project, please feel free to let me know. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is, reword your invitation to an invitation to revive the project. "Greetings, here is a project that needs attention. Perhaps you could breath new life into it." Or something like that.     — The Transhumanist    01:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WiR invitation

Hi Bobo. Here's the invitation for the next round. You can go ahead whenever you wish. I'm afraid to say the response in February was not too good but WiR did get over 20 new members during the month, apparently from other sources. Nevertheless, I think posting these invitations on all the pages of the contributors you identify may well encourage others to join. So lets keep it up and see how it goes this time.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject: Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.48% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for March: Women's History Month (This event is a collaboration with two other wiki organizations: our article campaign supports Art+Feiminism, while our image campaign supports Whose Knowledge?) #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

Fish

Uh thanks. Not sure if I'm doing this right. But yea, aquarium fish filters are my interest. Krilloilbob (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Krilloilbob

@Krilloilbob: Yeah, you are doing it right! Don't forget to ping the user you want to talk to when you leave a message, and leave four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message as your signature. Here is the link to the project page of Aquarium Fish. You can take a look at what's going on there, and leave a message on the talk page. Let me know if you have any question! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you forgotten WiR?

Hi Bobo. I've noticed you've been very active over the past few days but as far as I know you have not yet created a February list for us and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/February 2018 is still a red link.--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi @Ipigott: Sorry I have been very busy recently. Need to fix some stuff in the code to create the new list which takes a bit extra time. How WiR can be forgotten?:) Now, the list is ready! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. From your user contributions, it looks as if you have been busy sending out lots of other invitations. Are you getting good response?--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I definitely received some responses from the editors, not too much though. I still have to keep monitoring a bit. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Hampshire

Hi, I received an invitation from you to join this project following edits I'd apparently made relating to it. I'm really not sure what those edits are, and I can't find the project page you refer to, so I can't really help, sorry! Neilinabbey (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Neilinabbey: Thank you for reaching out! Here is the project page. Feel free to get in touch with Waggers who is a project member if you need any help about the project. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:HANTS suggested editors

Hi Bobo.03,

Sorry it's taken me so long to review your suggested editors to invite to WikiProject Hampshire, and thank you so much for doing this. I've now been through the list and invited a few, and made a few comments on some of the others. Here's the list with my comments:

Extended content

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Editor Status Invite Survey Comment from Waggers Mjay0817 (talk · contribs) Mjay0817's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category People and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-9-1 18 Newcomer invite survey A few minor edits to Hants articles. Invited. Camcool11 (talk · contribs) Camcool11's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Arts and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2014-2-9 31 Newcomer invite survey I don't see any edits to Hampshire articles in their recent contributions Forestperson (talk · contribs) Forestperson made 8 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2015-2-25 18 Newcomer invite survey Several edits to one article within our remit. Invited. Acpvynwinch (talk · contribs) Acpvynwinch made 9 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2018-1-14 15 Newcomer invite survey Several edits to one article within our remit. Invited. McFlurry12 (talk · contribs) McFlurry12 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, McFlurry12 and your project member PanthWiki (talk · contribs) edited 5 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2017-11-9 116 Experienced Editor invite survey Editing history indicates a more general interest in politics and politicians, nothing specific to Hampshire. I wouldn't invite, but User:Bobo.03 has done so. Theitkid (talk · contribs) Theitkid made 57 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2014-11-21 150 Experienced Editor invite survey Recent edits indicate strong interest in Portsmouth related articles - definitely worth inviting. Craigw87 (talk · contribs) Craigw87 made 8 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2012-10-13 235 Experienced Editor invite survey Recent edits indicate a more general interest in football, and specifically Wealdstone FC, not Hampshire articles. Not invited. Ralfa73 (talk · contribs) Ralfa73's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2013-1-30 106 Experienced Editor invite survey Seems to have a general interest in airlines and aviation; no real indication of an interest in Hampshire. Not invited. Greenatious (talk · contribs) Greenatious's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Technology, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2017-1-11 113 Experienced Editor invite survey Quite a few recent edits to Southampton related articles. Invite sent.

