MyWiki:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Editor Retention plan

It is a known fact that Wikipedia has difficulty gaining and retaining editors. Simple statistics can easily demonstrate this problem. For example, the numbers show that of all users who have edited Wikipedia at least once, not even 20% stayed to make 10 edits, and less than 3% have made at least 100 edits. However, it can hardly be said that one is a truly active editor if they have not made at least 500-1000 edits, and only 1% or less have reached this level. The official active editor count reveals that Wikipedia is mostly maintained by a small group of ~3,000 editors, and this number has remained stagnant for over half a decade. There was a period of noticeable decline between 2009-2011.

Wikipedia only becomes more popular by the year, and a Wikipedia article is invariably one of the top results on any internet search. It is the 7th most popular website in the world, surpassing even Amazon and Twitter. But instead of the editor retention rate increasing as Wikipedia becomes more popular, the rate has actually been decreasing and stagnating despite Wikipedia's increasing popularity. This is clearly unsustainable. There might not be much concern about this now, because everything seems to be working smoothly. But what some people do not realize is that many active editors are still from the early days of Wikipedia, and it is inevitable that these old-timers will gradually retire as the years pass by; at the current rate, many retired editors will not be replaced. If Wikipedia is to survive and not degenerate with time, it must gain and retain more editors.

But why does Wikipedia have such difficulty with editor retention? The answer is that many editors perceive Wikipedia as a hostile place. This chart does a good job of illustrating that point. About half of the reasons involve hostility, such as being looked down upon, being reverted, having an article deleted, or being involved in some kind of argument. WikiProject Editor Retention also created a page which contains the retirement statements of several editors. Complaints of hostility are present in the overwhelming majority of the statements.

It is always best to prevent a problem rather than deal with it after its occurrence, so if the long-term stability of Wikipedia is to be secured, it is imperative that the community address the issue of editor retention. As such, the following is a comprehensive plan to address hostility on Wikipedia and thereby increase editor retention.

Civility

• Clarify the civility policy. In all serious, professional workplaces, the need for civility is unquestioned. Some people are of the opinion that Wikipedia's environment should be informal, but that view fails to account for several factors. First of all, Wikipedia is no longer an experimental infant project. As mentioned in the lead section, the English Wikipedia is the 7th most popular website in the world. Millions of people rely on it every day for quick information. Google prominently uses and links to Wikipedia content in its right-side infoboxes. Its popularity even surpasses that of Amazon and Twitter. Building the most popular online reference website in the world is not a wild manufacturing experiment—it is something to be taken seriously and done with professionalism. To make a comparison, try to imagine the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica hurling childish insults and profanity at each other every time there was a disagreement about something. Could you really have any respect for them? Of course not. The Encyclopaedia Britannica would never be written if its editors did not peacefully resolve their editorial disagreements and act like professional, collaborative adults.

Templating

• Soften the language in templates. One major factor that drives away editors is the use of prepackaged, impersonal templates. These templates are often written in a cold, mechanical manner, and many of these templates have intimidating red/orange signs. Without a doubt, these hostile templates frustrate and discourage many editors, new and experienced, who may have otherwise stayed. Although nothing can ever replace a personalized message, we should try our best to improve the current templates by: (1) rewriting them in a more explanatory, non-confrontational tone; (2) with the exception of vandalism templates, removing bold text and bright warning signs; and (3) not making it so obvious that the message is a template.

AN/ANI

• Orderly discussion. The disorderly, free-flowing method of discussion currently used at AN/ANI only causes convoluted confusion and consequently encourages flamewars and mudslinging. Orderly discussion is an absolute requirement for civil, rational discussion. As such, it is proposed that this template be used for filing and discussing AN/ANI cases. It would be always be substituted; to simplify the process of filing a case, a link to the preloaded template would be added to the top of the noticeboard.
• Clerks.
• Edit filter. On AN/ANI, an edit filter would be implemented to tag usages of any of the "seven words." The tag would bring the comment to the attention of an admin or clerk, who could then deal with the comment as necessary (by removing the uncivil content, for instance). There is simply no legitimate excuse to use these words in a discussion, unless someone is quoting someone else for the purposes of reporting a personal attack. Usage of such words would never be tolerated in any professional environment, and it only inflames the situation rather than help resolve it. Obviously, the goal is to resolve, not inflame. If someone involved in a dispute attempted to circumvent the filter by means of abbreviations or partial redactions, the circumvention would simply be added to the filter.
• Waiting period for sanction proposals. One major contributor to hostility at the noticeboards is the tendency to "mob ban." Someone proposes a sanction (block/ban of some sort), followed by a volley of supports and a rapid closure. The block/ban is imposed, despite the fact that the sanctioned editor was never given a chance to adequately defend themselves at the noticeboard.

The proposal to address this issue is as follows: Once a sanction is proposed, an editor would be given 36 hours to post a response to the allegations. Voting on the proposed sanction would begin only after the 36 hours had elapsed. This system would ensure that all accused editors are treated fairly and given the chance to respond to the allegations against them, and would diminish the perception of AN/ANI as a kangaroo court.