[T15] Primary language editors: we believe that the proportion of primary language editors among the active editors in a language community should be at least 55% to guarantee that there are dedicated editors whose main project is that Wikipedia language edition. A percentage higher than 95% might imply that the community is not attracting collaborators from other communities. The rationale for both percentages is that we see both 50% and 100% as extremes, and we suggest some margin around these values.
4.3. Validation and Affiliates’ Feedback
We present the results obtained for the focus group we held in five Wikimedia conferences and at two affiliate gatherings. Over the sessions, we placed special emphasis in understanding aspects such as the importance of the metric, what would they change about the metric, which actor holds responsibility for improving its results, and the potential actions that would lead to such improvements. For a matter of privacy, we will not mention who specifically expressed each suggestion or comment.
Regarding retention, many of the participants in the different sessions considered the metric of great importance. Not only because it directly relates to the entire community’s potential for growth, but also because of its simple interpretation. The only caveat they found is in the period considered for an editor to be retained (60 days after the first edit).
Several affiliate members considered that they knew several scenarios in which it could be tricked, and they put the example of a university course using Wikipedia, where the professor usually enrolls all the students to create content as an exercise for two to three months, even this does not necessarily mean they have been retained. Even though this period was computed as a cut-off threshold based on the distribution of surviving editors, we decided to listen to the participants and include a larger period (3 months, 6 months, and 1 year), and the overall decline did not change. In any case, for a matter of clarity, we will include different thresholds in a future website dashboard.
Retention is possibly the most discussed metric prior to the creation of these Vital Signs, even though there are no public results. Generally, session participants considered that the editors in the community have an important role in directly or indirectly improving it, followed by affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation. They also recognized the importance of the features designed by the WMF Growth Team, and overall, they believed that improvements in the user experience would have an impact. In addition, they recognized that a more organized approach to mentorship would also be a valuable tool to improve newcomer retention, given the complexity of tools, policies, and tasks a new editor has to learn about.
Regarding stability, participants were convinced of its importance. Even though they thought this would not be as determinant as to change the focus of the affiliate activities. In fact, to guarantee the engagement of the long-term editors as well as to increase that of those who have been editing for a few months is something affiliates work on through the organization of activities such as contests and Wikiprojects. Not surprisingly, they considered the affiliates the main actors who could take responsibility for ensuring results.
Some affiliates considered it very helpful when it comes to understand the state of consolidation of a community. Given that a high percentage of first-month editors is both a sign of instability, but could also be a sign of growth. On the other end, affiliates recognized the importance of a consolidated percentage of long-term engaged editors. In this sense, they speculated and largely discussed the effects of rewards or recognition in the prevention of editor drop-off, even though they could also compel them to retire after a “mission accomplished”.
Regarding balance, there was unanimous recognition to the importance of seeing the community composition in terms of tenure. Differently than retention, where the declining rates were somehow expected, in this case they saw the growing percentages of the latest generations (2016–2029) and renewal as a relief. As recognized by several affiliates, this metric provided a different angle to understand the risk of becoming a closed community
