diversity

Let's separate this into two points. It sounds like we agree that diversity across the board is a good thing. The question is, what's the right number? For example, if you believe that single people have more time than married people, is it realistic to aim for a 50-50 split?

This is a hard question. It's worth looking at the data, but it's also important not to get lost in it. I would reframe it the following way: Can we create different opportunities to contribute to Wikimedia projects that require different amounts of time? For example, the cost of fixing a factual error in Wikipedia is a lot lower than it is to write a new article. If we can create ways to encourage activities that take less time, that may be a way to increase participation and improve diversity.

Eekim22:35, 26 April 2010

That's a really good point. I think we could attract volunteers who have less time to contribute, but it's a question of streamlining those tasks through stronger interface, and steering new users towards low commitment kinds of tasks.

It's actually the same problem that happens in MMOs. If there is stuff happening in the game every day, then how can the game be friendly to people who only have time to play on the weekends? Nobody likes checking in only to find that everything passed them by.

Randomran16:56, 27 April 2010

This is an interesting point about the diversity of editors, particularly the "part-time" editors as opposed to those who seemingly do Wikipedia as a full-time job.

One of my major complaints about Wikipedia is that the decision making process seems to fly by in about a week or so. For those with a short attention span and like to settle issues quickly, that may work, but for those of us who are older and have lives beyond Wikipedia, there are often discussions and "consensus building" decisions that fly by so quickly that often I don't even know about them until the "consensus" has been achieved. I put that word "consensus" in quotes because often consensus is not achieved... except for the obsessive/compulsive types or the full-time Wikipedia editors who have chimed in... and the few passers by that happened to see the discussion too.

I'll be honest here too, this is one of the reasons I have never even bothered to apply for adminship on Wikipedia, as I'm sure I would be shot down for my lack of participation and I don't want to become the full-time admin that some of these zealots insist upon. I have experience with the admin tools on other wiki projects, and I do enjoy some of the heavy lifting and grunt work that goes with access to those tools as well.

Still, what I hate even more is if I'm part way through some side project that I know will take some time to complete, and then some eager-beaver editor not only undoes that whole project but throws up a RfD, kills off the whole thing, and then leaves a rude message (if I'm lucky) on my user talk page. At the very least, this constant rush on decision making is one of the things that is such a turn-off for me on Wikipedia that I rarely even engage in policy decisions any more and certainly don't make any extra effort to see what is going on... as it seems as though my humble opinion on the matter will be treated as irrelevant. That is a turn-off and something that does drive editors away from the project.

Robert Horning13:08, 5 May 2010

This is a really thoughtful reply. I hope other people read it.

Randomran19:28, 5 May 2010
 

I agree with Randomran, and I also agree with the essential point. We need to have multiple levels of contributions, and all levels need to be valued and respected.

Eekim21:52, 5 May 2010
 

Robert Horning, the dynamic that you describe plays itself out in various ways and definitely has an effect on the volunteer editor's level of participation in various tasks. And I think that we may be introducing bias into our decision making and our processes if we have allow them to be designed by our high volume contributors.

We need to find a way to include as many people as possible. One of the main reasons that women give me for not participating more is "too busy". I think that it is not so much a complete lack of time to make any edits but rather something more along the lines of the situations that you describe.

This problem was something that the Wikipedia English Arbitration Committee was faced with on a regular basis for our internal work. It is not a good practice to always have the decision making framed by the person with the most free time so it is important to put processes in places to make sure that the work is spread out across the broad spectrum of the group (be it a committee, wiki, or article).

FloNight♥♥♥09:57, 12 May 2010

FloNight, could you elaborate or give some examples from ArbCom? Dealing with the time differences and commitment differences between editors is a difficult part of consensus building and discussion. The squeakiest wheel usually gets the grease... or at least gets more attention than the other wheels.

Randomran15:28, 12 May 2010