2011/2/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
effort here.
With Wikipedia, I can contribute a word here, a sentence there, parse some
grammar over there, fix a
From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
I was surprised to see the pagecount figures on en.wikibooks! Is this
no new pages being created, or is it page creation being approximately
equal to the rate of deleting old pages?
The full period graph has an anomaly where pages went from
In a message dated 2/26/2011 6:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
that will keep people lured in?
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poorly
On 26 February 2011 16:32, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poorly defined.
Something to large for Wikipedia doesn't really cut it in my mind.
When our Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe can be 25 screen
In a message dated 2/27/2011 12:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
The scope was supposedly textbooks - how-to books.
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
On 27 February 2011 20:37, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So what we should have created it not Wikibooks with which to start, but
Wiki...How or WikiChapter or something small, that a person could actually
accomplish.
Arguably we could have started wikihow.com ... which is CC by-nc-sa,
rather
In a message dated 2/25/2011 3:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
At the moment, we need admins who press buttons more than we need to
welcome new users. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
We need to find ways of reducing the amount of work needed, or
radically
In a message dated 2/25/2011 9:56:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
people don't do what they know to do, but choose to become teachers. Maybe
there are people who know how to edit Wikipedia and
From: Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
The absolute number of active community members on enwp peaked in
early 2007 and has been in a slow decline more or less steadily since
then; it's currently about two thirds what it was.
I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I
On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote:
I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
MZMcbride, and this is a relevant portion:
Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
mission actually is. I see it
Le 26/02/2011 11:11, David Gerard a écrit :
Volunteers are not employees, and can't be
expected to just shut up and work. It really, really deeply doesn't
work like that.
I don't follow you. Are you answering to something or somebody in
particular? Was there a disagreement about that? Did
On 26 February 2011 16:43, Pronoein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
What bothers me is that you talk about in terms of us and them as if
they were aliens. It's good to ask about the ideals of a community, but
it's even best when you share their ideals.
The ideal is tuna too in this context.
I
On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote:
[via MZM]
Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
mission actually is. I see it as about content creation. Wikimedia's focus
should primarily be creating the best free content it can.
- Original meddelelse -
Fra: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
Til: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dato: Fre, 25. feb 2011 04:01
Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An
Essay)
The systems are designed so
Дана Friday 25 February 2011 13:18:36 dex2...@pc.dk написа:
clean-up? Should we have a special welcoming staff instead of random
people or bots inserting {{welcome}}?
To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
people don't do what they know to do, but choose to
Here's a recent email I received from Answers.com after editing an
answer there. Talk about friendly! Compared to this, we make the IRS
look friendly.
Hey Kaldari,
Someone's been busy lately! Don't think your contributions go
unnoticed... your tireless efforts are helping thousands of
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
Дана Friday 25 February 2011 13:18:36 dex2...@pc.dk написа:
clean-up? Should we have a special welcoming staff instead of random
people or bots inserting {{welcome}}?
To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, dex2...@pc.dk wrote:
..
This is certainly part of the problem. I would point also to the
overwhelming amount of policies (and their corresponding abbreviations,
WP:NOT etc. etc.) and procedures as being practically impossible to cope
with for newbies.
On 25 February 2011 03:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
English Wikipedia is now sufficiently well known and culturally
important, that 'we' no longer need to care about new contributors.
Even if only 1% of new contributors work their way past the rejections
and through our maze of
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Then one day I stumbled upon Distributed Proofreaders (
http://www.pgdp.net/c/) and proofread a few pages. I couple days later I
received *three* *personalized* welcoming messages evaluations this is
what you got
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote:
Then one day I stumbled upon Distributed Proofreaders (
http://www.pgdp.net/c/) and proofread a few pages. I couple days later I
received *three* *personalized* welcoming messages evaluations this is
what you got right,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:02:09 -0800, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
2011/2/22 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org:
This is where it starts. Thousands of our users have their first
interactions with a bot or with a user leaving a template. We're
unlikely to alter our practice to
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:42:25 -0500, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Samuel Klein
sjkl...@hcs.harvard.eduwrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
If you were going to do something more useful than welcoming users,
In a message dated 2/22/2011 10:16:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu writes:
There's a shortage of core developers. There are quite a lot of PHP
developers who have built some sort of MediaWiki extension, or
otherwise hacked on it to make their own fork, however. We have
Hello SJ, and all the others,
I think SJ's mail has a lot of points. And I think the most important
thing is not to talk about this, but to change one's own attitude. Most
people who are talking here are also the most heavy contributors in our
projects, and as these, they have a heavy
You have just made your 100th edit: congratulations.
