Page MenuHomePhabricator

[Request] Establishing a deeper understanding of editor recognition & opportunity areas on the wikis today
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Context:

People may first come to the wikis to edit on a specific topic. However, they’re more likely to stick around and continue as editors if they know that their contributions are valued and that they can connect with like-minded people. This way, the tough stuff about the wikis can be outweighed by the good stuff. There are many ways of sharing and surfacing the good stuff, but one of the most powerful ways is through recognition by other editors. In fact, studies have found that receiving a thanks has a positive correlation to at least short-term editor activity (see Thanks for stopping by).

However, editors may receive minimal recognition for their work, especially if they are junior editors or newcomers (see Research:WikiLove and Thanks for stopping by). Meanwhile, experienced editors often face burnout, and they may also find that while they receive recognition, it is not proportional to the efforts that they exert and the impact that they have on the wikis.

For this research, we want to focus on 3 forms of recognition on the wikis: thanks, wikilove, and barnstars. We chose these three because a) they are widely-used forms of recognition on the wikis, b) they can be identified and measured, and c) they are features that we feel more confident that we can conduct interventions/experiments on, if we find that there are opportunities we should explore. However, we recognize that there are other forms of on-wiki recognition (e.g., a positive user talk page comment, a DYK, etc) that we will not include in this research.

We want to learn more about the status quo of these 3 forms of recognition today, and we want to know opportunity areas in possibly improving how these forms of recognition are discovered, used, or understood by editors. In other word, how we can make recognition more discoverable, more user-friendly & accessible, and potentially having more value/meaning (with more information behind it)? This is because we hypothesize that, if we can eventually create an experience on the wikis in which a) people are recognized more often, and b) receive recognition that is likely to be meaningful to them, then more editors will feel positively about their work and be more likely to stick around as editors.

Description:

Research goals:

  • Establish an understanding of status quo today for how junior and experienced editors interact with and perceive recognition on the wikis, so that the Connection team can better understand the opportunities and gaps related to recognition on the wikis today.
  • Determine how junior and experienced editors may perceive potential feature improvements to the recognition experience on the wikis, so that the Connection team can better predict community adoption and/or concerns.

Demographic target of research:

  • Editing expertise: We want to know what junior editors think and how this may compare to how experienced editors think about recognition, in particular thanks/wikilove/barnstars.
    • Junior editors (10-100 editors)
    • Experienced editors (500+ edits)
  • Language wikis: We want to see how there may be differences between editors in larger and smaller language projects (so, ideally 2 large projects & 2 small projects, with a preference for English & French for larger, due to our existing community contacts with those wikis).
    • English
    • French
    • 2 smaller wikis
Expected Deliverable:
  • Insights from junior and experienced volunteers collected via:
    • Interviews
    • And perhaps also a survey
  • A report that provides:
    • Findings on research questions shared in the research questions doc
    • Opinions/feelings from interviewed subjects on our potential feature ideas (also shared in the doc)
    • Recommendations on opportunity areas for improvements
Estimated Effort:

We've talked about this being about a 2 month project.

Priority:

I need this task resolved in:

  • 1 month.
  • 3 months.
  • 6 months.
  • Whenever you get to it :-)

Ideally, this task would be resolved in about 2 months, but there isn't a firm deadline. With this work, we will be better informed to make decisions about potential project ideas that we work on in Q3 and Q4 of this fiscal year.

Other/more info:

For use by WMF Research team; please leave everything below as it is:

  1. Does the request serve one of the existing Research team's audiences? If yes, choose the primary audience. (1 of 4)
  2. What is the type of work requested?
  3. What is the impact of responding to this request?
    • Support a technology or policy need of one or more WM projects
    • Advance the understanding of the WM projects.
    • Something else. If you choose this option, please explain briefly the impact below.

Details

Due Date
Feb 7 2026, 12:00 AM

Event Timeline

ifried renamed this task from [Request] <Add title here> to [Request] Establishing a deeper understanding of editor recognition & opportunity areas on the wikis today.
ifried assigned this task to dchen.
ifried added a subscriber: JFernandez-WMF.
ifried updated the task description. (Show Details)

thank you @ifried! i will be in touch this week with an update from my conversations.

Confirmed with Ilana about participant cohorts (language wikis, edit counts and frequency, and backup wikis). We may need to adjust language wikis further based on how many results fit the criteria. Working with Irene/Megan this week to unblock this hopefully before the holiday weekend.

dchen set Due Date to Jan 30 2026, 12:00 AM.Nov 25 2025, 7:45 PM

11/21/25 Data Request Update:

  • Initial PA Inquiry: Need editor data by 11/21/25 for design research.
  • Data need discussed on Monday, 11/17/25: Generate two output lists (junior and experienced) for six wikis, ~1k records per wiki per list, using designated base data sources supplemented by previously used internal sources. Requirements included:
    • Exclude bots;
    • Follow legal, security, and privacy requirements;
    • Experienced editors defined as accounts that are at least 1 year old and active (at least 5 edits within the last month) and that have 500+ edits;
    • Junior editors defined as accounts with 10-110 edits.

On 11/18/25, after meeting with Daisy on Monday 11/17, I raised clarifying questions to confirm data availability, source validity.

Approach & Findings

  • Investigated three base data sources (thanks/wikilove/barnstars) to confirm table locations, data availability, and coverage for all six wikis' givers/receivers/non-givers-non-receivers
  • Test queries showed that only one source provided data for all six wikis: Thanks data; we proceeded using this validated source.
  • To reduce complexity we reduced the scope to outputting four lists - a) thanks givers juniors, b) thanks givers experienced c) juniors non-givers-non-receivers and d) experienced non-givers-non-receivers.
  • Reviewed work by @Arinaigu, looked at test queries with @Arinaigu @jwang @SNowick_WMF during consultation sessions.

Data One Outcomes:

ListStatusDescriptionNotes
ADeliveredJunior thanks giving/receiving editors across wikisComplete for dewiki results; enwiki, hywiki appear but have <1k entries; small wikis list provided separately.
BNot feasible in a meaningful wayExperienced thanks giving/receiving editors across wikisLow results and do not represent all markets; small wikis list provided separately.
CDeliveredJunior thanks non-givers-non-receiversDistribution is uneven—dewiki results dominate; low results for enwiki, bswiki, sdwiki.
DDeliveredExperienced thanks non-givers-non-receiversDistribution is uneven—dewiki and enwiki results dominate; low results for bswiki, hywiki.

These results reflect the underlying data structure:

  • For dewiki, thanks logging is most extensive so we have more junior thanks giving/receiving editors and fewer non-givers-non-receivers given requirements.
  • For smaller wikis, we have low counts given the existing filters.

11/25/25 update:
After reviewing the delivered lists, the team requested broader, less restrictive results. After discussion, Megan recommended:
Relaxing filtering conditions to increase sample size, timeboxing the additional work (directional output expected), and allowing the researcher to apply their own filters to the raw data on google sheets. I then reran the queries, included all condition fields without pre-filtering, and delivered four updated raw lists. Caveats:

  • For smaller wikis, field coverage was reduced
  • Many records lacked the fields needed for filtering
  • Smaller wikis might have more edge case entries

After reviewing, the team determined that a) dewiki results are fine and b) other lists did not yet meet their needs and were still needed. The team requested that we produce filtered lists (a few hundred total for each wiki) for updated wiki lists and requirements, rather than providing raw outputs for them to refine.

11/26/25 update:
A second consultation session with Shay resulted in the recommendation to switch to as many spark tables as possible for reduced query times.
After rewriting queries for Spark-accessible sources, the following was delivered: data for enwiki, frwiki, eswiki, including the increased number of rows requested. Smaller wikis were also delivered but the counts are small.

Data Two Outcomes:

ListStatusDescriptionNotes
ADeliveredJunior thanks giving/receiving editors across wikisComplete for en
BDeliveredExperienced thanks giving/receiving editors across wikisComplete for en, es, fr
CDeliveredJunior thanks non-givers-non-receiversComplete for en, es, fr
DDeliveredExperienced thanks non-givers-non-receiversComplete for en, nearly complete for es, with close to 250 entries

Caveats:

  • Enwiki testing reveals few edge cases where a thanks giver/receiver has changed their username post thanks logging; these edge cases are seen on eswiki and frwiki
  • Eswiki and frwiki have few junior thanks giver/receiver editors that have edited 10+ times and are not bots and have emails on file.
DKumar-WMF changed the task status from Open to In Progress.Dec 8 2025, 2:37 PM
DKumar-WMF triaged this task as Medium priority.

Outreach to participants ongoing this week.

Checked in with Ilana yesterday regarding a recruitment update. Ilana let me know that she will update her recognition research questions document with some additional questions relevant to including events/wikiprojects on the newcomer homepage and on-wiki goal setting.

dchen changed Due Date from Jan 30 2026, 12:00 AM to Feb 13 2026, 12:00 AM.Dec 18 2025, 9:03 PM
dchen changed Due Date from Feb 13 2026, 12:00 AM to Jan 31 2026, 12:00 AM.Jan 7 2026, 7:42 PM
DKumar-WMF changed Due Date from Jan 31 2026, 12:00 AM to Feb 7 2026, 12:00 AM.Jan 9 2026, 8:36 PM

First (2) scheduled sessions occurred this last week! Update with discussion guide/notes and interview session links sent to Ilana and connection team for visibility and feedback.

11 sessions this upcoming week.

about 17 sessions completed and should end with about 23 by the end of next week/this project. the team has received the notes shares and have been invited to view/add access for the session videos. have been doing some initial interview debriefs and will move into analysis and report writing mode in the coming week and the first week of february.

final sessions completed last friday and working on the findings report this week.

Exciting news to hear about the sessions being completed, and looking forward to reading the report!

report shared with Ilana and team last week, and all invited to share comments async via doc comment/slack/email. after the APP offsite this week and a first round of review/comment, will likely schedule a Q&A session with team. any significant follow-ups will still be documented here.