On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would greatly help if we could have an updated organisation
chart of who is reporting to whom, and what departments they are all in.
The static graphics stopped being maintainable. We're exploring a
couple of
Am 20. März 2012 18:18 schrieb David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
This is a drastic policy change that affects all projects, and so
needs wider discussion than just wikitech-l.
Thanks for forwarding the discussion.
I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
order to
On 21 March 2012 08:17, Jürgen Fenn schneeschme...@googlemail.com wrote:
I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
order to make pressure on manufacturers to support free-software
codecs than adopting the costly and patented codecs. I mean, it's not
only about
Hey folks,
I sent the note below to the staff and board a few hours ago: sharing
now with everyone :-)
Thanks,
Sue
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Date: 20 March 2012 19:17
Subject: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
To: Staff
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
approach? A good number of active editors (who I imagine
This seems like it deserves its own thread.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The vision of the Wikimedia movement is to create a free and accessible
repository of (high-quality) educational content; the vision is not about
trying to get as many people
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing (or the
quality
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles
could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in
depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. It would need to have some
high level sort mechanism to make it easier to access articles within a
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but
Responding to MZMcBride's question, And a bit larger than this, what's an
acceptable cost for keeping new editors around? For example, deleting a new
user's article is probably the easiest way to discourage him or her, but is
the alternative (allowing their spammy page to sit around for a
... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content
There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
I keep careful tabs on quality studies and perform independent tests
of Wikipedia quality regularly. By every measure,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Zack Exley wrote:
A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but
But what to call it? Wikipedia2 doesn't have much flavor.
WikipediaLocalized? WikiDetails? WikipediaExpanded? WikipediaSuppliment?
On 3/20/2012 5:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
From: David Goodmandgge...@gmail.com
What I suggest is a '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is
that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of
writing a personal note about a specific edit.
And it turns out the new editors
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
And it turns out the new editors often assume the templates are
completely bot-generated.
That is: the editors using templates are, literally, failing the Turing
test.
I know the solution is not
to just stop using
Zack Exley wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
I was thinking more about this today and how it somewhat relates to you and
your previous work at MoveOn.org.
Mandatory voting laws look great on paper: increased democratic and civic
participation, a more involved and engaged citizenry, etc. But there's a
- Original Message -
From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New
editor engagement experiments
On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th
high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't
understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating.
I'm around the hundred
If anyone wants to help work on these template-related issues,
Maryana and
I are still in the midst of work on this in a couple wikis... I
don't want
to flood the thread with a report on its status, but let me know if
you
want to join in our not-so-secret effort to make the current user
talk
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this
This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a
crowd-sourcing project. The basic premise underlying the whole model
is increasing the quantity of contributors increases the quality of
the content. Is this really disputed?
BirgitteSB
I am not sure whether I want to dispute this
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Will Takatoshi willtakato...@gmail.com wrote:
... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
seem to care about the quality of the content
There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
I keep careful tabs on quality
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:35 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a crowd-sourcing
project. The basic premise underlying the whole model is increasing the
quantity of contributors increases the quality of the content. Is this
really
26 matches
Mail list logo
