Yes we might be on the same page, but I think in general the
employment policy of WFM is one big disaster. I would rather not make
a research on productivity among the employees... which from a POV of
an outsider seems to be a tragedy looking at the site usability and
editing stats... I have no
You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow
remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public...
you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US
now) go to the full globe instead...
2012/3/28 birgitte...@yahoo.com:
It seems to me
On 5 April 2012 22:42, Jan Kučera kozuc...@gmail.com wrote:
You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow
remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public...
you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US
now) go to the full
On Apr 5, 2012 2:42 PM, Jan Kučera kozuc...@gmail.com wrote:
You are still doomed as WMF with your new job probram unless you allow
remote work or start a reasonable grant-program to general public...
you will never find the best talents in a limited space... (mainly US
now) go to the full
Please don't assume I disagree with all objections that could possibly be made,
just because I disagree that the one's which had been presented so far are very
significant. I sincerely hope this program is more decentralized then any other
program being run right now. It seems to be in rather
It seems to me that there has been a quite a variety of results to booster
activities, and that the poorest results have come from random educators who
decide to make a Wikipedia class project without consulting any veteran
editors rather than from people more thoroughly exposed to the sausage
Hi Birgitte
I greatly respect your opinion, and rarely found myself disagreeing with
you. I didn't want to reply in-line because I believe majority of your
opinions stem from the wisdom of the crowd model, which might best describe
the wiki model and the assumption that, it will continue
Birgitte, I have greatly enjoyed all of your replies in this thread;
this one in particular. Thank you for sharing.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:37 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I simply see the bigger concern to be: What if we don't add 1,000 new
curators who care to learn how to
For those who are interested in quantitative studies on the subject of editor
motivation, I suggest looking at the list of academic papers at
http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Motivations. I learned about that list from
a recent post to research-l. I assume that Steven Walling and the other
2012/3/25 En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com
Also, Steven, could you send the link to the place where we can look at
your “not-so-secret effort to make the current user talk template system
more human”? I’m not clear on which page is the main one,
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:05:18 +0200
From: MF-Warburg mfwarb...@googlemail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd:
Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
Message-ID
2012/3/25 En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com
MF-Warburg, at the risk of making myself sound unusually dense in front
of everyone on foundation-l, I'm not yet an expert on cross-wiki Wikipedia
research so I need some clarification. My understanding is that Incubator
is only for entire new wikis
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:24 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
MF-Warburg, at the risk of making myself sound unusually dense in front
of everyone on foundation-l, I'm not yet an expert on cross-wiki Wikipedia
research so I need some clarification. My understanding is that Incubator
Thanks for this email Birgitte. I greatly enjoyed reading it, it gives
insight in not just your own motivation, but mine and several others who I
have come to know. I apologize for my following lengthy response as well.
This is a well-articulated, reasoned response, that should stand apart from
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Experiments are acceptable... sometimes.
MZM, I didn't expect you to become the voice of conservatism!
I cannot agree with your premise that experiments are somehow
'optional' or new. Experimentation is the lifeblood of any
There are so many potential ways of recruiting new high-quality editors.
However, at the moment almost all of them founder (at least on the English
Wikipedia) on the likely reception of peoples' first edits.
Take, for the sake of argument, Wikimedia UK's donor list. There are 50,000
people who
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Experiments are acceptable... sometimes.
MZM, I didn't expect you to become the voice of conservatism!
I cannot agree with your premise that experiments are somehow
'optional' or new. Experimentation
I feel compelled to express my agreement with MZMcBride. I find his
questioning pertinent.
I wish the quality of content were at the core of the WMF. I feel
disappointed by the direction it is choosing, and by the elusiveness of
Samuel Klein whose wisdom I used to respect greatly. What happened,
Oh come on people - this is yet another Foundation-l discussion that has gone
off the rails..the elusiveness of Samuel Klein? sounds like a thriller
novel.. I'm not sure we need to be attacking other volunteers here. :/
There are dozens of ways to approach new editor engagement. I respect
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, we could attract raw contributors with the flick of a
finger: by encouraging editing via sitenotices.
