📖 Source→⚡ Observation·Where the pattern works/Where the pattern breaks·Interpretation ≠ Conclusion

Peeragogy in Practice

Newcomer

⏱ 7 minPATparticipationonboardingcommunitygroup

Motivation

This pattern can help project participants be aware of the issues faced by newcomers, and cultivate a “beginner’s mind” themselves.

Context

When there’s learning happening, it’s because there is someone who is new to a topic, or to something about the topic.

Forces

Individuation: each person learning optimally is what’s best for the community.

Mutuality: our individuality does not isolate us from one another, but draws us together.

Problem

Newcomers can feel overwhelmed by the amount of things to learn. They often don’t know where to start. They may have a bunch of ideas that the old-timers have never considered – or they may think they have new ideas, which are actually a different take on an old idea; see Reduce, reuse, recycle. People who are new to the project can tell you what makes their participation difficult. Since you’re learning as you go as well, you can ask yourself the same question: what aspects of this encounter are difficult for me?

Solution

Instead of thinking of newcomers as “them”, and trying to provide solutions, we focus on newcomers as “us” – which makes the search for solutions that much more urgent. We permit ourselves to ask naive questions. We entertain vague ideas. We add concreteness by trying A specific project. We may then genuinely turn to others for help. We aim to foster a culture in which the focus for everyone is on addressing our own learning challenges rather than on “providing” solutions for others [1]. When you begin a new project, try to systematically take notes and gather data to analyze and reflect upon later; leave artifacts for other future newcomers to use and build upon in their own research. In practice this may be a lot to ask for someone just joining a group, but over time we may have many ways to structure our collective engagement so that it leads to research cycles based on the “action research” steps reflect, plan, act, and observe. Note that there is a parallel with the four facets assess, convene, organize, cooperate from Figure [fig:connections]. The history of the action research approach, with particular emphasis on educational applications, is surveyed in [5]. One method for doing the reflection/assessment step is presented in the Scrapbook pattern. Be flexible: networked attention (even more so than rigid cycles [3]) leads to new ways of knowing and expanded access to knowledge-production [7,8].

Rationale

A newcomer’s confusion about how best to get involved or what the point of all this actually is may be due to a lack of structure in the project Roadmap. Sharing vulnerability and confusion gives us a chance to learn.

Resolution

An awareness of the difficulties that newcomers face can help us be more compassionate to ourselves and others. We strengthen the community by supporting all participants’ individuation. We have a better chance of making the project useful for others if we’re clear about how it is useful to us. By welcoming newcomers, we enhance the sense of mutuality with people who have never encountered the project before, and learn together with them. The facts start to become useful when we understand how people perceive them [4].

Example 1

Wikipedia Newcomers can make use of resources that include a “Teahouse” where questions are welcomed, a platform extension that changes the user interface for new editors, and lots of documentation.[fn:1],[fn:2],[fn:3] exceptional newcomers may be given special recognition.[fn:4] interest to the Wikimedia Foundation.[fn:5] However, “Nearly all editors begin with a burst of activity, then quickly tail off” [6]. The degree to which those editors who are retained strive to maintain a “beginner’s mind” is less clear. As regards learning their way around the community, there is quantitative support [6] for the claim that “novice users learn the rules and conventions for contributing both through observation and direct coaching from more knowledgeable others” [2].

\ Science Hall: Aspatria Agricultural College, Aspatria, Cumberland, UK

Example 2

It will often be pragmatic to connect Newcomers with employment directly, so that the future university may see a closer coupling of science and industry than would be found in the old Science Hall. Inspiration can be drawn the London-based freelancing cooperative Founders&Coders, which is able to offer intensive training in web development at no cost to successful applicants, on the basis that some trainees will choose to join the cooperative as paying members later on.[fn:6]

What’s Next in the Peeragogy Project

More detailed guides can show Newcomers how they can contribute and what to expect when they do. We should have different guides for different “user stories”. We can start by listing some of the things we’re currently learning about.

BACK Develop an Outreach pattern :community:course:

  • (Charlotte interested)
  • (similar to the podcast checklist)
  • Regarding using this in the course: we don’t want to let people who signed up sit wondering!