That would be good bot to run: encourage people!
Another idea: A simple message to make a compliment on people who make their
first 3 posts which are not reverted after a day. make it aimed at anonymous
contributors, and inviting them to
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
On 23 February 2011 10:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
In a message dated 2/23/2011 11:16:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sgard...@wikimedia.org writes:
To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
wanders in front of the rifle sites. We need patrollers to be able to
identify nuns and tourists,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 16:04, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Which is to say that new article patrol is a task requiring more skill
rather than less; it is not a quiet corner for people who are unable to
edit productively and lack people skills.
Let's not be too quick to criticize
David Gerard wrote:
Ban Twinkle? The tool seems to directly encourage problematic behaviour.
In my opinion, this would be suboptimal. The truth is, that tool made
my life easier when I was admin-ing on a regular basis. But perhaps
cutting out particular problematic features wouldn't be a
To be clear about what I meant:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Great examples :-) Building on them for a moment:
Just glancing at new articles now, I see (no sources):
[[Quksace agjke]]: quksace agjke is a term in ancient Chinese.
quksace means quick and agjke means aggies. Back
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Ban Twinkle? The tool seems to directly encourage problematic behaviour.
In my opinion, this would be suboptimal. The truth is, that tool made
my life easier when I was admin-ing on a
Would it make sense to have a be nice session at Wikimania to share all
kinds of experiences and best practices around this topic?
Phoebe, you sound like the ultimate person to organize such a session (in
case you did not yet propose such) :)
Lodewijk
2011/2/22 phoebe ayers
The core of Wikipedia culture is battleground: fight vandals, nuke their
articles, whack them and quick! Yes, it is important for the integrity
of
the encyclopedia. Yes, spam was prophesied to be the end of Wikipedia.
But
what will surely kill it is lack of participation. And we are killing
On 22 February 2011 14:14, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
We have to make a profound choice in the culture here:
1) we continue with the whacking and scaring the newbies away (content
priority #1, people #2), or
2) we embrace the newbies and we let some spam through (people
Again: content over people. No personal interaction with the photographer,
no message on the photographer's talk page after the deletion request was
closed, nothing.
Again, I'm sure the user in question meant really well again, but here too:
content over people. Drive-by templating, shoot
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Would it make sense to have a be nice session at Wikimania to share all
kinds of experiences and best practices around this topic?
Phoebe, you sound like the ultimate person to organize such a session (in
case you did
On 22 February 2011 12:02, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMO every single Wikimedia project would benefit from dedicated
community effort to 1) catalog the most widely used templates on talk
pages, 2) systematically improve them with an eye on the impact they
can have on whether
On 22 February 2011 21:38, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1 :-)
I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
through their
On 22 February 2011 12:02, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMO every single Wikimedia project would benefit from dedicated
community effort to 1) catalog the most widely used templates on talk
pages, 2) systematically improve them with an eye on the impact they
can have on whether
Renata, I really loved this message of yours, and the reminder of how
awesome PGDP is :-)
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote:
We could emphasize a more positive engagement intended to get the
message to these people about what an encyclopedia is, what
Sue Gardner wrote:
I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
through their eyes --- what their early experiences felt like. Some
had
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You should try gaining the other perspective: thousands of edits each hour
from people all over the world,
a decent-sized percentage of which are purely malicious and
These we should handle in automated fashion.
another
I would estimate that we could reach a few thousand new people a day
who are not editors, but would be glad to do something practical to
help wikipedia. That's my mental baseline for how much support we
could tap if we found a way to match each of those people to something
they wanted to do.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.eduwrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
If you were going to do something more useful than welcoming users,
you're talking about dealing with about 180,000 edits per day and an
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You should try gaining the other perspective: thousands of edits each hour
from people all over the world,
a decent-sized percentage of which are purely malicious and
These we should handle in
tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely. what should
we ask for first?
== Herring talk ==
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The idea that we have finite human/community
Samuel Klein wrote:
tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not sure you're wrong, but
I haven't seen much to suggest that you're right.
There was a
This is to some degree a question of balance in approach.
Every day, thousands of absolutely idiotic, non notable articles get
started that really have no point or hope. Every day, new page
patrollers find (most) of those, and they go kerpoof. It would
largely be a waste of time to prod
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Renata St renataw...@gmail.com wrote:
This is to some degree a question of balance in approach.
Every day, thousands of absolutely idiotic, non notable articles get
started that really have no point or hope. Every day, new page
patrollers find (most) of
54 matches
Mail list logo
