Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
geni wrote: English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article. [[Ordnance Survey]] is clearly notable. No article on De. Ordnance Survey would be a great addition to de-WP. I might write it myself *g*. But do you expect kids to write on those - for them - obscure topics? And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs. Recruiting efforts should be done where contributions to Wikipedia are not coming naturally. One of those fields are retired professionals. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Correct, we have built a system that does not value new users, but rather seeks to get rid of them. Its a pattern I have observed in some businesses as well. Subconsciously, people hate change. While they consciously want new users or wonder why the flow has stopped, their subconscious is busy erecting walls to stop new things/users. From: John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49:15 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale contributions coming from specific communities, specially from educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research, and some authors have shown that direct contribution approaches may have negative consequences for both the quality of content and the willingness of young authors to continue to contribute if the get strictly negative responses to their first revisions. All the same, semi-controlled strategies like providing a final version of the contribution, may have better effects for both the quality of content and maintaining the implication of young contributors. In this regard, providing special tools for highlighting these contributions could facilitate the work of experienced Wikipedia authors, who could then provide more focused comments. How the new contributors are approached by the community is very important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the dogfight starts? John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Milos Rancic wrote: * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors. However, if we don't attract younger than us, Wikimedia projects will die with us. Don't you think it is delusional hubris to plan with editors, who stay in the project from 15 to retiring age? For pretty much everyone Wikipedia is of passing interest. The phase can be 30 days, 100 days, two or three years. But very few people enjoy a hobby like this for decades. And the very few who do, will find Wikipedia on their own. We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who correct a fact, add some new information or fix a typo. It is nice to have extremely active editors, but the bulk of the content - as opposed to the copy editing and template filling - is done by passing contributors. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Mark Williamson wrote: Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and languages since I was about 15. Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few - just think of how many of your class mates did like you. And they will find Wikipedia on their own, we don't need to recruit them. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Ziko van Dijk wrote: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. That's exactly the idea behind the flagged versions. The advantage is, that it is on-wiki, and does not need a media shift. And it can be done by every acknowledged editor, not just OTRS-team members. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. Providing an e-mail address is already encouraged. We could improve the wording a bit, though. But demanding a CV by prospective editors is slightly over the top. Mentoring is nice if optional, but please consider, that we don't have the active user base to mentor each and every newbie, whether they want it or not. Wikipedia once was about writing articles. These days is is developing into a bureaucratic nightmare and I strongly believe your proposal would be another step in a completely wrong direction. Pretty much every proposal nowadays is about control. Control about content and control about people. This is understandable, because of the impact Wikipedia has on public perception and the possible dire consequences for say living people. And we should be proud of the quality Wikipedia has to offer and the working of our quality control. But we should also be proud about the open culture and we should continue to welcom contributions by everyone. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future. Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to think about who will write Wikipedia in five years, this is the job of those who will see themselves as stewards of the project then. I will most probably not be among them, because I am now contributing for about four years and can't possibly know what I will do five years from now. The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on that (Strategy plan). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Hoi, While I agree that these numbers are interesting, they typically only show what they highlight. When you consider featured articles you will find that many Wikipedias do not have featured articles. For some Wikipedias it is hard to establish yourself as a Wikipedian when you are a teenager we are said. For most of our Wikipedias this is not the case. For most of our Wikipedias a half decent article is a welcome addition and citations are not an issue at all. The point has been made repeatedly; Wikis follow a pattern and most of our Wikipedias are still very much in their early stages of development. The big issue of identifying with your Wikipedia is that the issues of the other Wikipedias are not considered. It would be interesting to know for instance which Wikipedias have: - featured articles - featured pictures - their own featured pictures Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es This is a good point, Milos. Quantity and quality are more related to each other than we may thought initially. For instance: * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level. * Most of editors contributing to FAs were high experienced editors, meaning more than 2.5 or 3 years participating