Just started reading, and already it looks like a good Signpost. Something useful; the past few weeks have been a busy season for coaching edit-athons, and now I see I should be encouraging "persistent" rather than "prolific" editing by newbies. We indeed are the prolific; our idea of fun is to spend hours most every day at this, and we want to recruit more like us. However, that will come, if it does, after our new editors return a few times per week for an hour or so. I can advise that when they run across an interesting fact or story, they should check WP for background, and then study the articles for the possibility of improvement. Or, watchlist articles they have already edited, and return once or twice a week to find, understand, evaluate and maybe repair the work of fellow editors old and new. Always we old-timers can learn something new and useful. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The study is interesting (though perhaps unsurprising) especially in light of the recent CMU proposal. I'm interested in why it is being covered now, when it was published in 2016. Calidum 04:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
