维基百科:維基百科大歷險/歷史

維基百科大歷險：為新編輯而設的互動教程

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。

註：本文主要講述了英文原版的研發動機、和介紹。「維基百科大歷險」中文版的研發過程將在文末敘述。

研發動機

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，這個遊戲會借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

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.

影响

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

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.

整体满意度

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'

How satisfied were you with The Wikipedia Adventure?

精选评论

"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

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.

Control group A was not invited to play
Control group B was invited but did not play
TWA Player group was invited and did play

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

Group	Average edits	No edits	No edits %	20+ edits	20+ %	Median edits
Control A, not invited	12.11	13.00	8.44%	18.00	11.69%	3.00
Control B, invited non-players	8.05	21.00	13.55%	11.00	7.10%	3.00
TWA players	15.57	63.00	38.89%	23.00	14.20%	2.00

Editors who played TWA made 1.2x more edits than the pure control group and 1.9x more edits than the invited group that did not play. Players who made it to Mission 7 made 3.2x more edits than those who only started Mission 1. Those who played were 2.8 to 4.6 times more likely to make no edits, but 1.2 to 1.7 times as likely to make 20+ edits. TWA finishers were 2.9 times as likely to make 20+ edits as those who only started TWA.

Comparison	Average edits	No edits	20+ edits	Median edits
Players vs. non-invited control	1.2x	4.6x	1.2x	.33x
Players vs. invited-non-players	1.9x	2.8x	1.8x	.33x
TWA finishers vs. TWA starters	3.2x	.54x	2.9x	4.0x

Article space edits

Group	Average edits	No edits	No edits %	20+ edits	20+ %	Median edits
Control A, non-invited	7.68	37.00	24.03%	14.00	9.09%	2.00
Control B, invited non-players	5.72	46.00	29.68%	8.00	5.16%	2.00
TWA players	10.51	78.00	48.15%	18.00	11.11%	1.00

The trends identified above were equally present when looking only at article-space (NS0) edits. Players made 1.2-1.9 times more average edits, but only half the median edits. Again, players were 1.5 to 2.1 times as likely to make no edits, but also 1.2 - 1.8 times as likely to make 20+ edits. Those who completed the game were far more productive than those who only started it, with 2.4x average edits and 1.5x median edits.

Comparison	Average edits	No edits	20+ edits	Median edits
Players vs non-invited control	1.2x	2.1x	1.2x	.5x
Players vs invited-non-players	1.8x	1.6x	1.8x	.5x
TWA finishers vs. TWA starters	2.4x	.64x	2.4x	1.5x

Talk page edits

Group	Average edits	No edits	No edits%	20+ edits	20+ %
Control A, not invited	3.06	121.00	78.57%	5.00	3.25%
Control B, invited non-players	1.26	120.00	77.42%	2.00	1.29%
TWA players	2.59	114.00	70.37%	6.00	3.70%

Most editors did not go on to make any talk page edits, but there were still some interesting trends. Editors who were invited to play and played made 1.7 times as many talk page edits, and those who completed mission 7 versus only mission 1 made 3x as many talk page edits. Again emphasizing the hypothesis of deepening prolific engagement, those who were invited and played were 2x more likely to make 20+ talk page edits, and those who completed mission 7 were 4x as likely to make 20+ talk page edits. It's worth keeping in mind that the median number of talk page edits for all groups was 0.

Comparison	Average edits	No edits	220+ edits	Median edits
Players vs. non-invited control	.88x	.89x	1.2x	0.00
Players vs. invited non-players	1.7x	.91x	2.0x	0.00
TWA finishers vs. TWA starterss	3.0x	4.0x	0.00

Number of articles

Group	Average # articles	10+ articles	10+ %	Median # articles
Control A, non-invited	2.83	4.00	2.60%	1.00
Control B, invited non-players	2.14	6.00	3.87%	1.00
TWA players	5.38	20.00	12.35%	1.00

The number of different articles edited showed a pattern of increased variety in editing targets by players of the game. Those who played edited 1.6 to 2.6 times the number of different articles, on average. Editors who played were also 3 times as likely to edit 10+ articles. Again, it's worth noting that the median number of articles edited for all groups was low, only one.