in Wikipedia. And these editors tend to be very active ones (though they not necessarily get 'sysop' or other special privileges). I recall you that more than 50% of editors abandonned after aprox.. half a year, in all versions we studied. Therefore, the high experienced editors are taking care of top-quality content. Probably because they know, better than many other editors, the guidelines, procedures and daily workflows in the community. Of course, their knowledge (about the topics they contribute to) also matters. But I believe that the first condition is also critical. And you can get to that point with time, interacting with Wikipedia and the community. As a result, any attempt to improve the feeling of newcomers as they start to contribute is invaluable. I've read your comments about chats with sysops or article's main editors. I've also read about training environments (customized sandboxes, more friendly, etc.). So, all this makes *a lot of sense* in the current situation. Not because of quantity, but to improve *quality*. Best, Felipe. --- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió: De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need quantity to have sustainable community development or even just a sustainable stagnation. We shouldn't be shy of saying that quantity is very important to us because we are able to build quality. And, yes, it is possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about that: we have to think how to do that. If we don't think (thinking=quality) how to bring quantity and our quantity is lowering: we are at the dead end. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Hoi, What you describe is an additional hurdle to become an editor. This is something that a community can consider only when it has a certain maturity. To me it gives the impression of an elitist approach to being a Wikipedian. The only reason I see why such a hurdle might be considered beneficial is because it is prevents a certain amount of vandalism. In a Wikipedia where everyone can edit, it is the longtime contributors who are the elite. This is for instance seen in giving value to the year people joined the Wikipedia. Even this number is open to interpretation; the first year people can join the Western Mari Wikipedia is 2009.. And I am sure they welcome anyone who writes a proper stub. Proposals for a hurdle like this are welcome on the Foundation list, I find it fascinating that these things are seriously considered. These proposals are targeted to particular Wikipedias. It helps when it is made clear what Wikipedias they are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/25 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or wisdom of the masses or swarm intelligence, that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that anyone can edit. In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of resistance, as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of everyone can edit. My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for instant collaborators (IP users) to contribute (by reporting). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Дана Sunday 26 July 2009 07:22:06 Henning Schlottmann написа: Mark Williamson wrote: Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and languages since I was about 15. Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few - just think of how many of your class mates did like you. And they will find Wikipedia on their own, we don't need to recruit them. I don't see why would someone who is 15 and writing about countries be called a prodigy. The boy was simply writing about something he was interested in. And on srwiki at least I also notice that young contributors are writing about a variety of topics - sure, not quantum physics, but pretty much anything else. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on that (Strategy plan). Am I right understanding your words following way: This thread was started as PR action for WMF Strategy plan? :-P On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future. Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to think about who will write Wikipedia in five years, this is the job of those who will see themselves as stewards of the project then. I will most probably not be among them, because I am now contributing for about four years and can't possibly know what I will do five years from now. The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on that (Strategy plan). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] linux.conf.au Call for Papers are now open
Hi everyone: The linux.conf.au deadline is now on the 31 July at 0500 UTC (1700 New Zealand time). Other times around the world can be found at http://tinyurl.com/lca10cfp --- Announcement from http://www.lca2010.org.nz/media/news/65 WELLINGTON, New Zealand – Friday 24 July 2009 – The LCA2010 Organising Committee have been overwhelmed by the numbers and quality of the papers submitted to linux.conf.au so far! The success of the papers so far has put us in a generous mood. So we've decided to give all you slackers out there an extension on the Call for Papers by one week! Call for Papers Now Closing: Friday 31 July 2009 at 17:00 NZST Remember, to increase your chances of acceptance, check out the Papers Info[1] page on our website before submitting your paper. [1] http://www.lca2010.org.nz/programme/papers_info ___ Lca10-papers mailing list lca10-pap...@lists.penguinsvisiting.org.nz http://lists.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/lca10-papers_lists.penguinsvisiting.org.nz 2009/7/19 Brianna Laugher brianna.laug...@gmail.com: Hi all, I would not normally forward an open source conference CFP to this list, but I think this case has particular merit. The linux.conf.au 2010 Call for Papers closes this Friday. LCA is a free software technical conference, but one of the topics they are targeting this year is Free Software and Free Culture topics, including licencing and Free and Open approaches outside software. Also, the first announced keynote speaker is Benjamin Mako Hill, who is on the WMF's advisory board. It's a really enjoyable full-on technical community conference, so if a trip to the southern hemisphere in January sounds OK by you please think about submitting a proposal. (see Information for speakers http://www.lca2010.org.nz/programme/papers_info to find out about benefits for speakers) It's on during January 18-23 2010 in Wellington, NZ. I am going to try and organise a meet-up the weekend before the conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington cheers, Brianna -- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Davies mich...