Improving the newcomer experience

I can't help but feel that part of the problem of retaining newcomers (I also add my plea not to use the apalling word "newbies") is the downright aggressive and unfriendly attitude of a small number of experienced editors. We can all name a few! Often their interaction with newcomers is little short of bullying, their behaviour patronising, rude and overbearing, when what is really needed is a gentle push in the right direction, a kind word or two, and maybe a pointer to good examples of what the newcomer is trying to do.

It would also help if some of those experienced editors realised that, even five years on, most editors are still learning, and haven't magically learnt about every naming convention and, surprising though it may seem, haven't quite got round to memorising the Manual of Style word for word!

Well, some of us who are experienced editors are likewise the victims of "downright aggressive and unfriendly attitude of a small number of experienced editors" -- although I might disagree with referring to them as "experienced". Unfortunately, any policy worded to deal with this specific problem ends up being abused by other editors with an agenda -- I speak from experience.

And getting one volunteer to provide a "gentle push" -- & no more -- to another is a perennial issue. If you can provide a successful solution, please share!

Lastly, don't sweat what the Manual of Style says; I've been a Wikipedia volunteer for over 8 years & still don't know what its says. Or cares. Despite what its advocates might think, it is still trumped by the policy "ignore all rules". That policy both excuses making beginner mistakes, & encourages everyone to follow common sense.

The rules are a tool to predict the behavior of other users who follow the rules. In a collaborative system like Wikipedia, predicting what other users will do is how we get our edits to stick.

If someone does not care whether their edits will stick, then they can safely ignore all rules.

Reading the friendly manuals is not the only way to learn the rules. We can (and do) also learn by observing the behavior of other users. Watching what people do helps us predict what they will do next.

Having detailed manuals actually makes Wikipedia more open because it allows any new user, who will make the effort to read the rules, to predict the behavior of other users almost as well as an experienced user. That is, most people who are capable of learning Wikipedia will learn it faster by reading the rules, in addition to learning by experience, than they will if they approach Wikipedia only by observation, trial, and error. This allows newcomers to get on an even footing with established users as quickly as they want to. When rules are not in writing, then experience becomes an extremely powerful advantage, which the new user cannot overcome quickly.

It's the same with almost any knowledge domain. For example, you can learn science a lot faster by reading science books in addition to observing nature. When humans learned science the first time, before they could just read about it, the learning took centuries.

Computer programmer types tend to understand this - anyone who has coded in several computer languages understands the fastest way to learn a complex new system is to read the friendly manuals. The manuals on Wikipedia are the best I have ever seen for any complex system. So it could be a lot worse.

This is a great thread. There seems to be a lot of support for "Improving the newcomer experience," "Improving the experienced editor experience," and starting off by referring to newcomers with some respect, which includes not calling them "newbies." (It brings to mind: New? Bye!)

All these "downright aggressive and unfriendly attitudes" seem to be dispensed with largess and abandon by "a small number of "experienced" editors" (not to mention the Foundation CEO :-) I regret not to be familiar with "any policy worded to deal with this specific problem" and how and/or why it/they ended up "being abused by other editors with an agenda."

It is also stated, and it's easy to accept, that "getting one volunteer to provide a "gentle push" -- & no more -- to another is a perennial issue." Therefore, there is an apparent need to "provide a successful solution" and share it.

Is it possible that the following statement will be generally, if not universally, accepted?

"An experienced editor is not necessarily a great communicator."

That might help sort out a lot of things. If it is recognized that by becoming an experienced editor one does not acquire any other human, much less godlike qualities, it might be easier to steer the right people in the right directions. Some of you might even know and/or recognize from experience that some newcomers might be the best communicators to other newcomers. A whole new way of doing things opens up.

The statement above applies to many other human qualities. Not quite in jest, being founder or co-founder, is not synonym of being a know it all. We must never loose sight of our own humanity. Otherwise, we may never be able to see others as brothers in our common humanity. Hey! I'm not saying you have to hug and kiss them all, all the time. Don't you have any brothers and sisters, even of the not the same blood type? Right. That's what I mean. No need to exaggerate.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

I agree, the first step in improving the newcomer experience should be to drop the use of the word newbie.

But beware the euphemism treadmill. Whatever temporarily sanitized label we invent for newbies, it will in turn take on exactly the same connotations eventually, and we will have to invent a new sanitized label, and so on.