New Userpages for Existing Editors

During the usability initiative tests, we found that user accounts would get repeatedly reverted for the edits these new users would make. We also found that they hardly noticed when they got messages informing them of these reversions. While this wasn't the aspect of wikipedia editing we were testing at the time, we all felt kind of bad that some of these users who made their first edits would go home later that day and find their edits were reverted, so I wrote a quick note on the test user's user pages explaining who they were and the nature of the account. The results were incredible; pretty much none of the edits were reverted afterwards, and, in fact, some editors took the initiative to take the intent of the edit and work it in to the page to meet policies. How useful would that be for all people? So, my proposal is the following changes:

• Creating a default userpage for a user after they've made 10 or so edits (assuming they don't have a userpage yet) explaining that they are new, they've been a wikipedian since (whenever), made (n) edits, clearly have an intent on being a wikipedian but might need someone to show them the ropes.

• Notifying users via email when they get new messages, something that they can turn off, but have this on for new accounts by default so they know that they have a message in the system.

• Some version of the "don't bite the newbies" template that lets people know the user they're about to message has only made a low number of edits, they're new, and to be helpful if they can be. Also work in conjunction with developers of tools like Twinkle so that users have to take extra measures to revert a "first edit" or "first 5" edit.

I think we can test the top and bottom ideas independently.

I concur with all of this and would add that for more experienced users who edit on controversial topics, admins often apply contentious nitpicks and the prospect of going to ArbComm is very intimidating. There are definite topical areas where this problem crops up,and not only the user-firendliness but also the prestige and perception of reliability of Wikipedia is endangered if its articles lose NPOV. Certainly, there are strata of societies and specific nations and even languages which enjoy greater computer access and computer literacy. Wikimedia are in danger of being perceived as organs of biased coverage if there are not studies which can produce mechanisms to assure NPOV through easily accessible grievance resolution for less experience persons who are more interested in their areas of expertise than in learning the art of wikilawyering.

Proposal: that a sysem be considered wherein less experienced persons who feel that they are subject to ham handed admin reverts can enlist representation. Of course, they can now, but most experienced editors are loathe to take up a case, and probably restrict their assistance to a tip here and there.

Thank you for thoughtful consideration of these comments.

Nobody really wants to bite the newbies (or would openly admit to doing it on purpose). Anything we could do to prevent this accident would help. If we assume good faith, then most people would stop biting newbies if they knew they were newbies. And if editors are truly acting in bad faith and trying to scare the newbies off, then labeling the newbies will make it more obvious when someone is just being a dick.

I like this idea.

I like this idea. As an administrator and Wikipedian for the past five years, I have experienced the levels of friendliness going down on the English Wikipedia year by year. Creating new articles and editing existing ones is not only a difficult prospect for new users (who understandably have a lower threshold for tolerance) but also for experienced users using sockpuppets to test the system. However, recent changes patrollers are visibly more careful with non-redlinked users. (edit: at the same time we must actively advocate anonymity on our projects)