@the-davies.net Date: 2009/6/29 Subject: [lca10-papers] linux.conf.au Call for Papers are now open! To: linux SA list linu...@linuxsa.org.au -- Forwarded message -- From: linux.conf.au Announcements lca-annou...@lists.linux.org.au Date: 2009/6/29 Subject: [lca-announce] linux.conf.au Call for Papers are now open! To: lca-annou...@lists.linux.org.au === linux.conf.au Call For Papers === linux.conf.au ( http://www.lca2010.org.nz ) is pleased to announce the opening of its Call for Papers for the coming linux.conf.au, LCA2010! LCA2010 will be held from Monday 18 January 2010 to Saturday 23 January 2010 in Wellington, New Zealand. linux.conf.au isn't just a Linux conference. It is a technical conference about Free and Open Source Software, held annually in Australasia since 2001 - covering everything from the Linux Kernel and the BSDs to OpenOffice.org, from networking to audio-visual magic, from hardware hacks to Creative Commons. === Important Dates === Call for Papers opens: Monday 29 June 2009 Call for Papers closes: Friday 24 July 2009 Email Notifications from Papers Committee: Early September 2009 Registrations open: Mid September 2009 Conference Dates: Monday 18 January to Saturday 23 January 2001 === Information on Papers === The LCA2010 Papers Committee is looking for a broad range of papers spanning everything from programming and software to desktop and userspace to community, government and education but there is one essential: The core of your paper must relate to open source in some way, i.e., if it's a paper about software then the software has to be licensed under an Open Source license. The LCA2010 Papers Committee welcome proposals for Papers on the following topics: * Kernel and system topics such as filesystems and embedded devices * Networking topics such as peer to peer networking, or tuning a TCP/IP stack * Desktop topics such as office and productivity applications, mobile devices, peripherals, crypto security and viruses and other malware * Server topics such as clusters and other supercomputers, databases and grid computing * Systems administration topics such as maintaining large numbers of machines and disaster recovery * Programming topics such as software engineering practices and test driven development * Free Software and Free Culture topics, including licencing and Free and Open approaches outside software * Free Software usage topics, including home, IT, education, manufacturing, research and government usage. Most presentations and tutorials will be technical in nature, but proposals for presentations on other aspects of Free Software and Free Culture, such as educational and
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote: The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on that (Strategy plan). Am I right understanding your words following way: This thread was started as PR action for WMF Strategy plan? :-P Probably, if I didn't withdraw my candidacy for the Board, it would be interpreted as my own PR campaign :P I participate in campaigns just openly (to be noted, I support Gerard's, Sj's, Ting's and Kat's candidacies). Raising an issue publicly, at foundation-l, means, at least for me, that wider community should be aware of that issue. WMF Strategy plan has limited scope. WMF is not able to work intensively on every particular project, in every country. WM FR and WM DE are able to work much more effectively in France and Germany. Contributors of es.wp and ja.wp are able to work much more effectively on their projects. I would be very happy if just one person per ~20 top projects read that and understood that action is needed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
2009/7/26 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net: geni wrote: English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article. [[Ordnance Survey]] is clearly notable. No article on De. Ordnance Survey would be a great addition to de-WP. I might write it myself *g*. But do you expect kids to write on those - for them - obscure topics? And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs. Does Germany not have libraries? It's true that your average 15 year old is not going be able to write high end maths and physics articles but your average 18-22 university student may well be able to. Even if they can't such articles are a pretty small percentage of the articles DE doesn't have. Recruiting efforts should be done where contributions to Wikipedia are not coming naturally. One of those fields are retired professionals. Recruiting efforts should be done where they have a reasonable chance of success. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Henning Schlottmann wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who correct a fact, add some new information or fix a typo. The company I work for employs a large number of people with with Doctorates in mathematics and quantum mechanics. Most are opinionated and argumentative but do not read wikipedia in areas that they have expertise in. The last discussion I had with one of them over a wikipedia article went If I don't forget what I read there I'll have to edit it, but I'm not prepared to have argue about it all weekend again. Those with professional expertise are prepared to argue an issue with colleagues, they are unlikely to spend several days over it on a web site, particularly if they have start off by explaining basic concepts. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] On attracting newbies and making them effective
Denise from dreamwidth.org - she's talking about software development, but it's certainly apposite to the discussions here recently: http://denise.dreamwidth.org/23600.html - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