Hopefully we'll see a few new members appearing soon! I hope my comments are useful.

Best wishes, WaggersTALK 13:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Waggers: Yes, these comments look great, thank you! Also, if there is any chance you could fill the very short survey in the table for each editor, it would be very helpful! Yeah, it would be happy to see more new members showing up for the project! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Ehi, thank you a lot for the message, which I return, about the edit on the page above. Bye bye! --Foghe (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested editors

Hi Bobo,

I've created a program (user script) called SearchSuite.js that provides a number of enhancements to Wikipedia's search results (including sort, single-spaced list format, display with list wikiformat codes, and more).

It is especially useful for editors who work on lists.

I was wondering if your program could find the most prolific editors of lists over the past 30 days. Say, the top 100.

They would make an excellent group of beta-testers for SearchSuite.

I look forward to your reply.     — The Transhumanist    22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Please {{ping}} me when you reply. -TT

@The Transhumanist: Here is the link to the data you can download. The query has completed. The code is provided, so you can run it every time for the latest list if needed. I used Quarry to make a query against a mirror of the live Wikipedia database. I guess you just need to create an account in Quarry. Please let me know if you have any trouble downloading the data. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on rounds three/four

• How many rounds are you expecting? If you want to do further rounds, I'd prefer to do a single project for the sake of time, and preferably the Anarchism project
• How has the tool improved so far? I still find great fits right next to complete duds, mainly for the smaller projects. The Kurdistan fourth round was mostly the latter. If the quality of the recommendations are super low or if all reasonable candidates have been exhausted, it would be better to generate fewer or no suggested editors in the round than for me to sort through what feels like a waste of time. Visual artists was okay, but perhaps because there is a much larger pool of suggestions there?
• Along the wikifriends vein, I think it would be useful to bare a bit more of the tool so that a user can input any category (or article title in a tree) and find other editors who edit under the related umbrella, separated by degree of similarity. Right now, if I edit in 1960s American history, it's very hard for me to find other editors in the area (or new ones when they arrive) without manually watching all possible articles in the category. A tool could make it easier to find connections, which is ostensibly more important than signing one's name on an otherwise unused WikiProject roster (two editors can encourage each other to edit more than a monolithic project with gargantuan tasks have thus far)

Like, having looked at 80 sets of contribs today, I could look at each person and discern their editing area and whether it overlaps with the invite I'd like to send. It'd be nice if there was a tool that did that discernment for us—if it doesn't already exist—which could then be used for any number of purposes. Part of the issue right now is that I'm looking for a user's connection to "books" and instead it's very clear that they primarily edit in South Korean entertainment and nothing close to literature.

• Africa suggestions: Many of my suggestions were students making articles as part of college courses. Does this mean that students disproportionately compose the whole of editors in this area, or are students simply a disproportionate segment of new editors in the Africa topic area?
• Especially with "experienced editors", I recommend adding tolerance factors for the degree of uniformity within the targeted topic area. For example, a user who edits an article about an African politician with twenty edits in a row is likely working on something of substance, while an editor who passes a single, small edit on a range of politician articles, say five from Africa and twenty from Latin America, among others, is less likely to be interested in the subject area. Does the editor show genuine interest in the specific area or are they simply eclectic, jumping between topics broadly?
• It would be nice to have the following links in order rather than split across columns: username, contribs, talk page, invite, survey. I usually have to load up all latter four. If contribs are good, review talk page, and if still good, invite/survey, or close out all four. Would be easier to queue if the links were right next to each other in the table. Also contribs defaults to a view with only 50 edits, which makes reviewing more onerous. Instead you can make the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/USERNAME&limit=500, which will show the last 500 edits. I can help with templates if need be.
• Repeats between third and fourth rounds: Mwojh, Tigerzeng, Lean Anael, أبراهيم غيث , Kunstförderer
• Lean Anael, Ahmad al-Douri, and Mianvar1: I had already contacted from a previous round
• Why did you thank Marina Melik-Adamyan for video game contributions? (I see none)
• By the way, I've had significantly better response with my recent welcome templates (see ones furthest to the right), particularly because they include a "call to action" to leave me a talk page reply. There are a few on my talk page right now.

