Maybe I'm missing something but I don't quite understand the conclusion of this study. ("Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia.") Give and editor thanks if one feels like doing so but it's really not going to make any difference? Maybe giving thanks and barnstars should be just considered a form of civility for its own good. BlueRiband► 23:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the summary about it, I think the idea is that the editor doesn't spend longer on the site per day, but does stay for a longer number of days. But this title does somewhat conflict with that. There are caveats in that retention was defined as making at least one edit to Wikipedia in a five week period starting at the beginning of the second week. My intuition and personal reaction would tell me that receiving "thanks" makes me more productive and increases the proportion of my future interactions which are of positive sentiment rather than negative sentiment (i.e. I find it easier to be cordial and my writing style may change from something that would have provoked tiresome argument into one that might lead to productive discussion), but doesn't increase the amount of time I spend or how long I will edit for. But I gather that the researchers focused on new editors rather than already long-term ones, and it would be (almost) impossible for them to systematically determine how sentiment is affected in an accurate manner. — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "In contrast, a quite similar project where researchers from Carnegie Mellon University had planned to study "How role-specific rewards influence Wikipedia editors’ contribution" was withdrawn in early 2019 after being met with resistance from editors on the English Wikipedia." To a researcher, a project on awarding Thanks may be quite similar to one on awarding Barnstars. To Wikipedians the two are very different, I must get dozens of times as many thanks as barnstars. ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about hinting on the absurd equation of 'Thanks' and barnstars. Researchers embarrass themselves if they don't understand differences. -- Just N. (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this sentence and am very familiar with the similarities and differences, thank you - I am a Wikipedian as well. And nobody proposed an "equation". Also note that the German Wikipedia study that the preceding sentence refers to was about barnstar-like awards too.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing commentary of yours, HaeB. My remarks above weren't aimed at attacking anyone. Why you are complaining to be hit I have no idea. At what location do you think you were part of the scene ("I wrote this sentence")? Playing with ridfdles? I definitely just wanted to consent to Were's notes. Regards, Just N. (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is so hard to understand about the fact that I, as the author of this review, wrote the sentence that WereSpielChequers quoted above, including the comparison (not "equation") that you called "absurd"? Especially after I already told you above? Experienced Wikipedia editors are usually able to read a wiki page's revision history, or, failing that, should at least be capable of inspecting the byline on top. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"People who spend more time mentoring and people who do more to monitor Wikipedia for vandalism report feeling more emotionally drained than others. Yet people who do more monitoring also feel more positive about their contributions". I believe that mentoring is demanding: you're unavoidably focussed on someone else instead of your own preferences. That it is counted as just the same (as a stressing factor) as patrolling against vandalism is indeed irritating me. I'd guess that the above short summary is failing to give a better understanding of researching these quite different experience fields. If not so, the academic research designers would have delivered an embarassing approach due to not being prepared to go deep enough into differenciation of special Wp working fields. -- Just N. (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: If the Wikipedians who responded to this survey feel (on average) differently that you yourself feel or would expect to feel, then that must mean that the researchers have made "embarrassing" mistakes? Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HaeB, please read carefully! I said that it remains unclear which conclusion has to be drawn. It is unfair and not at all correct to ascribe (citation) *must mean* to me instead of correct 'could mean'. Regards, -- Just N. (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you said. You were criticizing the researchers of either failing to summarize their own results correctly (as mentioned in the review, the quoted sentences were taken from their blog post), or else of "deliver[ing] an embarassing approach due to not being prepared to go deep enough". And you were basing this criticism on the argument that the survey results did not match what you personally "believe" about mentoring and patrolling.
I think that at this point it might be useful to read that blog post and/or the preprint itself, before launching into even further speculations and judgments about the study.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, we consider the topic abortion. The anti-abortion movement looks more represented than the abortion-rights one. It means that a user who randomly picks a Wikipedia’s page, has double the probability of reading an article related to anti-abortion than abortion rights. I was a little surprised to see this given the common wisdom that Wikipedia has—relative to America—a liberal bias. Perhaps that wisdom isn't so wise. Perhaps it's a case of "know your enemy". Or perhaps there is simply more to write about in terms of notable anti-abortion subjects. Answers on a postcard, please. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" is an absurd over-simplification. Wikipedia has an educated white male American/European bias, per its demographics. When it comes to things like science and religion, that means it's "liberal", but when it comes to things like feminism or racial justice, it has a more conservative bias. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
