WIKI-GENPAGES-L Archives

Archiver > WIKI-GENPAGES > 2011-06 > 1307027072


From: Bill <>
Subject: Re: [WIKI-GENPAGES] Wikis
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:04:32 -0400
References: <4DE6EAC6.4020405@integrity.com><4DE78826.6957.AA053EE@andrew.billinghurst.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DE78826.6957.AA053EE@andrew.billinghurst.org>


HI Beth

Although I'm sure you know my opinion, I always find this topic of
interest. Back in the day...when wiki's were all bright, new, shiny,
and somewhat mysterious, my first thought was that this would be a
great approach to doing genealogy....that's what I felt then, along
with a great many other people who've said as much in various talk
pages---usually along the lines of "I was looking at Wikipedia the
other day, and thought 'Wow, wouldn't this be great for doing
genealogy!'" Many people had this idea fairly early on, and its been
implement in a number of different Wiki environments, mostly using
WikiMedia, but I think there are a few out there that have
implemented their own programming to do this.

So we've had lots of wiki's doing genealogy. They all have the same
basic problems, though in different colors and flavors

For now, Andrew's comment
> I still think wikis have a learning curve, and there is still plenty
> of work to be done around a better user interface, or something more
> akin to a word processor, is needed to get a more universal
> involvement.


is probably quite accurate in summing up the problem. But I think
its more complex than that.


Some of the genealogy wiki's, such as FamilyPedia (a Wikia wiki),
have implemented user developed text input systems where genealogical
information can be stored, one person at a time. That was, by the
way, a really good improvement to the FamilyPedia system.

Others, such as WeRelate (and now WikiTree (the one that operates as
WikiTree.com,--NOT WikiTree.org, which seems to be pretty much dead
in the water)
have implemented GedCom upload capability, which considerably
improves their usability.

Both types of systems are usable, of course. Especially where the
person data that would appear under one or more "cards",
automatically updates when the source card is changed. But the
GedCom importers have a definite advantage---in that it makes adding
your data to the site very (well, sort of "very") easy. People don't
have to redo all of their previous work. Not surprisingly, WeRelate
and WikiTree.com have substantial data bases. Since WeRelate
operates as "one-person, one-card", and wiki tree allows multiple
"alternative realities" to exist, I would expect that WikiTree will
eventually have the larger database. WeRelate, however, will
probably have the more accurate database, as the "one-person, one-
card" system pretty much forces alternative realities to be merged,
with the deciding factor of which reality is right based on the
original source data information. WeRelate's layout facilitates
recording of source data (how you "know what you know"), and this
helps decide against good bad and indifferent data---and so decide
which alternative reality should get the nod. (I should add that my
experience with WikiTree is limited, and predates their adoption of
gedCom import. I may be missing something here.).

However, apart from mechanics of basic data importation (something
theoretically under the control of each genealogy wiki system), the
real problem for all wiki's is the retention of editors.
Surprisingly enough, even WikiPedia has this problem. They are, for
example, quite concerned with the fact that they are seeing a clear
drop off in the conversion of new editors to long-term editors.

See

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Enwp_retention_vs_active_editors.png

and

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study


The basic problem for Wikipedia is that new people who come onto
their system to make a few edits, often don't continue to work on the
system aftwerwards. Originally their one year retention rate was
about 40%---which I think should be regarded as wildly successful.
Currently that's down to about 10%---and Wikia is not happy about that.

If genealogy wiki's had even that 10% retention rate, they'd be
wildly successful. But they don't. When I first started working on
what's now called FamilyPedia I checked the retention rate (that's
probaby about 6 or seven years ago, but whose counting), it looked
to me like MAYBE one person in a hundred stuck around for more than a
day or so. There was a small cadre of frequent editors, but for the
most part people tried it, and left. I think their cadre of frequent
editors has increased a bit, but its still not a large number of
folks doing it---I suspect its under ten people. The cadre of
frequent editors on WeRelate is probably a bit larger---probably
about 20 editors, but its still not huge---and also not growing.

Wikipedia's explanation for the reduction in editor retention is sort
of interesting. I'm not sure that they really believe this, but
their thinking seems to be that new editors are frightened away by
bad experiences with the entrenched editors. So their solution to
that is to encourage editors to "be nice to newbies". I don't think
that's exactly the problem, though its easy to find talk pages with
some fairly nasty exchanges. My guess is that the well established
editors don't engage in this kind of thing, and that the problems
arise from the work of a few---those who are less interested in
making better articles, and more interested in some variation getting
their way, dominance, etc. Those kinds of folks probably get banned
after awhile, but not before they've done their damage.

