Since Wikipedia is a project that rests on the cooperation of many editors, information regarding my efforts may help other editors understand my interests, priorities and abilities. My major activities include:
I am still...
Writing new articles
Engaging in exuberant, serial welcoming messages to those registering their new user name (along with the appropriate warning about unconstructive editing)
I found this report on the efficacy of the Teahouse project:
During the pilot phase of this project, from March to May 2012, we measured engagement and retention outcomes for new editors who participated in the project compared with a similar group of editors who do not participate. We also surveyed new and long-time editors who participated in the Teahouse to learn more about their experiences. Our research so far shows that the Teahouse does have a positive impact on the editors who participate - Teahouse guests edit more articles, add more content to the encyclopedia, more of their content survives, and more of these editors remain active on Wikipedia in the following weeks. We're encouraged by these findings so far, but we're not done yet. Work continues on the project and we'll continue to measure the outcomes in coming months as well.
An audio file to answer some of the most common editing questions
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I assume that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, the encyclopedia would be doomed from the beginning. It cannot be accepted in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Good faith also requires the use of courtesy and consideration.
Good faith requires us to try, to the best of our ability, to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.
When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors. Bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith but it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives.
