On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > This is great to hear and I am very curious to see how it turns out.
Me too. :-) > It's > too bad Special:Statistics can't show you basic information over time. To > facilitate before/after comparisons, as of now: 372 content pages; 4,118 > pages; 30,382 edits; 1,870 registered users; 682 active users. Joe Blaylock has been writing tools to help us understand this information. They're available under the GPL and are at: http://github.com/jrbl/CollabStats Not sure if Joe's on this list, but if he isn't, I can point him to relevant conversations. The tools are still rough, and there's stuff that can and should be done. Would definitely love it if folks would be willing to volunteer their time to help us evolve these tools. Contact me off-list. Once we have this information more easily available, we'll post it regularly somewhere. > This is of course a quantitative vs. qualitative assessment, and more > interesting will be the strategy that emerges from thoughtful interaction > between the community and the foundation. Not sure what your definition of "the community" is. There are lots of parties that need to be involved: project contributors and other independent Wikimedians, the foundation, the chapters, developers, readers, and so forth. But I agree with your overall point about assessing this process. And of course, there's a space to discuss this on the Wiki. :-) http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Evaluation Thanks for the feedback, Brian! =Eugene -- ====================================================================== Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/ ====================================================================== _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
