維基百科:維基百科大歷險/歷史
此維基百科頁目前正依照其他維基百科上的內容進行翻譯。 (2016年4月24日) |
維基百科不是遊樂場,不過學習編輯維基百科應該還是要夠有趣的。
研發動機
[編輯]問題:對新用戶而言,維基百科是一個很艱難的工作環境。除了新介面,社群還有自己的方針和常規慣例,在此以下的還有一個任務——抵達有批判思考和中立的知識世界,這本身也是一項艱難的任務。
現狀:編輯維基百科的人很少,這遠少於維基百科的讀者和有能力/興趣編輯維基百科的人。很多人要練好基本功,就要捱過幾天,或者幾個星期,甚至幾年、幾月。很多人都覺得維基百科的編輯環境是令人感到不愉快的,是嚇人的。
解決:創造一個有教育意義的互動網上遊戲,這個遊戲會藉助模擬的維基百科介面,帶領新用戶完成多個逼真的任務,令他們熟習維基百科實際編輯的機制、路線、原則和實務。
目標:令新用戶在完成整個遊戲的時候感到自己有能力開始編輯,知道自己遇到障礙的時候應該怎樣做,並且以新編輯的身分感到一點成功感、自豪感,並且感到自己有可能在維基百科茁壯成長。
簡介
[編輯]維基百科大歷險是一個分為七關的互動導航旅程,向新編輯介紹維基百科的基本編輯、交際技能和本地的方針指引。這個項目在2011年開始,當時它只是一個腳本,直至2013年才使用維基媒體基金會發放的個人項目資助撥款完成。
對某些編輯而言,學習編輯維基百科可以是困難的、令人沮喪的、令人困惑的、令人吃不消的。這個遊戲的目的就是掃除這些感覺,並創造一種學習經驗。所以比起感到自己無法理解維基百科的生態(甚至覺得這裏的生態嚇人),離開維基百科,維基百科大歷險的玩家更願意留下來,解決參加維基百科期間遇到的困難,掌握維基百科、維基社群帶來的機會。
維基媒體基金會的宗旨之一就是招攬新編輯,留住活躍編輯。維基百科大歷險就是因應這兩項宗旨,為了減少學習維基百科編輯實務的困難,促進新編輯融入社群而設計的遊戲。新編輯對維基百科的理念和編輯實務的初體驗越好,成為活躍編者的機會越高。如果這些編輯做好準備,處理社群常見的誤點,他們就更願意留下來,為社群貢獻。
維基百科大歷險是一個網上導航旅程,是一個教材,也是一個有教育意義的遊戲;設計目的是令編輯者從註冊帳號到完成自己第100次編輯的過程變得積極而鼓舞人心。參加這個遊戲的人士可以拾級而上,學會維基百科的基礎編輯技能(編輯條目、註冊帳戶、建立用戶頁、常用的Mediawiki源代碼)和進階編輯技能(加插圖像、加插參考來源、在互助客棧求助等)。
The game centers around the hypothetical article Earth (actually a modified form of the Simple English Wikipedia's article on Earth). Earth was selected as a focal point, because it has literally universal appeal and avoids the cultural favoritism involved in choosing a representative article that may only appeal to some readers (e.g. The Beatles or Mother Teresa).
Through a realistic but not 'live' emulated interface, the user gets to experience what happens at a real article. It begins with an invitation from another user to work on the Earth article and involves interactive tasks such as typo-fixing, identifying reliable sources, crafting writing from a neutral point of view, understanding core content policies, and even dealing with vandalism and nonconstructive edits.
The game focuses on more than just the technical mechanics of editing, infusing the script with mock interactions with simulated 'real' editors. Some of them are friendly, some are less so—and the user has the experience of learning about how to communicate in a productive and effective manner. At the heart of the game is the lesson of cooperation and collaboration, that is what makes Wikipedia work the spirit of the people who write it and that anyone can be a part of it if they learn a few basics.
Throughout each mission editors complete editing and policy challenges about Wikipedia, so that their progress in the game is matched by their progress as real editors. The ambitious goal is that new editors would not feel out of place or ignorant as they confront the actual editing environment of Wikipedia but instead would be prepared and even enthusiastic to get started.
As a result of this game, Wikipedia will have another tool in its arsenal to educate new users and improve their initial experience as members of the community. The game serves the many, but in a personalized way. As an online game, it scales easily and can be delivered to tens, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people. There is no limit to the game's potential exposure; if effective, it could be a standard element of welcoming new editors across all of our 280+ languages.
It's important that the game's expansion would continue beyond the initial implementation. This would be facilitated in several ways. For one, the game's script and code are all already released under open source, 'free' licenses that permit use, adaptation, or even commercial applications. That would be essential to allowing others to build on the platform. Second, the platform itself would be designed to allow other users to build their own tutorials and modules. We hope that editor will propose or build additional missions, and translate the game into the context or language that suits their community and niche best.