czar 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Czar: Thank you for your great comments! Sorry for my very, very late reply.. In the past several weeks, we were busy with evaluating the system, and then I was away for a conference travel. Our analysis result is very promising. New editors who were invited by organizers increased their edits within the scope of the target projects about 40% compared to those who were not invited! So that's really great to see. At this point, we might not send more rounds of recommendations (though I'd really like to continue sending the lists), because I will be away this summer from the next couple weeks. But very likely, we would like to talk to/interview you to ask some questions about your perceptions on invitation, mentorship, etc, if you'd have time:)

Back to your comments above. Yeah, it is possible that most good candidate editors have been explored for some smaller projects, but I am not sure what's the best way to confirm it from my perspective. It's interesting that for Africa, you think they are college students working on their course assignment, but hopefully, they would continue to edit and help on that area. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bobo.03, happy to chat when you're back and I'd be curious to see some of the data then too, if possible (e.g., what counts as increased activity for that 40%?) Enjoy the vacation! czar 01:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks! That's a simple count of the number of edits on articles claimed within the scope of the target WikiProject. We used one week as the observation time period to see the edits new editors made before and after the invitation, and compared that change in edits across different groups of editors (e.g., invited by organizers, not invited by organizers). We can chat more about it if you are interested in those details! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Czar: Would you like to chat sometime next week? It would be 30 - 45 mins, and also you will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

emailed you czar 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

WiR April

Hi Bobo. Here's the invitation for April whenever you are ready:

Subject: Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.53% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

• Hi @Ipigott: Sorry for my late response.. Have been terribly busy with pushing on the result analysis and writing on our recommender system. I will try to get the list to you very soon! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobo. There's no mad rush on this. Take your time.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott:, Sorry about the long wait.. I have been intensively work on a paper about our recruitment system in the past couple weeks. So here is the list for April.

Also, some promising findings for the recommendations for WIR. Here is a list about the number of articles WiR invited editors created

Oct: 861, Nov: 943, Dec: 1234, Jan: 1604, Feb: 1716, March: 1226. These numbers include both article pages and article talk pages (some of them are sports related I have to say). But, good work!! Let me know if you have any thought. Bobo.03 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the stats on articles created. At WiR, we are of course more interested in the number of mainspace articles created (excluding redirects) rather than talk pages, etc. I think that would also be useful for you own report. However, as many of the editors concerned are interested in sports, it may well be that most of their articles cover men rather than women. Any chance of providing details?--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to push you on this, Bobo, but have you a new list? You can find the invitations at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/2018#MAY_2018, etc. If we could simply access the monthly output, then we could take care of sending out the invitations. ((cc. Rosiestep. --Ipigott (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott: Here is the list for April. I didn't know the invitation template has been created. Looks like a shorter list this time. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite a few editors listed here anyway, with several newbies. You might be interested to know that the bios by Corkythehornetfan were all about men. Probably picked up via WikiProject Women's sports on their talk pages. I've invited there nearly all.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WiR May

I think the list of articles added in May is now complete. When you have time, you can therefore create the new list with the corresponding invitation. The last list has already attracted seven new members and one more on the mailing list. So your approach continues to be effective. Thanks for all your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Bobo. Perhaps you missed the above message. Still waiting for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/May 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Here is the page. A separated email has sent. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject recommendations

Hi Bobo! What a great tool. I added WikiPedia:WikiProject Conservatism to the list. – Lionel^(talk) 01:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red tools and technical support

We are preparing a list of tools and techncial support for Women in Red. We have tentatively added your name as you have provided assistance in developing and running your recruitment tool. Please let me know whether you agree to be listed. You are of course welcome to make any additions or corrections.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes, it looks fine to me. Thank you. Bobo.03 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red: Recruitment for August

Hi Bobo. Here is the latest invitation. Feel free to compile your list as soon as you have time. Hope you are enjoying the summer.--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Interview Requested in May 2018

Hello,

Apologizes for the delay in response. I'd be happy to interview with you if you are still interested. Thanks!

Thank you for your message

Thank you for your message you left on my talk page about having a discussion on the use of A.I. in Wikipedia. I shall be happy to contribute to such a discussion. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: That would be great! Would you mind sending me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu so we can schedule a time? Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bobo.O3, I am sending you this way rather than by e-mail because my e-mail seems to be playing up at the moment. I am happy to participate in an e-mail discussion - between 6: 30 and 7 on a Saturday would be good time, but if we communicate by leaving each other messages on our Wikipedia pages, I am not sure we really need to arrange a time. Yous, Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Got it. What is your time zoom by the way? I was expecting to have the discussion over Google Hangout or phone if you are comfortable with it:) Bobo.03 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My time zone is Greenwich Mean Time. I should warn you that I am not an expert on Artificial Intelligence. I would rather discuss things over talk pages in Wikipedia than by telephone. Vorbee (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Yeah, we are not expecting opinions of domain experts from Wikipedia. It's our job to translate Wikipedians' opinions into scientific perspectives. Below are some questions - maybe you could reply me when you have a chance. It will be very helpful. Thanks!

• (1) How would you describe your role in Wikipedia?
• (2) How do you feel about using algorithms on Wikipedia to make decisions independently or help others make decisions (e.g., edit reversion, SuggestBot (article recommendation), article improvement suggestion, etc)?
• (3) Based on your experience with ORES, what types of values did you recognize, or what do you think are important?

Bobo.03 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but...

About the new season of Aikatsu Friends!, I suspect that episode 55 will mark the series entry to the Reiwa period

What do you think? RevinCBHatol (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi RevinCBHatol, I'm not sure what this message is referring to? Estelle (FauxNeme) and I would still like to schedule an interview with you if you're available. If not, hope you have a great time on Wikipedia! Bobo.03 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that series will follow suit of Kamen Rider Black RX and Kamen Rider Zi-O, in which they will air within two eras. Black RX (the last televised Showa Rider/#12) entered Heisei with the death of Emperor Hirohito, while Zi-O (the last Heisei Rider/#20), as well as Season 2 of Aikatsu Friends!, will enter the Reiwa period following the abdication of Akihito.

The Reiwa period is the time when Crown Prince Naruhito ascends the throne of Japan on May 1. RevinCBHatol (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Available for the interview

Hi Bobo.03 In response to your comment sent to my talk page, I'm open to the 30mins interview as a potential member of Objective Review Evaluation Source (ORES) and I'm in consonance with the use of algorithms and AI to improve Wikipedia, curbing vandalism, newcomers protectionil etc Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ohanwe Emmanuel .I., thank you for your response! It's great to hear from you and know that you are interested in an interview! My colleague, Estelle (aka FauxNeme) will get it touch with you shortly to schedule a time. Thanks again! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ohanwe Emmanuel .I., thanks for your reply! When are you available for an interview? If possible, can you send me an email at smit3694@umn.edu so I can arrange a google meeting (you can either use video chat or call in to the number provided.) Thanks so much! FauxNeme (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

Thanks FauxNeme, I will email you right away. Just to put things in perspective, this is my email eeiohanwe@gmail.com Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Bowen, Have a Happy New Year! James The Bond 007 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

James The Bond 007 Happy New Year! Bobo.03 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Research status

Hiya Bowen, was reminded of your research today. What became of it, or how is it going? czar 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

czar Nice to hear back from you! We got our paper published with the help of the Wikipedia community:) Here is the link to the paper.

I just received my PhD degree earlier this month, and I will probably not continue to do research with the Wikipedia community for a while:( But I am happy to help with the community any way I can.Bobo.03 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Bobo.03! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:25, Sunday, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Bobo.03! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:12, Sunday, September 27, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

What is the Best AI model for Content Moderation on Wikipedia?

Imagine you’ve just spent 27 minutes working on what you earnestly thought would be a helpful edit to your favorite article. You click that bright blue “Publish changes” button for the very first time, and you see your edit go live! Weeee! But 52 seconds later, you refresh the page and discover that your edit has been reverted and wiped off the planet.