But attracting people who won't contribute well, or will have a bad
experience -- or doing so when there is no
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Experiments are acceptable... sometimes.
MZM, I didn't expect you to become the voice of conservatism!
I cannot agree with your premise that
On 24 March 2012 23:16, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about?
Only those who read to the top of the thread. (Article feedback tool,
new article wizard, etc.)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing
On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:10 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about?
I can partially clarify here...
- These will not be pilot projects resembling the Global Education
Program in any particular country. (Which is why it's very
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come on people - this is yet another Foundation-l discussion that has gone
off the rails..the elusiveness of Samuel Klein? sounds like a thriller
novel.. I'm not sure we need to be attacking other volunteers
There are many good reasons to attract new contributors - from
countering systemic bias to higher quality over time to new forms of
collective wisdom that emerge as people currently overwhelmed with
admin work have time to reflect and find better ways to work.
Technically, we could attract raw
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Technically, we could attract raw contributors with the flick of a
finger: by encouraging editing via sitenotices.
But attracting people who won't contribute well...
That sounds like a great idea for projects where the
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a great idea for projects where the readership and/or
editorship is low. On those projects, it is very likely that a reader
with even a tiny interest in editing can be converted to a good
editor, and
Samuel Klein wrote:
Technically, we could attract raw contributors with the flick of a
finger: by encouraging editing via sitenotices.
But attracting people who won't contribute well, or will have a bad
experience -- or doing so when there is no good way to integrate them
into the project --
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:05:31 -0500
From: birgitte...@yahoo.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd:
Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
Message
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
And the creator of Wikipedia:Short_popular_vital_articles has retired
after 16 days..due to harassment/accusations of sock puppetry/etc
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
And the creator of Wikipedia:Short_popular_vital_articles has retired
after 16 days..due to harassment/accusations of sock puppetry/etc
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would greatly help if we could have an updated organisation
chart of who is reporting to whom, and what departments they are all in.
The static graphics stopped being maintainable. We're exploring a
couple of
Hey folks,
I sent the note below to the staff and board a few hours ago: sharing
now with everyone :-)
Thanks,
Sue
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Date: 20 March 2012 19:17
Subject: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
To: Staff
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
approach? A good number of active editors (who I imagine
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing (or the
quality
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but
... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content
There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
I keep careful tabs on quality studies and perform independent tests
of Wikipedia quality regularly. By every measure,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but
On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is
that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of
writing a personal note about a specific edit.
And it turns out the new editors
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
And it turns out the new editors often assume the templates are
completely bot-generated.
That is: the editors using templates are, literally, failing the Turing
test.
I know the solution is not
to just stop using
Zack Exley wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
I was thinking more about this today and how it somewhat relates to you and
your previous work at MoveOn.org.
Mandatory voting laws look great on paper: increased democratic and civic
participation, a more involved and engaged citizenry, etc. But there's a
- Original Message -
From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New
editor engagement experiments
On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th
high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't
understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating.
I'm around the hundred
If anyone wants to help work on these template-related issues,
Maryana and
I are still in the midst of work on this in a couple wikis... I
don't want
to flood the thread with a report on its status, but let me know if
you
want to join in our not-so-secret effort to make the current user
talk
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this
This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a
crowd-sourcing project. The basic premise underlying the whole model
is increasing the quantity of contributors increases the quality of
the content. Is this really disputed?
BirgitteSB
I am not sure whether I want to dispute this
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Will Takatoshi willtakato...@gmail.com wrote:
... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content
There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
I keep careful tabs on quality
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:35 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a crowd-sourcing
project. The basic premise underlying the whole model is increasing the
quantity of contributors increases the quality of the content. Is this
really
53 matches
Mail list logo