影響
[編輯]In October 2013 we ran an extended bugfixing alpha-test with over 50 editors and 200 bugs identified and fixed. In November/December 2013 we ran a beta-test in which nearly 10,000 editors were invited to play and 600 did. In January we crunched the data from that test. Here's what we found:
Phase 1 pilot and beta metrics
[編輯]- TWA players made more edits: New editors who played TWA made 1.2x more edits than a control group of similar but non-invited new editors. Players made 1.9x more edits than those who were invited but did not play the game.
- TWA players were more likely to make 20+ edits: TWA players were more likely (1.2-1.7x) to make 20+ edits than either control group. TWA players were also more likely to make 0 edits than the control groups, however.
- Players who finished the game made the most edits: Players who completed the game made 3.2x more edits than those who only started the first level of the game, and were 2.9x more likely to make 20+ edits.
- Players enjoyed the experience and felt more confident: 87% of players surveyed were satisfied or very satisfied overall with the game. 89% said 'TWA made me more confident as an editor.' TWA player: "It really left me feeling prepared to make future edits." 89% said, 'Lots of new editors should be invited to play TWA.'
A possible explanation for these findings: new editors who play TWA appear to be making their test edits within the game rather than on articles. Those who continue to edit Wikipedia after playing demonstrate the confidence of a more highly active editor.
整體滿意度
[編輯]- 87%的參與者滿意或十分滿意
- 89%的人說'TWA使我這個編者更佳自信',
- 89%的人說'TWA使我更佳瞭解維基百科'
- 77%的人說 'TWA使我想要編輯', 6%不同意
- 79%的人說 'TWA讓我感到我是被歡迎和支持的'
- 71%的人說, 'TWA讓我知道我下一步要做些什麼', 9%不同意
- 80%的人說, 'TWA prepared me to be a successful contributor to Wikipedia'
- 75%的人說, 'I enjoyed playing it', 6% disagreed
- 89%的人說, 'The game is a good way to introduce new editors to Wikipedia'
- 89%的人說, 'Lots of new editors should be invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure'
精選評論
[編輯]- "I enjoyed the idea of editing a fake article for practice - in fact, when I first saw the game, I immediately hoped it would incorporate some sort of actual editing rather than just theory or questions or something."
- "Well, what's there not to like, or to have an opinion on...the game is great, most-of-all for us users that are just starting up in Wikipedia."
- "I didn't know there was talk and discussion among users until I played the game...I just thought you could make comments and report on individual pages."
- "I've seen and heard companies, including my own, talk about learning through 'gamification'. I found TWA to be the best example of gamification I have witnessed to date."
- "TWA was very informative and helped pull back the curtain on some of the fundamentals of editing."
- "I think TWA at the moment is a great stepping stone for new users such as myself. I would love to see it expand to include more 'advanced' topics that can be optionally covered by the user."
Extended Quantitative and Qualitative analysis
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quantitative analysis[編輯]We analyzed 3 groups of 165 editors each in November/December 2013. All were selected from Snuggle's desirability algorithm as likely good-faith contributors. 10,000 editors were invited to play using a mass talk page message invitation.
All groups made 1 edit before they were sampled, and made at least 1 edit afterwards, to ensure that they didn't just wander away. In other words, groups 2 actually saw the invites, and group 3 made an edit after the game as well. We found that:
A note on the analysis: we ran this data after a very brief amount of time--barely 4 weeks. A fuller timeframe for analysis which we will conduct by Spring 2014 will be more robust and have more meaningful signals in them. (We plan to conduct statistical significance tests and reports about editor retention and edit persistence). Total average edits[編輯]
Article space edits[編輯]
Talk page edits[編輯]
Number of articles[編輯]
Qualitative analysis[編輯]We surveyed the 600 editors who at least made it to the first stage of mission 1. We sent these editors talk page invitations to a Qualtrics survey using EdwardsBot. 42 editors responded between December 23rd and January 4th.
Educational effectiveness[編輯]
Design satisfaction[編輯]
The hypothesis we set out to test was that play could be thoughtful and fun could yield meaningful experience and education. The survey data supports this conclusion. We also aimed for a target demographic of college-aged men and women. The most common given age group for appropriateness was that demographic, so it looks like we aimed right. It's also worth noting that the bell curve was fairly 'thick' around this demographic, and survey respondents thoughts TWA would be appropriate for many age ranges, especially those 13-29 (but also younger those than 13 and 55+).
Player demographics[編輯]
Possibilities for expansion[編輯]
In their own words[編輯]What they liked[編輯]
What they didn't like[編輯]
I'd like to note that the most negative feedback consistently came from one respondent who had 100,000+ edits. While I do not discount their points--echoed by earlier design debates about the game's playful or even youthful nature--it needs repeating that the target for the game is new editors, and these contributors are different and have different needs than experienced contributors. What they wanted more of[編輯]
I can't help but note that this winter, Jackson Peebles' reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship grant proposal would likely have been funded, were it not for his passing. This is an incredibly fruitful area for future improvement and we should not pass up the opportunity to reinvent it. |
- More details: Phase 1 report
研發人員
[編輯]- 英文原版
- User:Charles Edwin Shipp
- User:Ebe123
- User:Jojalozzo
- User:Ocaasi
- User:Pine
- User:Prabash
- User:RexRowan
- User:Sonia
- User:Worm That Turned
- 中文改版