Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas

This talk page provides room for suggesting and discussing more general improvements to the project. There are no limitations here but topics could include membership, contests, collaboration, promotion and future expectations. Feel free to come forward with anything you think would make the project more effective.

Technical

Looking for feedback on the new version at Template:Women in Red navigation/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: This looks good to me, however is there anyway to have the "Past events" in reverse chronological order so it would start with most recent past and end with 2015? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ - (1) Agree with WomenArtistUpdates regarding recommendation about the "Past events" in reverse chronological order so it would start with most recent past. (2) I'm curious regarding "Recently completed" events; why not just put the March events into the "Past events"? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, recently completed can be merged into past events. The reason I did this is that they are kept separate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events so I was following that. I guess at the start of April, editors are still working on March events so a more prominent link is helpful? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. I actually did this already on the live template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One biography a week

Not many of us are able to write a new article every day but most of us should be in a position to create one biography a week. How about making this a subsection of #1day1woman, starting in January 2024? Each participant could have a separate slot in which their new biographies could be listed. There would be no need for biographies to meet specific criteria such as minimum length but all new articles should meet normal standards of acceptance. We could provide virtual awards for those who manage to continue for three months (with at least 13 articles), six months (26 articles), nine months (39 articles) and for the whole of 2024 (52 articles). Participants should of course be able to create and list more than one new biography a week if they wish but everyone should try to create at least one per week. If contributors are able to keep this up, I believe it could have a significant effect on how we progress. There should be no need to participate from the beginning of January. Participants could join whenever they want and simply calculate periods of three months from the date of their first addition. Is this workable as it is or does anyone have other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: I really like this idea, especially the awards for different lengths of time (it's a lot easier to commit for three months and then keep going!). I'd be keen to commit to #1week1woman :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This idea is really attractive to me. Doing 1 article a day is just not workable for my schedule, especially since my free time to edit is largely just on the weekends. But managing one women's biography a week seems way more doable. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Silver seren^C 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Just jumping in to say: I like this idea too. I haven't managed to carve out much time for article creation in a long while, and I'd really like to get back to that in 2024. One biography a week sounds doable (at least for a portion of the year!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hey there! Completely agree, this is a fantastic idea. A biography a day is daunting and for the majority of us unrealistic, but an article a week I would be more than happy to sign up for. ChairMex (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#1week1woman? Should it be a separate event? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this would be better set up as a separate event, so they can be tracked separetely. Happy to set this up e.g. on 305 if people think that is a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: I think we should set this up! Count me in. ChairMex (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChairMex: It ran successfully from January to March as part of #1day1woman and is continuing from April to June here. It would be disruptive to make it a separate event at this stage. I hope you will join in as soon as possible. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we in touch with what events the world wants WiR to facilitate?

In a recent discussion on my talkpage with Ipigott regarding WiR events, I asked, ... I'm also curious if we aren't in touch with what events the world wants us to facilitate... I suggested 3 quarterly campaigns for later this year: social influencers (Apr, May, June), sports (Jul, Aug, Sep), politics (Oct, Nov, Dec). There were also other salient points made in that section of my talkpage. Ian suggested that I shift the proposal regarding the 3 quarterly campaigns here. So, What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these three-month opportunities could serve as an important additional attraction. Contributors will have time to become familiar with the background and will be able to write about women who are gaining significance in the modern world. Many of our younger contributors should find the topics more in line with their interests than those requiring an interest in history. While I don't often write BLPs, I look forward, for example, to writing about notable TikTokers and YouTubers. It will be interesting to see if there is wider support for this venture.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New editor retention

As a general follow-up to a chat at my user talkpage with Ipigott about mentoring new contributors and ideas related to incentives to improve participation, I don't really have specifics to offer, but instead a few general perspectives to perhaps consider.

My perspective is based on how as an attorney, I became familiar with what is known as 'client-centered lawyering' (brief example overview: Client Centered Lawyering: An Avenue for Change, Aqdas Khudadad, October 12, 2022, University of Cincinnati Legal Clinic), and later in my M.Ed program, 'student-centered teaching' (there are a variety of monikers for this practice) (brief example overview: Student-Centered Learning: In Principle and in Practice (Christa Green and Christopher Harrington, July 20, 2020, Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute). Ipigott, not to put you on the spot too much, but you seem to take what could be considered an 'editor-centered mentoring' approach, and I think this is a solid foundation upon which further efforts could be developed.

There is substantial research literature available on these subjects that may be helpful to review and adapt for new editor support and retention purposes. I use the term "retention" intentionally because of its use in the education field as a metric, so this may be a helpful keyword.

On a more specific note, maybe it would be helpful for new editors to have access to reflections from editors with more experience, about what it was like to be a new editor, what they wish they knew/what was a surprise to learn, and strategies that helped for coping with challenges. For this Wikiproject, perhaps we could tailor reflections to also include a focus related to writing about women. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I am a relatively new editor and I still feel uneasy in this space, I would really appreciate the 'editor-centered mentoring' approach you talk about!. ChairMex (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]