Tom Simonite (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. In July 2012, some editors started a page called WikiProject Editor Retention with the idea of creating a place to brainstorm ideas about helping newcomers and fostering a friendlier atmosphere. Today the most vibrant parts of that project's discussion page have gripes about "bullying done by administrators," debates over whether "Wikipedia has become a bloody madhouse," and disputes featuring accusations such as "You registered an account today just to have a go at me?"
One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the idea of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. No one who discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is completely against our entire mission, and will neither be endorsed nor tolerated.
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of places regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."
Our edits can and will be changed by others …even this one.
I noticed that this segment included three periods instead of the unicode ellipsis character, so I took it as an invitation and edited it to include the ellipsis for screen reader support.
This talk page has watchers, and if you start a conversation, it's likely someone will respond, so it's active in that sense. However attempts to kick off initiatives haven't found much interest. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the JAN2017 WER archives...
The following is an example of the discussions at the WER talk pages that I remembered. it's worth a GO! ...
A 7 year old idea. When I first started to edit WP and I was roaming around various article and editor talk pages, getting my feet wet, it struck me how often I found editors singlehandedly trying to fend off attacks from other editors. Many times the individual was new and the "others" were veterans. I thought how good it would be if there was a group of editors (I planned to call them
WikiKnights) that could provide assistance and a friendly voice so, at the very least, the lone editor didn't feel isolated and forgotten...so that there was a group that could get them past this moment of stress and strife and help them move on to bigger and better things. I was a young and inexperienced editor and never got it passed the draft stage. Maybe it now has possibilities. Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Isaacl. The WikiKnight idea fits with your "small groups". Kind of like cadres whose mission is to retain the troubled editor. I'm not talking about troublesome editors; I'm talking more about editors that have gotten into trouble basically because of their inexperience. Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a village pump discussion on an anti-bullying task force, which I tried to recast in terms of dealing clique behaviour and setting expectations, both for experienced editors and newcomers. As discussed later in the thread, there are lots of challenges in making this operational, not the least of which is managing the helpers themselves: how can their interactions be guided towards helpful intervention, as opposed to making the situation worse? Unfortunately it is the textbook definition of a difficult-to-staff initiative in a volunteer group: lots of investment in time required in stressful situations, with likely a low number of successes. The Teahouse might provide a function similar to what you are thinking of. Last time I checked, involvement there was drying up, so maybe trying to reinvigorate it would be a good step forward? I encourage anyone to think of tasks you can do yourself or with a small core group, and try them out—if you succeed, great; if not, re-evaluate, and try something else. On a side note, I think the thankless task of mediating disputes or even just providing some gentle intervention to get everyone talking constructively is an area where it would be useful to have paid staff, simply to ensure there is someone dedicated to the task. As far as I can tell, though, there isn't much support for this amongst those most likely to participate in a Request for Comments on the matter. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
In terms of dealing with the helpers as a group, maybe the first step might be for them to leave polite notes on the bullies' talk pages, indicating that they are coming in as, well, observers, in a discussion. They could also then use the same user talk page to address concerns over problematic behavior, while using the article talk page or bullied editor's talk page to discuss the broader issues. Should an individual become too familiar to the anti-bullying task force, they could obviously seek administrative or arbcom attention. To my eyes, part of the problem might be where to have the anti-bullies discuss things in a way which doesn't maybe contribute to the problem in some way. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, bullies don't take kindly to notes about their bullying, no matter how polite it is phrased. I think the "helpers" should just show up in the arena and show concern for the editing future of the bullied editor (who is most likely a newbie). Whatever "the issue is" is of secondary importance to retaining the editor. "The issue" will be handled by the machinery of WP. What WER members should be most concerned with is the possibility that the new editor will be chewed up in the machinery process and spit out. I'm advocating that we don't need one more voice to handle the issue. The voices handling the issue are abundant and loud and not rare. What is rare is a voice that speaks to the "bullied" editor with support and understanding. Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's certainly a great idea, something I certainly would get involved in since I abhor these type of interactions. I find they are the reason we have such terrible editor retention. Old-timers are very protective over their way of editing, they feel they own articles and they often feel the need to 'win' consensus and tend to attack personally rather than simply engage in a discussion. They often also accuse you of being uncivil when you don't agree with their opinion. waddie96 ★ (talk)18:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And because so many of them are admins from 15+ years ago when it was far less selective, they throw around threats of a block very easily, which is very discouraging. waddie96 ★ (talk)18:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think the problem of being overly protective or defensive is a problem limited to long-time editors. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention § Reasons editors leave lists various reasons why editors become disenchanted with contributing to English Wikipedia.) I've previously discussed some of the problems with content-dispute resolution based on English Wikipedia decision-making traditions, including the challenges of unmoderated discussion. Unless the community visibly incorporates some concept of discussion structure into its decision-making traditions, anyone trying to manage a discussion towards more productive lines has to rely on the cooperation of all participants. This generally means they need to build up enough social capital to be able to cajole everyone into going along with their guidance. The number of English Wikipedia editors who can successfully do this over the long term is trending towards zero (if not zero already), in no small part because once social capital is spent, it can take time to build up again, and editing tenures aren't that long, post roughly 2010. Plus it's just really hard to do effectively with editors who are resistant to making any form of concession.
So while there is lots of practical advice that can be offered on how to try to mediate disputes, ultimately among those who like to discuss these matters, there are more people who prefer unmoderated discussion over any form of structure. Generally, they put a higher value on reducing barriers for anyone being able to weigh in at any point. This doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying to help out in disputes, seeking a way to meet everyone where they are and isolate any commonalities that can be built upon. But fair or not, editors should be aware that their attempts may get brushed aside, and at worst, be seen as an unwelcome intervention from someone who doesn't appreciate the nuances of the situation. (And the reality is that there are many cases where the disputants are right: some people attempt to intervene based on a very quick, superficial examination of some of the comments.) isaacl (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