An AI system - called ORES - has been contributing to this rapid judgement of hundreds of thousands of editors’ work on Wikipedia. ORES is a Machine Learning (ML) system that automatically predicts edit and article quality to support content moderation and vandalism fighting on Wikipedia. For example, when you go to RecentChanges, you can see whether an edit is flagged as damaging and should be reviewed. This is based on the ORES predictions. RecentChanges even allows you to change the sensitivity of the algorithm to "Very Likely Have Problems (flags fewer edits)" or "May Have Problems (flags more edits)”.

In this discussion post, we want to invite you to discuss the following *THREE potential ORES models* -- Among those three models, which one do you think presents the best outcomes and would recommend for the English Wikipedia community to use? why?

ABOUT US: We are a group of Human–computer interaction researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and we are inviting editors to discuss the trade-offs in AI-supported content moderation systems likeORES; your input here has the potential to enhance the transparency and community agency of the design and deployment of AI-based system on Wikipedia. We will share the results of the discussion with the ML platform team which is responsible of maintaining the ORES infrastructure. However, the decisions of the discussion are not promised to be implemented. More details are available at our research meta-pages: Facilitating Public Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions and Applying Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design to ORES.

Model Card One: High Accuracy

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	98.5%	3.4%	0.5%	26.3%
Experienced	99.7%	0.2%	0.0%	61.2%
Newcomer	95.7%	10.7%	1.8%	23.0%
Anonymous	94.8%	12.7%	2.4%	22.8%

• Explanation: this model has the highest overall accuracy.

Model Card Two: Fair Treatment

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	97.2%	1.2%	0.1%	69.9%
Experienced	99.6%	0.0%	0.0%	94.0%
Newcomer	91.2%	4.4%	0.8%	68.5%
Anonymous	90.7%	4.5%	0.0%	67.2%

• Explanation: Compared to Model One, this model treats experienced editors, newcomers, and anonymous editors more similarly, but it has lower overall accuracy.

Model Card Three: Balanced

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	96.1%	7.6%	4.0%	2.4%
Experienced	99.9%	0.4%	0.0%	17.9%
Newcomer	91.8%	19.8%	9.1%	1.0%
Anonymous	82.7%	30.8%	19.9%	0.8%

• Explanation: Compared to Model One and Two, Model Three attempts to achieve a better balance between false positive rate and false negative rate. The false negative rate is the best among the three models. But this model has lower accuracy and higher damaging rate.

If you are not satisfied with any of the models described above, you can try out this interface, pick a model on your own and share your chosen model card in the discussion by copying and pasting the wikitext offered in the interface.

Bobo.03 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia

Model Card One: High Accuracy

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	79.8%	49.8%	19.9%	20.4%
Newcomer	87.0%	45.6%	10.0%	16.3%
Experienced	73.7%	23.1%	0.0%	53.3%
Anonymous	81.1%	66.3%	34.9%	3.6%

• Explanation

This model has the highest overall accuracy.

Model Card Two: Low False Positive Rate

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	77.7%	37.5%	9.7%	34.8%
Newcomer	82.5%	34.4%	3.6%	32.5%
Experienced	62.9%	12.3%	0.0%	75.0%
Anonymous	84.5%	52.8%	17.5%	13.5%

• Explanation

This model has the lowest false positive rate and damaging rate among the three models. But it also has a higher false negative rate.

Model Card Three: Low False Negative Rate

• Performance table

Group / Metrics	Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted	Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging	False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely identified as damaging	False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are falsely identified as good
Overall	75.1%	66.9%	41.8%	8.2%
Newcomer	82.3%	64.4%	32.8%	1.6%
Experienced	86.7%	36.3%	0.2%	26.7%
Anonymous	66.2%	85.0%	69.2%	0.0%

• Explanation

This model has the lowest false negative rate among the three models. But it also has a higher damaging rate and false positive rate.

Last minute schedule change

Hello Bobo! I'm just here to let you know that I most likely will not be able to make it to the workshop on Saturday as I had something come up that I"m going to on Saturday that I was only made recently aware of. Would it be possible for you to provide me with the information gathered in the workshop on Saturday since I probably won't make it? Thanks! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)