Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Some complementing data on users from Swedish Wikipedia, -Youngsters 15-22- high turnover somewhat decreasing volume - do vandal fighting, write of computer games, music, film, sport etc (and these areas are worthy of respect too) -Middle aged 22-50 --An increasing number of low volume contributers --A decrease of contributions from regular users, as there are fewer empty spaces for amateur masscontributions (medium turnover) Mature 50+, low turnover which means over time both growing numbers and growing number of contributions per user So we also see a decrease of mass article contributers in the age span 25-35 and a steady increase of contributions from 50+ers (but we still get valuable contributions from all age groups) Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects opened
When I analyze different language version I have developed a small model dividing up the versions into being in one out of three development phases -The buildup phase where mostly just more articles are added. Most of the bigger versions have left this phase but many newer one are still in this. I see it as a sign of failure on these, when the number of access to the version decrease on a yearly base, look at the sicilian, faroese or lombardian versions. Fewer accesses will mens less interest, fewer newer editor and probably decreasing value and quality that could very well be a sign bad circle making it successively worse -The consolidating phase, where most major versions are today (except en and de). Here quality, content and seriousness will be in focus. If we fail here we will no attract new editors and/or seniors (we do not want to contribute to something too amateurish). Perhaps the Danish version is a good example of the problems not succeeding in this phase. On the Swedish version we have for a year and a half have had focus on quality and this summer we actually see very promising figures, traffic increasing +20% on a yearly baser, record numbers of new articles, many new older contributers. Perhaps we have passed the mid-life crises? -The mature phase where I see only en and de being, and where focus is content sources etc. here I see a risk of us being too elitistic and discouraging younger contributers. Working very much with iw linking I actually am starting to find many articles missing on de:wp nowadays, mostly in semi-serious areas like comicstrip heroes etc. It could be a warning sign and a risk that we frighten away our original core of young enthusiasts to other wikis which in the long run could become competitors to de:wp. Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] moderate this list
I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable input, and make the list much more comprehensive and useful. (With this rule last days 80 entires would probalbly been limited to something like 20) foundation-l is a resource that could be made to be of much use and importance if just the chattiness was limited Anders Mark Williamson skrev: Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the majority will start to habitually skip over (most of) your messages. Think of it this way (this is a very simplistic model I think, I'm not an economist): when the central bank of a country prints too much currency, this can cause the value of the currency to go down. Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings, they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500. It's fine if you always have something to say but I think we have all (the more prolific posters here) been guilty of posting two or three (or more) replies to the same thread at once without waiting for others when we could have consolidated into a single e-mail. Also, in my opinion (and yours may be different), although I do have an opinion on nearly every thread on this list, it is not always necessary for everybody to know what I think; this is after all a platform for discussion, not for people to come and find out how I feel about things. Mark skype: node.ue On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanencimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com: I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just these two are driving a whole thread discussion. On Wikipedia we all work hard to work for consensus (all voices are welcome) and stop people dominating a subject. Why is it allowed for two persons to take over a list like it is done here? We haven't taken anything over. There is nothing stopping anyone else from contributing to the discussion as well. Other than good sense. (Contributing endless reams of text, that is.) Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ 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] Moderate this list
A proposal from me that I have entered on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) -Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility) -Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings -(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself) Anders ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Korea approved?
A hoax, and I have out in a request for speedy removal, as no such chapter have send in an application to ChapCom. Anders 김우진 skrev: According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1636517, This page insists that Wikimedia Korea has been approved in Sep 12 2009 by Wikimedia Foundation. I didn't see any notice about Wikimedia Korea. Also, Korean community is not going discussion for creating Wikimedia South Korea, which was discussed at [[meta:Wikimedia South Korea]]. But That page give a nuance that Wikimedia Korea is commercial organization. (name is written asWiki Korea Limited) Korean community never heard that. Therefore I suggest we should invalidate that page. Thank you. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