Comparison	Average # articles	10+ articles	Median # articles
Players vs. non-invited control	1.6x	3.3x	1.0x
Players vs invited-non-players	2.6x	2.7x	1.0x
TWA finishers vs. TWA starters	2.3x	2.9x	1.0x

Qualitative analysis

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.

Do you agree or disagree with these statements about The Wikipedia Adventure?

Educational effectiveness

92% thought the educational aspects were useful or very useful; 3% useless or very useless

How satisfied were you with the educational aspects of The Wikipedia Adventure?

How effective were these specific educational aspects of The Wikipedia Adventure?

Design satisfaction

83% were satisfied or very satisfied with the design, 6% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
76% said the gamification elements were effective or very effective, 6% ineffective or very ineffective
70% liked the design as it was and did not want it to have a more 'serious' design, 14% wished it was more serious

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+).

How satisfied were you with the design of The Wikipedia Adventure?

How effective were the gamification elements of The Wikipedia Adventure?

What age demographic would The Wikipedia Adventure be appropriate and effective for?

Would you have preferred if The Wikipedia Adventure had a more 'serious' tone and design?

Player demographics

Respondents came from a number of countries: Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Nigeria, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, Macedonia, US, and UK. Although globally diverse, the majority of players still came from US/UK.
Respondents matched discouraging gender gap percentages. 11% were women. In alpha testing, some editors suggested that the game was 'male' or 'geeky'. We never thought space and galactic carnival fireworks were particularly gendered, and the 4 survey responses by females supported that--all rated the game and its design 3 out of 5 or above, mainly 4 out of 5.
One editor who was very dissatisfied with the game had 100,000+ edits. This is too small a sample to draw any conclusions, but it nonetheless reinforces the notion that TWA is not for everyone. Indeed, it is Specifically for new editors. New editors may well have different needs than experienced editors and we need to be mindful that what a 100,000+ editor finds 'insulting and imbecilic', may be just what a new contributor needs to embark down the path towards becoming a prolific contributor.
94% of survey respondents had about 100 or fewer edits, suggesting our sample was not biased away from the target demographic of new editors.

How old were the players of The Wikipedia Adventure?

How many edits had players of The Wikipedia Adventure made when they took the survey?

Possibilities for expansion

64% said, 'I wish there was more of it', 11% disagreed
89% said, 'Lots of new editors should be invited to play TWA', 3% disagreed

Would you be interested in playing more levels of The Wikipedia Adventure?

In their own words

What they liked

Editors found TWA interactive, educational, friendly and usable, gamified, uniquely and well-designed, reassuring...

"As always with new software, you need to be walked through the features: the game worked well in this context and was useful. Covering all (most) areas is the best bit."
"The interactiveness of The Wikipedia Adventure was an easier and better way to learn the basics of Wikipedia versus trying to run around to different pages and just reading about it."
"Well done basic introduction to Wikipedia."
"Simple, easy to use."
"It's simple for new Wikipedia editors like me trying to learn the basics of Wikipedia."
"Informative and fun"
"The conversational tone is pretty good, It makes it fun even if it's all pretty simple."
"Gave a very good, brief introduction to editing."
"It made stuff easy to understand."
"Fun and intuitive game."
"I completed the entire game because it wasn't as dry as other training tools out there."
"Really enjoyed the entire editing process. A lot of thought was given to it, including the fictional users who guide you through the process. It all flowed very well and was highly educational. I also thought that awarding badges was a nice touch too."
"It was all beautifully designed. I enjoyed aspects such as the challenges and badges that made it feel more like an educational tool or game rather than a lecture, and recorded your achievement to date."
"It was a nice length and about right level of seriousness for me."
"I liked it, very different."
"Designed great, easy to use because of that."
"I think the Adventure should be kept just as playful. It's definitely not serious, but that's not a bad thing. Maybe it might be off-putting for someone who thinks it's too "cheesy" or doesn't like its tone, but I certainly enjoyed it and I'd bet a lot of other people would, too."
"It really left me feeling prepared to make future edits."

