Tim Starling wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> It seems obvious to people who deal with small projects that usability is >> one of the big issue when it comes to the moribunt status of our small >> projects. The question I put to you, what are we going to do to first agree >> that this is an issue and then to deal with this issue. Do we care that 80% >> of our projects are failing? >> > > I don't think the metric you propose is a particularly useful one. We > could reduce it to 0% overnight by just deleting all the wikis that, by > your definition, are failing. Or we could increase it to 90% by relaxing > the project creation rules. It's not demonstrably bad for small projects > to speculatively create wikis and then wait to see if they flourish. > > Perhaps it would be better to evaluate our success in terms of our goals. > We aim to bring the sum of all human knowledge to the people of the world > in their own language. So how many words (or other unit of information) do > we have in each language, and what do you get when you multiply that by > the number of speakers of the language and sum over all projects? The > result could be compared to older methods of information transfer, such as > libraries. > > -- Tim Starling > >
I would emphasize this message by pointing out that for nearly a full year of its existence, the Finnish language wikipedia would quite easily have qualified as a failing wikipedia. And look at where we are now. Closing in on the 200 000 article milestone. Sure, for other projects the time of gestation will be longer. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
