What shall we learn from social networks whilst keeping Wikipedia unique ? being a team?

I think the uniqueness of Wikipedia significantly contributed to its success. Becoming a pale copy of Facebook will not help on the long run. I my opinion, what is special about Wikipedia, is that we try to build something: we have a "free knowledge mission". I think that acting as a team is key to this mission. The team is large and building such a virtual team of hobbyist is a real challenge, and I would have expected this aspect to be addressed in March 2011 Update.

Another thing that strikes me is that social the analysis tell us about retention but we look mostly about simplification and getting new editors. Social network may just be yet in consolidation phase, so I'm not sure how much we can learn from them in that regard. It's all about how Wikipedia meets the expectations of its editors. Do we know more about that aspect? Since our community is very diverse, there is probably no simple answer, but I think we should look into this : what are the key drivers that make that editors would stay more than a year?

Will you be around in one year? Do you feel part of a team?

Finding out why editors leave isn't just about solving the problem that most editors leave immediately. It is also about why we lose people after months or even years.

Things like the former editors survey and some of the press criticism are useful for telling us where our problems are, biteyness, deletionism, template bombing. The difficult thing is working out how to address this, some things are easy - templates can be reworded some editors respond well to requests that they inform the authors when they tag their articles for deletion, or requests that they only tag for deletion articles where policy allows for their deletion.

Some things are difficult. I would like to replace many of our maintenance templates with hidden categories. But such a change requires consensus.

"Finding out why editors leave isn't just about solving the problem that most editors leave immediately. It is also about why we lose people after months or even years."

It's been my observation that all established editors arrive at a point after a few years where things have gotten to the point where she or he seriously thinks about quitting. Sometimes this is due to one bad experience, but more often its because the frustrations have finally accumulated & the Wikipedian is convinced that (1) no one appreciates all of the efforts & sacrifices she/he has made; or (2) the inmates are in control of the asylum & there's nothing that can be done to change the situation; or both (1) & (2).

Some editors get past this crisis point & continue to contribute; many don't. I wonder if more long-term editors knew this is common, this might help them thru this crisis. Then again, more than simple knowledge might be needed. (WikiBurnout Anonymous, maybe?)

What I see in the strategy that could help in that direction is the mentorship. If the mentor stays and follows all his/her mentorees, he could support them at the critical stage. I'm not sure that's enough.

Regarding the risk of leaving, maybe we should think in a positive way. I actually do have a few team experience that made me happy, and that probably what helped me get through a few type 2 crisis. Is there already a place to share that ? Actually a simple link "Editor support" that would enable editors to send their feed back could help measure the editor's mood in the same way we try to evaluate the vandalism rate ?

I find that the wikiprojects are a very good idea, but I still feel very lonely in these, except for the wp:fr Biologist project (Projet:Biologie/Le café des biologistes). As it also happen IRL, this project has a long history of being a nice place. One of the main past contributor was actually hired by a 1st class French encyclopedia and do not contribute any more but newcomers joined. The main point is that if you ask something in there you get an answer and people are willing to help. All the other projects I know of are below a critical level of active people. In this regard having targeted campaigns to hire new contributors in a specific area could help. Then we need to make sure the "team chemistry" actually happens.

I discussed this with some German editors somewhere, probably at Wikimania. They have a more compact geography and many editors will phone each other when things get stressful. I'm involved in some of our London events and I think that they bring together editors who might not collaborate online but can share experiences offline. Of course it is then important to avoid that becoming a clique or a cabal. But I think that real life events can enthuse and remotivate people, especially collaborations such as the backstage pass events we have had at the British Museum.