What they didn't like

A minority of players found the game too silly for their taste, more appropriate for youth, or just plain insulting

"It was kind of cheesy but kept my attention."
"A little too silly for my liking, but it's probably great for young editors."
"Too long-winded and geeky"
"The badges are kinda neutral but the whole thing works very well."
"The forced badges I had to edit out of my talk page were a bit annoying."
"I disliked the way that participants are addressed, as if imbeciles."
"I dislike it because it's like a kid's comic book - first impressions are everything - and I did not like it from the point the big alieny picture arrived."
"I wouldn't disagree with maybe a separate, more formal introductory "page"."
"Maybe split into young-adult and adult streams?"
"Personal I think if you replace the space unicorn with a crashed rocket it would be good for anyone with a sense of fun."
"Even though it felt somewhat silly playing game, it was a good learning experience. It should be serious and have more techniques and points for serious editors."
"Where's the 0-2 category - that is the appropriate level for this stuff - it's at the level of Teletubbies"
"Maybe age specific versions? Space for kids, a fictional vampire wiki for teens, university class stuff for students, etc, etc?"
"I still don't know what the blue guide creature is."
"I wish it gave the impression that editors were expected to be mature and intelligent, rather than idiots who could be entertained an educated with this kind of drivel."

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

Many asked for advanced levels that focus on more specific and sophisticated skills

"I wish there would have been a missions #8, #9 and #10 involving the use of templates, inserting into edits and how to learn and distinguish when to use which. Other elements that would be handy, maybe in an advance mission, would be: tables, logic, advanced programming, advanced templates and formatting."
"May be worth including some information about the policy regarding not editing on behalf of an organisation you belong to. As well as a some additional missions covering what notable enough to be included in Wikipedia."
"Maybe it could extend to more complex rules - when I signed up, I found surprisingly few links to policies or guidelines. For instance, one thing that could be included would be something about red links: I was very surprised to find out they are not only allowed but encouraged, and only found that out at all when someone reverted one of my edits."
"Maybe it should mention how to find sources."
"I think TWA at the moment is a great steeping 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. I think these topics should definitely cover how to code mathematical expressions, how to find proper references externally and cite them, more detail on how to structure/format Wikipedia articles"
"I would love more advanced missions. I can't help but feel that, as a beginning editor, my work is barely tolerable and likely filled with flaws or missing elements which could make it better. I know looking at other articles, especially those highlighted on the main page, gives me ideas and allows me to see examples of good work but the mission was an excellent jump start"
"As I said before please cover what is notable enough to be included as an article to Wikipedia. Might be worth covering whether photos on things like Facebook and Instagram are considered free to be included in Wikipedia, i.e. copyright issues. Optional advance information in regards to structuring certain types of articles i.e. TV, music/dance groups, films, etc."
"Formats of different articles and how to raise doubts/ask for references on other articles."
"Adding images to the summary of an article and the understanding of the ideal layout for an article."
"How to add photos and how to best interact with other editors when there is a dispute about content. Maybe the more inner workings of Wikipedia too - for example, how and why do some editors have more authority over content than others."
"Include ways to help practice basics, because many things tend to be washed away without practice."
"Eh? Maybe talk page debate basics, avoiding straw men and the like."

I want to call out one specific suggestion:
"I would like there to be a mentor aspect to Wikipedia. Sometimes I find that I'm not sure of the best way to edit something - it would be great to be assigned a mentor once you complete the Wikipedia Adventure that you could bounce ideas off of and who could give you ideas for pages to edit."

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

英文原版

中文改版