Hi folks, Thanks to all who dropped in on our office hours on IRC last Tuesday. Eugene and I really enjoyed chatting with people and hearing your thoughts. We had a few comments that it would be nice if there was an alternative time for people who were in substantially different time zones. With that in mind, our IRC office hours are going to be: * Tuesdays from 1-2pm PT / 3-4pm CT / 20:00-21:00 UTC * Tuesdays from 9-10pm PT / 11pm-12am CT / Wednesday 04:00-05:00 UTC These are unscheduled casual talks about the strategic planning process, your hopes and dreams for the Foundation, or whatever else you'd like to discuss with us. We meet in the #wikimedia room. Hope to see you there! Philippe Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Plan Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission
Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here. Thanks. Lodewijk 2009/7/18 Peter Jacobi pjacobi...@googlemail.com On dewiki there is a discussion whether the Ombudsman commission does fulfill its mission. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission Some months ago there was a checkuser action which was questioned by some users and the Ombudsman commission was asked to investigate the case. The only dewiki member of the Ombudsman commission did recuse himself from the case. The other members can't be reached or don't comment. Regards, Peter [[User:Pjacobi]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Thank's Henning and Gerard for pointing out where my concept was insufficiently explained. I don't think about asking newbies to turn in a CV, but to bring them from the beginning into a senseful contact with more experienced users. And from my experience at de.wp I don't believe that there would be a lack of users who would like to accompany newbies, in our mentoring programme we are rather in a lack of (serious) mentees. And as I said, I do not believe that the current Wikipedia is open. What if someone wants to improve something in an article? Even for using the talk page he has to learn a little bit of Wikisyntax. Maybe you have forgotten, but the majority of all people (even of all internet users) hate computer language, hate formulas, hate mathematics. The biggest hurdle for newbies is Wikisyntax, the scaring look of a text editor window which starts with an infobox. It reminds me of the difference between old fashion Word Perfect and modern Word. Second hurdle: our rules and regularities. Of course, they make sense, but a newbie has a lot to learn if he does not want to have most of his edits reverted. We talk people in to go swimming in the deep water, but we don't provide them with the proper equipment or training. Why not introduce at least a lifeguard? Kind regards Ziko P.S.: That text David Gerard mentioned is really interesting and totally to the point. How much work is it, for a non programmer, to change a typo in a Wikipedia article? 2009/7/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, What you describe is an additional hurdle to become an editor. This is something that a community can consider only when it has a certain maturity. To me it gives the impression of an elitist approach to being a Wikipedian. The only reason I see why such a hurdle might be considered beneficial is because it is prevents a certain amount of vandalism. In a Wikipedia where everyone can edit, it is the longtime contributors who are the elite. This is for instance seen in giving value to the year people joined the Wikipedia. Even this number is open to interpretation; the first year people can join the Western Mari Wikipedia is 2009.. And I am sure they welcome anyone who writes a proper stub. Proposals for a hurdle like this are welcome on the Foundation list, I find it fascinating that these things are seriously considered. These proposals are targeted to particular Wikipedias. It helps when it is made clear what Wikipedias they are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/25 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or wisdom of the masses or swarm intelligence, that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that anyone can edit. In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of resistance, as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of everyone can edit. My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for instant collaborators (IP users) to contribute (by reporting). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing
[Foundation-l] Call for candidates closing
Hi folks, This is a reminder that July 27 is the final day to present yourself as a candidate for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. Candidate submissions must be in by 23:59 (UTC) tomorrow. Voting will begin at the earliest practical point on July 28 (hopefully shortly after candidate submissions closes, but that really depends on how long it takes Tim to work his magic that makes the voting extension run on the SPI servers). I know I speak for the full committee when I thank Tim for his work to make the technical end of this happen, and extend our deep appreciation to Software in the Public Interest (and particularly Michael Schultheiss) for their part in hosting the election on their servers. They are very kind to do this for the third year in a row. I also would like to point out that although we are theoretically accepting candidates until 23:59 UTC, candidates MUST have their identity confirmation to the Foundation prior to standing in the election, so practically speaking I would encourage any remaining candidates to present themselves very soon. For the election committee, Philippe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for candidates closing
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: election, so practically speaking I would encourage any remaining candidates to present themselves very soon. ...especially since their statement needs to be translated into ~40 languages and last minute entries make a *ton* more work for everyone, including translators, election committee/volunteers, Cary to identify everyone. So if possible, I'd like to stress Philippe's no last minute candidates suggestion. :-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] A brief, high level analysis of the total number of contributors and the anatomy of a decision