Actually, I don't really think this is the reason for the low
retention on Wikipedia. Rather, I suspect that this arises because
most of the low hanging fruit has been harvested. I mean, you can
only say so much about the local history and attractions of East
Malin, Pa, before you've pretty much exhausted the common knowledge
about the subject. And once "what everybody knows" has been
recorded, adding more to the article requires more than just casual
knowledge.

What that means is that the pool of people who could add to an
article such as "East Malin, Pa" is going to gradually shrink until
there are only a very few people who a) have the knowledge base at
their hand who can add to the article, and b) have the interest in
doing so. Even then, they aren't likely to be retained long term
because after they've exhausted what they can add about "East Malin,
PA", they probably find that they have no interest in adding
information to "West Malin, PA".

And so the pool of persistent users gradually shrinks.

Genealogy wiki's have a related problem, but not quite the same. As
I said, a retention rate of 10% would make them highly successful.
Managers of even the most successful genealogy wiki's would be
dancing in the streets with that kind of retention. But here, the
problem is different. What limits retention is "easy of use" issues.
Good text input, and GedCom import systems solve that to some
extent. But even with them, to do something with the person articles
(and keep people engaged after initial input) requires something more.

And that something more is not something in most peoples "tool kit".
There are several elements to a working tool kit that are needed to
make a wiki article "sing"..or even to "croak in harmony".

First, you need to master the very strange coding requirements of the
wiki media---it may seem obvious to those with a programming
background, but to most folks, this is strange business----just
getting folks to insert ~~~~~ when they finish a comment on a talk
page, seems like a hard problem sometimes. Understanding how to
create a section with "==Name of Section==" is probably really
bizarre, until you get the hang of it...and adding tables, and color
formating, and fiddling with font sizes and font colors.....

It takes a lot of learning for people to get accustomed to that kind
of bizarreness.

So, even if you get someone past the "Oh, this is too hard to use"
stage, getting them to actually create an article is a huge hurdle
to overcome. And most folks who come into the system (be it
FamilyPedia, WeRelate, WikiTree.com, etc), aren't going to devote the
time needed to learn those skills.

And I haven't even touched on the need for developing skill with a
graphic editor (for manipulating images), or with a text editor (one
more complicated than a word processor) to manipulate captured data.

Andrews additional comment
> To also admit that I have moved my volunteer administrative skills
> from RootsWeb to become an administrator at Wikisource, Wikipedia and
> Commons. Done plenty of learning about templates wikitext, and am
> would rate myself as reasonably competent while still not magic at
> palaver for html.

Is well taken. A WYSIWYG editor is really needed for work on a wiki.

All of the above would pretty much apply to any wiki on any subject.
However, genealogy wiki's have a unique set of problems. Not the
least of which is a genealogically naive potential user community,
many of whom self identify themselves as "expert genealogists, having
a Gedcom of more than 50,000 people, and having been doing genealogy
for the past 30 years".


Bill

On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Andrew Billinghurst wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2011 at 20:43, Beth Gay wrote:
>
>> Hello to all of the subscribers. This list has been inactive for
>> awhile.
>> Do any of you have opinions about the Wikis in general or opinions
>> about
>> specific Wikis? Are your presently active on a Wiki or did you try a
>> Wiki and not like it? Are there new Wikis that have not been
>> discussed
>> previously?
>>
>> Warmest regards,
>> Beth Gay, Auburn AL
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WIKI-
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> Personally my genealogy research is on hold, though I have been doing
> plenty of work at Wikisource http://en.wikisource.org/ contributing
> resource works and using my genie research skills to undertake author
> identification and slim biographical details, some of which may then
> go onwards to Wikipedia. Been digging up photographs and extracting
> the images and uploading to Commons.
>
> Major projects underway are the transcription of the initial 63
> volumes of the Dictionary of National Biography. Other biographical
> works also fall into things that I have done. I probably should
> write a small faq about WikiSource, but it is a bit of a roundtuit
> situation.
>
> I still think wikis have a learning curve, and there is still plenty
> of work to be done around a better user interface, or something more
> akin to a word processor, is needed to get a more universal
> involvement.
>
> To also admit that I have moved my volunteer administrative skills
> from RootsWeb to become an administrator at Wikisource, Wikipedia and
> Commons. Done plenty of learning about templates wikitext, and am
> would rate myself as reasonably competent while still not magic at
> palaver for html.
>
> For some of my Wikisource bits and pieces see
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Billinghurst
>
> Regards, Andrew
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WIKI-GENPAGES-
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: