Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:02:51 -0700 From: Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation Message-ID: CAPDdKA6rf5W1z6BXg-= e6szp2021wqt845v7vljxabupbnf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28: Regarding the normal levels, I suppose you haven't yet had a chance to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ? Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM situation. Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August 2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to the interpretation returning to normal levels. Actually I was reading http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm which shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month. It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already cited below. Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik Zachte, posted this interesting analysis: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/ If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants, 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053 active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ; note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM. Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with some activity after the end and 61 very active editors That's not quite what the blog post said. 61 was the number of all *active* editors left during the latest month examined (May), and it doesn't say how the average number of edits is distributed among these. That being said, it's of course absolutely great that WLM appears to have brought in at least some very active contributors, among them one who has already done 20,000 edits so far. seems to be better than what the university students do? If what the university students do refers to the Education Program, note that boosting the number of active editors by those students isn't its primary goal, and neither has WLM been focused on that metric. This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: ?[...] multimedia is where early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs like Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas where active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K from 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)?. Again, I'm not quite sure what This in This is also acknowledged later on refers to. See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spike for the meaning of spike. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB As Wiki Loves Monuments is an annual competition involving the upload of photographs in September, I would think we need a couple more Septembers before we know how successful it is at acquiring a group of additional regular participants. However what we already know is that it is pretty successful at getting a large amount of useful content. If as a non-participant I could suggest one change it would be to allow people to upload images at any time of year and submit them to the contest in September. Aside from the advantages of potentially turning an annual event into a hobby, there are monuments where we want images of the light at different times of the year, or that are best seen after the leaves have fallen. WSC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Of course, here the term high quality does not necessarily mean, say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but instead refers to comparisons with average contributions. Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for example I'm aware of https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/ . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about Wikipedia in the academic literature. It certainly does have limitations. Let's look at what it says: ---o0o--- In the Wikipedia Education Program, professors assign their students to edit Wikipedia articles as a grade for class, assisted by volunteer Wikipedia Ambassadors. In fall 2011, 55 courses participated in the program in the United States, with students editing articles on the English Wikipedia. On average, these students added 1855 bytes of content that stayed on Wikipedia, compared to only 491 for a randomly chosen sample of new users who joined English Wikipedia in September 2011. These numbers establish that students who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program contribute significantly more quality content that stays on Wikipedia than other new users. ---o0o--- Apart from John's very salient question about how the random sample of editors was selected, another very obvious issue is the traffic the edited pages attract. A random sample of users might include contributors to very popular and heavily edited pages, while students' edits are more likely to be to specialised pages on scholarly niche topics that get very few views, and attract few edits. Content on little watched pages always stays longer than content on highly watched pages with a high edit turnover. This is quite irrespective of edit quality. Just look at some Wikipedia pages on Indian villages ... their content is crap, with outstanding long-term stability. :) So until the analysis also factors in page viewing statistics and average edits per month on each page, the variables are hopelessly confounded, and the conclusions are nothing but wishful thinking (not to say lying with statistics). In other words, it's impossible to conclude that content staying on Wikipedia is a reflection of edit quality, rather than a reflection of said content being on a very obscure page that no one reads or edits. If the Foundation has an interest in producing meaningful statistical analyses, I would suggest actually employing a statistician who can give such posts a look-over and point out the obvious fallacies. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Education_Program_evaluation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28: Regarding the normal levels, I suppose you haven't yet had a chance to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ? Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM situation. Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August 2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to the interpretation returning to normal levels. Actually I was reading http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm which shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month. It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already cited below. Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik Zachte, posted this interesting analysis: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/ If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants, 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053 active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ; note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM. Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with some activity after the end and 61 very active editors That's not quite what the blog post said. 61 was the number of all *active* editors left during the latest month examined (May), and it doesn't say how the average number of edits is distributed among these. That being said, it's of course absolutely great that WLM appears to have brought in at least some very active contributors, among them one who has already done 20,000 edits so far. seems to be better than what the university students do? If what the university students do refers to the Education Program, note that boosting the number of active editors by those students isn't its primary goal, and neither has WLM been focused on that metric. This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: «[...] multimedia is where early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs like Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas where active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K from 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)». Again, I'm not quite sure what This in This is also acknowledged later on refers to. See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spike for the meaning of spike. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. Just a small point I'm curious how the proposed $255,000 for Wikimania travel for staff, board, advisory board and volunteers compares with what was actually spent this year? In the 2011-2012 plan, I see that $96,000 was proposed. While the travel costs for SF staff to DC are much less, I find this too low and hard to believe. Some more details and breakdown by scholarships vs. staff/board/advisory board would be nice. I'm curious if we are planning a higher number of scholarships for volunteers for next year? (as the overall WMF budget increases) and how many staff are we planning to send next year? Cheers, Katie Note that some (or most) of these questions have now been addressed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget . -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the WMF please answer the questions that are on that page? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page? I'll ask Tilman via this mail to help coordinate getting answers from the appropriate people. Separately/additionally: I thought the Signpost coverage was pretty good. It wasn't extensive, but I thought they did a good job of capturing the basics in what is a pretty complex plan. This year is a tough slog understanding the financials, because the assumptions underpinning them (about how revenue is reflected, and spending) have changed significantly with the creation of the FDC. We tried to create apples-to-apples comparisons, and to caveat appropriately where that wasn't possible, but it's inherently pretty complex. Thanks, Sue On Aug 1, 2012 4:35 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the WMF please answer the questions that are on that page? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page? The questions are on the page SJ suggested using: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page? The questions are on the page SJ suggested using: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo. Thanks, Sue ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi, folks. I've also tried to address the (truly confusing) use of the word grants across the plan. See here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimedia_Grants_budget Cheers, Asaf On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page? The questions are on the page SJ suggested using: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo. Thanks, Sue ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.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! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28: Regarding the normal levels, I suppose you haven't yet had a chance to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ? Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM situation. Actually I was reading http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm which shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month. Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik Zachte, posted this interesting analysis: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/ If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants, 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053 active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ; note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM. Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with some activity after the end and 61 very active editors seems to be better than what the university students do? This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: «[...] multimedia is where early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs like Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas where active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K from 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)». Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 23:17: Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for example I'm aware of https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/ . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about Wikipedia in the academic literature. Still, even if we consider only quantity, 19 millions characters is not that much, and with some guesstimate I'm not sure it's more than what some WikiProjects or edit drives have done in the past, e.g. the addition of all Italian municipalities on it.wiki back in 2005 or so. That passage would have been clearer by excluding all normal volunteer (individual or organized) activity from the comparison, otherwise it's easy to mix things up. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Samuel Klein wrote: I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a bit tricky with raw HTML being allowed there. This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages? Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard? I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea. Trying to get me motivated? Tsk, tsk. Raw HTML is just one piece of the puzzle. A lot of other hacks and customizations have been built in to the site over the years with the bedrock principle that account creation is restricted there. I'd like to see at least the talk namespaces opened up as well. I laid out my thoughts here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_wikimediafoundation.org. For those interested, there's discussion on the talk page about how to best implement this idea. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Jul 29, 2012 7:01 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Risker wrote: This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe. Because you haven't created such a place yet. It is generally best for the person that announces something to specify a forum. That way you avoid discussion ending up split between multiple venues. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Thomas Dalton wrote: On Jul 29, 2012 7:01 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Risker wrote: This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe. Because you haven't created such a place yet. It is generally best for the person that announces something to specify a forum. That way you avoid discussion ending up split between multiple venues. Given the bidirectional nature of this mailing list, I think the implicit option (replying here, on the same list where the plan was announced) was clear, but okay. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Keegan Peterzell, 29/07/2012 08:29: For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell The situation of WMFwiki is indeed frustrating, but could we avoid OT in this thread? Unless it's a subtle strategy to make the thread useful and make people go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13 (which I'll now try to link from the main page and what not if it isn't). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. Slide 8 : How are we doing against the 2012 targets I was stopped by The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort of the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student assignements 2011-2012 OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough. But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably true. But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the actual community. High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students. Florence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Florence Devouard, 29/07/2012 13:37: But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably true. But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the actual community. Another passage is interesting too: «We've successfully brought in thousands of students [...] they typically make a small number of edits [...] and then leave. [...] initiatives like Wiki Loves Monuments have also achieved very high multimedia participation in spike months (22K uploaders in September 2011, when WLM took place, returning to normal levels immediately afterwards).» Where are the statistics validating this interpretation? I didn't find anyone able to answer me how many of the thousands participants to WLM contributed to Commons or another project afterwards. Their motivation is very different from the students'. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On 29 July 2012 15:17, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: It seems to me despite the WMF's stated confidence, that the FDC allocating money to WMF for the GAC is somewhat questionable. Given that the WMF has failed, so far, to show a capacity for properly administering the existing grants by providing a timely reviews. There obviously needs to be a grants programme for individuals and entities that can't or don't want to go through the FDC. Whether that is run by the WMF or not will presumably depend on who applies with the best proposal. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. Slide 8 : How are we doing against the 2012 targets I was stopped by The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort of the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student assignements 2011-2012 OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough. But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably true. But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the actual community. High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students. Over the last years, the Foundation has been trying to base decisions and evaluations more often on objective data and research rather than on personal opinions and impressions. Of course, here the term high quality does not necessarily mean, say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but instead refers to comparisons with average contributions. Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for example I'm aware of https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/ . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about Wikipedia in the academic literature. Which research methodology did you use to arrive at your conclusions above? Florence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Jul 30, 2012 7:18 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. Slide 8 : How are we doing against the 2012 targets I was stopped by The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort of the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student assignements 2011-2012 OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough. But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably true. But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the actual community. High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students. Over the last years, the Foundation has been trying to base decisions and evaluations more often on objective data and research rather than on personal opinions and impressions. Of course, here the term high quality does not necessarily mean, say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but instead refers to comparisons with average contributions. Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for example I'm aware of https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/ Ive asked for more info at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Education_Program_evaluation#random_sample . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about Wikipedia in the academic literature. Do you have links to any relevant studies of the GEP? -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Jul 29, 2012 3:33 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: 46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. It's not a very large increase on last year. It's a little tricky to make sure you are comparing like with like given the new way of treating chapter revenues and spending, but I think the right number to compare with is $39.2m. An increase to $46.1m is an 18% increase. That's tiny compared to the growth we've seen in previous years. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for. Risker/Anne On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: 46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Jul 29, 2012 3:45 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) The plan does seem to be missing the details on revenue... Isn't there normally a slide breaking down revenue into fundraiser, grants, major gifts, earned income, etc? (See slide 49 of last year's plan.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf accompanied by a QA: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. Just a small point I'm curious how the proposed $255,000 for Wikimania travel for staff, board, advisory board and volunteers compares with what was actually spent this year? In the 2011-2012 plan, I see that $96,000 was proposed. While the travel costs for SF staff to DC are much less, I find this too low and hard to believe. Some more details and breakdown by scholarships vs. staff/board/advisory board would be nice. I'm curious if we are planning a higher number of scholarships for volunteers for next year? (as the overall WMF budget increases) and how many staff are we planning to send next year? Cheers, Katie -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l -- Board member, Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org @wikimediadc / @wikimania2012 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
phili...@wikimedia.org On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: It's not a very large increase on last year. It's a little tricky to make sure you are comparing like with like given the new way of treating chapter revenues and spending, but I think the right number to compare with is $39.2m. An increase to $46.1m is an 18% increase. That's tiny compared to the growth we've seen in previous years. It also tracks fairly closely to the strategy ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf), page 16. pb (who had no active role in the design of this year's plan, but did in the design of the strategy) ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