These are some excellent mailing list and Wikipedia stats that Erik has cooked up/refreshed, although kind of a pain to do meta-analysis on. You can however paste the html tables into OpenOffice Calc which is nice (after some serious complaints from your cpu!). The csv format was not very fun. http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/ http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm I notice that the 364 power posters (posters with more than 200 emails across all lists) account for 312569 / 458349 ~= 70% of all mailing list posts. Also, 164 of these power posters account for 46579 / 52201 ~= 90% of all posts to foundation-l. I denote this subclass of power posters uber posters. Combined with the project statistics we have (I realize this is somewhat arbitrary, but still quite interesting in my view): 1 benevolent dictator, 7 board members, 27 foundation employees, 164 uber posters, 364 power posters, 635 wikimania attendees, 12927 very active wikipedians, 91067 active wikipedians, 744752 monthly wikipedians and 928022 total wikipedians. There are many other interesting numbers you could include. I couldn't find the total number of mailing list contributors and only an admin with access to all lists could give us the total number of subscribers. We could also compare the number of sysops etc.. across all wikis in addition to the total number of visitors and especially donors. The most interesting part of this data to me is the power posters and uber posters. It would take a careful analysis of the anatomy of a decision to draw any conclusions from it. For example, you would need to draw links between conversations on the lists, conversations on the wiki and conversations in person to know how many people actually contribute to a decision, and it would be interesting to see the average number of contributors to decisions weighted by the importance of that decision, further scaled by other factors. My feeling though is that a relatively small number of uber posters act as voices that are representative (in the eyes of the foundation) of the much larger number of contributors across the projects (these data are largely specific to Wikipedia), and that foundation staff then make an assessment of consensus based largely on the opinions of foundation staff which has been informed by whatever conversations happened to occur on list. It is hard for someone to be everywhere all at once given the astronomically large number of places that one can hold a conversation across all WMF hosted media and I know that some foundation staff are excellent at patrolling and knowing absolutely everything about places such as meta and the english wikipedia and that many important conversations happen in person that most of us never hear about. /endrunon All that said, I continue to worry that our benevolent dictator, board members, foundation employees, power posters, uber posters and wikimania attendees are not very representative of the the community at large. Part of the problem is that we have almost no way of measuring that. Even if the community only included everyone up to wikimania attendees it would appear that only a tiny fraction of contributors account for all of the decision making. When we include all contributors we see an awesome consolidation of power. To put it simply, I am not very happy with this consolidation. I would like to see the foundation use technology to bring more of these contributors into its fold and involve them in the decision making process. We can use technology to increase the signal to noise ratio while simultaneously improving the quality of decisions and finding alternate and optimal solutions that would only occur to less than 1 person in a thousand. As it stands, those solutions are not being found. As the foundation continues to bring in employees it gains more and more power and takes it away from the community. That's my view at least. I would like to drastically reverse that trend so that there is no consolidation - so that it is easy (and indeed, beneficial for us all) for anyone who wants to be involved in whatever decision to get involved and make a difference. Starting mailing list threads just doesn't seem like it. I also note that the mailing lists have been on the decline since June of 2006. /Brian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A brief, high level analysis of the total number of contributors and the anatomy of a decision
on 7/26/09 9:47 PM, Brian at brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: These are some excellent mailing list and Wikipedia stats that Erik has cooked up/refreshed, although kind of a pain to do meta-analysis on. You can however paste the html tables into OpenOffice Calc which is nice (after some serious complaints from your cpu!). The csv format was not very fun. http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/ http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm I notice that the 364 power posters (posters with more than 200 emails across all lists) account for 312569 / 458349 ~= 70% of all mailing list posts. Also, 164 of these power posters account for 46579 / 52201 ~= 90% of all posts to foundation-l. I denote this subclass of power posters uber posters. Combined with the project statistics we have (I realize this is somewhat arbitrary, but still quite interesting in my view): 1 benevolent dictator, 7 board members, 27 foundation employees, 164 uber posters, 364 power posters, 635 wikimania attendees, 12927 very active wikipedians, 91067 active wikipedians, 744752 monthly wikipedians and 928022 total wikipedians. There are many other interesting numbers you could include. I couldn't find the total number of mailing list contributors and only an admin with access to all lists could give us the total number of subscribers. We could also compare the number of sysops etc.. across all wikis in addition to the total number of visitors and especially donors. The most interesting part of this data to me is the power posters and uber posters. It would take a careful analysis of the anatomy of a decision to draw any conclusions from it. For example, you would