BACK Do some inter-community networking :community:

  • E.g., CBREE w/ Kerrin (Vitor already involved here)
    • (and they have 5 Eastern meetings every Wednesday, 3 founding members, Gladys is in medical, Ramo is workplace, w/ members in various fields)
  • Maybe writing a version of the interview questions that are useful for external folks, see [Inreach task](*“Inreach” to existing mailing list people create a mini-bio portfolio?).

BACK “Inreach” to existing mailing list people create a mini-bio portfolio? :community:course:

  • use google forms? short interview? invite to join podcast? Joe + Vitor
  • Lisa has developed some great interview questions for thinking about peeragogy.
    • Answers could generate information we could feed into the course materials (introducing how different people think about peeragogy).

BACK Joe can give a demo that shows how he edits the peeragogy.org website :website:course:

  • There are a bunch of technical steps involved and by no means should we expect people to figure them out on their own!

BACK A section on Github could be offered to course participants :course:

  • This shouldn’t exclude offering other simpler skills-training
  • Since the sessions can be recorded they don’t have to be one-size-fits-all

BACK We can repeat the kaiju workshop as needed :course:

  • We ran it once with two people who signed up for the peeragogy course
  • Sadly Joe missed the May 7th scheduled event at Brookes but hopefully this will be rescheduled!
  • We have also been invited to run it at CLS 2021, let’s not forget!

References

  1. D. Boud and A. Lee. 2005. “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education 30, 5: 501–516.

  2. Susan L Bryant, Andrea Forte, and Amy Bruckman. 2005. Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. /Proceedings of the 2005 international aCM sIGGROUP conference on supporting group work/, ACM, 1–10.

  3. Y. Engeström. 1999. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In /Perspectives on activity theory/, Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen and Raija-Leena Punamäki (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 377–406.

  4. Paulo Freire. 1982. Creating alternative research methods: Learning to do it by doing it. In Creating knowledge: A monopoly, B. Hall, A. Gillette and R. Tandon (eds.). Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 29–37.

  5. Jean McNiff. 2013. Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.

  6. Katherine Panciera, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2009. Wikipedians are born, not made: A study of power editors on Wikipedia. /Proceedings of the aCM 2009 international conference on supporting group work/, ACM, 51–60.

  7. Gilbert Simondon. 2012. Technical mentality. In /Gilbert Simondon: Being and technology/, Arne De Boever, Alex Murray, Jon Roffe and Ashley Woodward (eds.). Oxford University Press, 1–15.

  8. C.S. Wagner. 2008. /The new invisible college: Science for development/. Brookings Inst Press.


[fn:1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

[fn:2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted

[fn:3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

[fn:4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_New_Editor%27s_Barnstar

[fn:5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newcomer_survival_models

[fn:6] http://www.foundersandcoders.com/academy/

⚡ Unpeeragogy · Friction · Observation

The Newcomer Disrupts the System

⏱ 5 mindocumentary-auditnewcomerentrancedisturbanceaudit-v2

The Assumption

Welcoming newcomers requires balancing energy investment in onboarding against the disruption to existing group dynamics, with veterans potentially resenting the attention given to newcomers.

Illustrative Scenario — Not Empirical Evidence

The following vignette is a synthetic scenario used to make the mechanism legible. It is not a field report and is not counted as empirical evidence.

Maria joins a neighborhood mutual aid network after six months of watching from the sidewalk. She shows up to the monthly meeting with a notebook full of ideas about food distribution efficiency. The organizers smile and nod while she talks about route optimization and inventory tracking. Three weeks later, she stops coming to meetings.

Not because they were mean to her. Not because they shut down her suggestions. Not because she felt unwelcome — everyone was genuinely kind, patient, encouraging even. She left because being nice to newcomers sidesteps the harder question: what happens when the newcomer’s fresh perspective conflicts with how things actually get done?

In the scenario, the mutual aid group has spent two years building relationships with corner store owners who let them use back rooms for free. Maria’s efficiency improvements would require renting warehouse space and buying software. Her ideas are not necessarily wrong — they are incompatible with the social infrastructure that makes the work possible in the first place.

The scenario generates a hypothesis, not a finding: newcomer friction can expose dependencies that established members no longer perceive as decisions.

Documentary Evidence

The documentary cases below do not all support the hypothesis with the same force. That difference is explicit.

Direct structural support:

  • OpenStreetMap Data Working Group — OpenStreetMap documents a formal body for disputes that exceed ordinary community resolution. This supports the narrower claim that peer-production systems may create explicit escalation authority when informal mechanisms are insufficient. It does not establish that newcomer-veteran disputes are the cause of that design.

Contextual cases — not causal confirmation:

  • WebAssembly Community Group — The W3C page documents a Community Group with named chairs and participation structures. It is relevant as governance context, but the source does not demonstrate that lightweight governance makes newcomer-veteran conflict irresolvable.
  • IETF — The IETF documents an institutional setting in which rough consensus coexists with formal organisational and process structures. This complicates any simple equation of “peer governance” with structurelessness, but the general About page does not by itself prove that escalation structures cause consensus to succeed.

Perturbatore: “What if being nice to newcomers does not solve the problem of what happens when they disagree with you — and the newcomer’s disruption is not a bug to be managed, but useful friction that exposes what the system actually depends on?”

Operational Heuristics

Positive Boundary: Make hidden dependencies and decision rights visible during onboarding. If a group has escalation or dispute-resolution mechanisms, name them explicitly rather than allowing newcomers to infer that every decision is equally open.

Negative Boundary: Do not treat courtesy, openness of participation, or an invitation to speak as evidence that a newcomer has equal access to the dependencies that actually constrain decisions.

Epistemic Synthesis

The current evidence supports a narrower claim than the original version of this entry made. Open peer-production systems can combine participatory rhetoric with explicit authority structures; those structures may become visible precisely where ordinary community mechanisms reach their limits. What remains insufficiently evidenced here is the stronger causal claim that newcomer-veteran disagreement specifically produces those limits.

The synthetic Maria scenario therefore remains useful as a hypothesis generator, not as proof. A field report describing a real newcomer entering an established peer group — including what was negotiable, what was not, and how disagreement was resolved — would materially strengthen or challenge this interpretation.

Kindness is not governance. But neither does the existence of governance prove why a conflict occurred.

Evidence Status

Dimension Current state
Epistemic status Hypothesized
Verification status Partially supported
Direct documentary support 1 case
Contextual documentary cases 2 cases
Field reports 0
Synthetic scenarios 1 — excluded from evidence counts

What Would Change This Interpretation?

  • A field report in which newcomer disagreement is resolved sustainably without any explicit escalation mechanism would complicate the current boundary.
  • Evidence showing that the cited formal bodies were created for reasons unrelated to limits of informal resolution would narrow the structural analogy.
  • Multiple incidents showing that newcomers can renegotiate hidden dependencies without formal authority would weaken the hypothesis that visible decision rights are necessary.

Traceability

Method: documentary-audit-v2.1 · Claim: UP-NEWCOMER-001 · Tension: 1.7792/3 · Integrity: structured

The tension value is retained from the prior audit for continuity. It should be recomputed only under a single canonical tension method; it is not a statistical confidence score.

References

💬 Field Report: The Newcomer Disrupts the System

Every pattern in the Handbook has been tested in the real world — and the real world usually has something to say about it. If you tried something similar, or saw it fail differently, share the story here.

Write in your native language — the browser will translate. Lowering the entry barrier is more important than choosing the "right" language. GitHub translates threads automatically so everyone can follow along.
Read how evidence is collected →

What happens after I share my story?

1. Your post appears in GitHub Discussions in the Field reports category.

2. Once a week, the project reads new threads and checks for patterns worth integrating.

3. If your story reveals a new Failure Vector, a revision to tension_index, or a sharper edge for the Perturbator — the entry gets updated.

4. The change is logged at /log and goes live on the next deploy.

Don't have a GitHub account? Here's how it works

GitHub Discussions is free. You need a GitHub account (30 seconds to create one).

Once you're signed in, click "Share your story" above. Write in your own language — the thread will be translated for everyone else automatically.

You don't need to know how to code. You don't need to know what "git" is. You just need an observation that the theory didn't match reality.

What are GitHub Discussions? →

Every pattern raises more questions than it answers.
Read the theory. Then look at what happened.