Well, respectfully I disagree, Gerard, on your view, or analysis of
the stats. Edit is used vague on our community: from writing a FA
almost alone to doing a WiiGnome task. We need both, but those two
activities require not a same amount of communication skills as well
involvement to wiki editing
So I'd like to ask in which way we keep and assure our community as
multilingual? Honestly I have been thinking this for years seriously.
Even on meta, it was not once I was accused just because I left a note
in Japanese - when I had a hardship to express my opinion enough in
English. I
I think people should be more flexible in their postings. It is OK to
write a message in Japanese and also in not quite perfect, or even rather
poor English. Send both. And if there is no English just use Japanese,
even on this list. We can all go to Google translate and see more or less
what it
Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to
know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction
would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive
people away.
From my perspective, this is exactly what is happening. Too many people
want
Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to
know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction
would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive
people away.
From my perspective, this is exactly what is happening. Too many people
want
It looks like we understand the potential risks of adding social
features, but I don't know that the merits have sunk in.
==Don't call it a Social Network, don't think of it as a revolution==
Th first thing to do is banish the word Social Network from the
discussion. Social Network evokes
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages,
we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been
on single projects. We can do better and we should do better
Hoi,
Recently research showed that the majority of our editors is multi lingual
and edits on multiple projects. This is without considering Commons ... I
have a user on 491 projects and I am certainly not the only one who has many
many profiles.
As we did not know the extend to which we generally
Hoi,
I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. In
my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced
projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special
projects. We need to.
Social networking in our context will not be a
Hoi,
I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality.
In
my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced
projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special
projects. We need to.
Social networking in our context will not
On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. In
my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced
projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support
Hoi.
Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the
opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some
activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When we
show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi.
Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the
opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some
activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:43, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the
well wikipedia is about to create value for long term - social
networks are about to create worthless things for the moment.
g
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:43, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the
well wikipedia is about to create value for long term - social
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 16:03, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The web itself is passé
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6
Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago.
That is funny, I like statistics. Like, how can
What lovely abuse of statistics!
By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to
draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute*
increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in
total internet usage. If their numbers are correct,
Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.
In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.
Are you
On 26 June 2011 17:46, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.
In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can
The web itself is passé
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6
Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Actually, Facebook's losing members this year, not gaining, in the US
/ North American market.
Not that this is relevant to the WMF. The great thing about the web
writ large is that everyone can participate in the things they chose
to. Facebook's popularity is orthogonal to WMF participation /
The idea is not bad (especially on wikis that might have more low-hanging
fruits), but it might need some work to make it work (e.g. anons cannot
create a new article on enwiki, and seeing these red links without the
ability to write the articles might be annoying to them).
There is something
overhauls to reduce barriers
to contribution.
From: David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 5:53:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Can you tell us about
Hello folks,
this is a suggestion to encourage more edits. It is both a topic for
every of our projects but also of most of the foundation projects. So I
post it here at first and will welcome everyone to carry it to the
single projects.
On the home page of our projects for example en-wp we
I actually like this idea, a LOT. The main page basically poses Wikipedia
as a warehouse of content, which is fine, it is that, but also does little
to pose Wikipedia as a collaborative project. Yeah, new visitors can
technically TRY to edit our main page articles now, but generally the stuff
: [Foundation-l] Can you tell us about ... - An Idea to encourage
more edits
I actually like this idea, a LOT. The main page basically poses Wikipedia
as a warehouse of content, which is fine, it is that, but also does little
to pose Wikipedia as a collaborative project. Yeah, new visitors can
...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 5:53:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Can you tell us about ... - An Idea to
encourage more edits
I actually like this idea, a LOT. The main page basically poses
Wikipedia
I think that this analysis has point and that we should think about
consequences. Today WM RS had meeting in Novi Sad and we talked about
this issue, too: How to attract new contributors to stay at Wikipedia.
[1] -
Hoi,
While I really like the
http://cloudy.martinkozak.net/wikisupport/statistics/?family=wikipediasproject=desubject=goodscanback=700numbers...
they are sadly woefully incomplete. This may have to do with a
lack of servers but for me the numbers that I am interested in are just not
there. Numbers
It ssems like the a mouth of vandalism has changed and that this could
be the main reason why the a mouth of reverts has gone up. Previously
there was also a larger a mouth of smaller articles and then any edit is
a valid contribution. Now there is a larger number of bigger articles
and not every
From Slashdot article [1]:
The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the
character of Wikipedia has changed significantly since Wikipedia's
first burst of activity between 2004 and 2007. While the encyclopedia
is still growing overall, the number of articles being added has
Not a new topic, but I find editing about the same. Still nitwits
guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs, and citing inapropos
policy as though it were holy writ.
Fred
From Slashdot article [1]:
The Guardian reports that a study by Ed H Chi demonstrates that the
character of
OK,
There might be two (or more? :-) alternative models of that...
usurpation (?is that the right word?):
1. conspiracy of nitwits, which got organised into flock/gang/horde
and don't want anybody else to play with their beloved toy (even to
cross the border of their virtual territory);
2. some
33 matches
Mail list logo