need to draw links between conversations on the lists, conversations on the wiki and conversations in person to know how many people actually contribute to a decision, and it would be interesting to see the average number of contributors to decisions weighted by the importance of that decision, further scaled by other factors. My feeling though is that a relatively small number of uber posters act as voices that are representative (in the eyes of the foundation) of the much larger number of contributors across the projects (these data are largely specific to Wikipedia), and that foundation staff then make an assessment of consensus based largely on the opinions of foundation staff which has been informed by whatever conversations happened to occur on list. It is hard for someone to be everywhere all at once given the astronomically large number of places that one can hold a conversation across all WMF hosted media and I know that some foundation staff are excellent at patrolling and knowing absolutely everything about places such as meta and the english wikipedia and that many important conversations happen in person that most of us never hear about. /endrunon All that said, I continue to worry that our benevolent dictator, board members, foundation employees, power posters, uber posters and wikimania attendees are not very representative of the the community at large. Part of the problem is that we have almost no way of measuring that. Even if the community only included everyone up to wikimania attendees it would appear that only a tiny fraction of contributors account for all of the decision making. When we include all contributors we see an awesome consolidation of power. To put it simply, I am not very happy with this consolidation. I would like to see the foundation use technology to bring more of these contributors into its fold and involve them in the decision making process. We can use technology to increase the signal to noise ratio while simultaneously improving the quality of decisions and finding alternate and optimal solutions that would only occur to less than 1 person in a thousand. As it stands, those solutions are not being found. As the foundation continues to bring in employees it gains more and more power and takes it away from the community. That's my view at least. I would like to drastically reverse that trend so that there is no consolidation - so that it is easy (and indeed, beneficial for us all) for anyone who wants to be involved in whatever decision to get involved and make a difference. Starting mailing list threads just doesn't seem like it. I also note that the mailing lists have been on the decline since June of 2006. /Brian Thank you for this excellent work and analysis, Brian. I, too, am concerned about the consolidation of power; because it is power groups such as this that set the values, direction, and very tone of a project community's culture. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: geni wrote: English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article. [[Ordnance Survey]] is clearly notable. No article on De. Ordnance Survey would be a great addition to de-WP. I might write it myself *g*. But do you expect kids to write on those - for them - obscure topics? And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs. Child prodigies and young people motivated by the free culture ethos will come without recruitment, however there are many people who are neither of those. By participating in Wikimedia, young people can *become* more educated, and can *become* motivated by the free culture ethos. Contributors, both young and old, do not need to be interested in the topic they contribute to - they need to see the value of the skills that they acquire in the process. And we can help them learn about the benefits. On wikimedia, bilingual young people can improve their mastery of second languages by translating articles into different languages. On wikimedia, young people learn how to properly reference an article, which will help them as they progress in their education. On wikimedia, young people can rub shoulders with people who are knowledgeable in fields that they are considering undertaking higher degrees in. On wikimedia, young people can learn to interact sensibly online, provided that our code of conduct is kept high above the average of Internet forums. They can watch people act badly and be banned, and learn from it. On wikimedia, young people can learn about the world around them by interacting with people from other cultures, including the vandals. Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping them in their many years to come. Recruiting efforts should be done where contributions to Wikipedia are not coming naturally. One of those fields are retired professionals. I do agree that retired professionals are potential contributors that we should be focusing on. However they will also come if they want to. Retirees usually have a full life, so they have less time and motivation to become involved. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Bleh. When did this become an either-or proposition? You go recruit retired professionals. I'll go recruit young people. Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go after teachers. Everybody wins. The only way to lose is if either: A) You believe one of these groups should not be participating in Wikipedia or B) You believe efforts to recruit professionals will actually interfere with my efforts to recruit young people, etc. If you believe A) then frankly I believe you are out of touch with the ethos of the projects. Different groups may need a different amount of guidance before they are prepared to contribute, but there is no group of people we should be categorically shutting out or discouraging. If you believe B) and somehow think that recruiting one group somehow interferes with recruiting other groups, then I'd like to see an explanation of that. It seems unlikely in most cases. Besides which, there are many things we can be doing (such as improving the editing interface and documentation) that should widely benefit most groups of potential new editors. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
