Felipe Ortega, 25/07/2009 18:06:
* The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
But I often see that even an old, quiescent page is completely
re-written or significantly improved by an expert
Hoi,
When the Wikimedia Foundation is to be the centre of a movement, then it has
challenges as an enabler. The first most obvious thing to do is make it
visible. This means that we do not only reach out to people but also to
organisations. When GLAM (gallereies, libraries, archives and museums)
The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
Keep up the good work to both of you!
John =D
Mark Williamson wrote:
Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were not
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
younger users away from the project.
All in all, I feel that we
I'm glad it was enjoyable for you also :-)
skype: node.ue
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:44 AM, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote:
The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
Keep up the good work to both of you!
John =D
Mark Williamson wrote:
Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with
The company I work for employs a large number of people with with
Doctorates in mathematics and quantum mechanics. Most are opinionated
and argumentative but do not read wikipedia in areas that they have
expertise in. The last discussion I had with one of them over a
wikipedia article went If
Ray Saintonge wrote:
When I first encountered you you showed a great capacity to be a pain in
the ass. You shared that ability with a few others who were already
well passed their teen years. Your tenacity through all this has been
commendable, and your continuing presence has had a
Just curious...where in WP do you think POV and specialist works
could fit?
Well,
1) POV (best of them being articulated properly) are the only
possible ingredients (raw materials) for NPOV producing. Are you able
to create NPOV from scratch (from nothing)?
2) Specialists will (and they
- experienced professional reference-work writers (and we should help them
find ways to sustain themselves, particularly in niche markets -- one way is
by distributing the underlying work needed to find and organize data).
there is room in the world-of-WP for effective, sustainable POV and
When I say world of WP I mean world post-WP -- the world we live
in, in which certain businesses are failing now that basic reliable
information and data are available freely...
It would be healthy to see compatibly-licensed projects that use
different sets of core principles; not just wikinfo
As specific examples:
It would be great if every publisher of any sort that does basic data
mining and research into primary sources were to share that work
directly on WP and sister projects. Publishers using free media and
spending time and effort vetting their licenses should update the
Noted, and added to strategic planning page :)
On Jul 29, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
As specific examples:
It would be great if every publisher of any sort that does basic data
mining and research into primary sources were to share that work
directly on WP and sister projects.
I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how
they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and
visualizations of this sort of knowledge.
You cannot copyright ideas, nor should one copyright the simplest
expression of them. The merger doctrine specifies
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Who are our actual users?
This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
on how
Mark Williamson wrote:
This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
younger users away from the project.
All in all, I feel that we should basically treat all users the same,
regardless of age. If a 15 year
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
On wikimedia, young people learn how to properly reference an article,
which will help them as they progress in their education.
Originally Wikipedia was about People, who could already write academic
papers and did not need tutoring
Samuel Klein wrote:
I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how
they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and
visualizations of this sort of knowledge.
I vaguely remember some long-ago comments from Jimbo where he foresaw WP
as including
Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were not as heavy-handed as they
could (should?) have been in dealing with me at the time. I learned a
great deal about
Sorry for double-posting but I felt that it was really important to
add something.
This is a great example of why it is important to keep younger editors
around. Promising intelligent young people who are comfortable with
and frequent users of Wikipedia now could be leading scientists,
artists,
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the
skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping
them in their many years to come.
And what does Wikipedia get from those young people? We don't have the
This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
younger users away from the project.
When I started at Wikipedia, I noticed several approaches from users:
- Some were initially unaware of my age and were surprised
It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those
who control the projects.
As
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding
on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find
the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these
Milos Rancic wrote:
The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
that (Strategy plan).
Long term planning for the Foundation is not planning with
contributors who will write on Wikipedia for several
geni wrote:
English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article.
[[Ordnance Survey]]
erecting walls to
stop new things/users.
From: John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Finally, we can
Milos Rancic wrote:
* Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young
people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become
retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a
very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors.
Mark Williamson wrote:
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
languages since I was about 15.
Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few -
just think of how many of
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning
Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future.
Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead
half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to
think
, but to improve *quality*.
Best,
Felipe.
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need
quantity to
have sustainable community
Дана Sunday 26 July 2009 07:22:06 Henning Schlottmann написа:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
languages since I was about 15.
Great. And I never denied that
The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
that (Strategy plan).
Am I right understanding your words following way:
This thread was started as PR action for WMF Strategy plan?
:-P
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
that (Strategy plan).
Am I right understanding your words following way:
This
2009/7/26 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
geni wrote:
English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
reasonable inclusion
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter
months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year
again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who
correct a fact, add some
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
geni wrote:
English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
Bleh.
When did this become an either-or proposition?
You go recruit retired professionals. I'll go recruit young people.
Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go
after teachers. Everybody wins.
The only way to lose is if either:
A) You believe one of these groups
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Felipe Ortegaglimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es wrote:
You can check more precise figures and graphs in my thesis about general
statistics for survivability for all logged editors and core editors (the top
10% most active editors in each month), from the beginning until
Дана Friday 24 July 2009 16:42:06 Pavlo Shevelo написа:
Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic
in analysis and straight in putting things as
Well, well, well
... even if your
observations are true
Not so bad for the beginning: you can suggest that my observations
might be correct.
By the way, when I wrote Face the facts! I meant (and still mean)
observations first of all.
... You are cynical, and ...
your conclusions are wrong.
Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale
contributions coming from specific communities, specially from
educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of
Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research,
and some authors have
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles
about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but
neither in articles on science technology nor articles regarding
museums,
Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his
17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but
just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that
scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and
energy even in 12
John,
Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;)
Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with
oldtimers until they learn the most basic things?
But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible?
If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we
should just to
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me illustrate by example:
I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!)
years old boy despite the fact that his usage of be bold rule to
several most popular templates was like hurricane that
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
with ~95% of support).
BTW, one of the persons who trolled the project (sr.wp) was
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no escribió:
De: John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: sábado, 25 julio, 2009 3:47
I asked a source if they may grant
2009/7/25 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
with ~95% of support).
Yes. We must keep in mind that the Wikimedia projects attract some
*ridiculously* smart,
, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need
quantity to
have sustainable community development or even just a
sustainable
stagnation. We shouldn't
2009/7/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es:
* The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
languages since I was about 15.
There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe,
I don't know how much they are able to contribute to
Mark,
I appreciate your input to this discussion as well as I believe you
regarding your contribution to en:WP.
Both of us (you and me) know that there are bright young people
(geeks etc.) and ... not so bright. Besides I'm willing not to be
snobbish geek and I trust that people (whatever their
Oh, Milos...
We were talking about articles on nuclear physics, aren't we?
... and you suddenly switched to stewardship. Why?
With all due respect to the institution of stewardship (and each of
our Stewards personally ;) ) what's the big deal with that in context
of what we were talking before
2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com:
Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship).
So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to
see 19-year old steward.
... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same
scientific/technology
Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
I went to en.wp stats [1] and I've seen
Milos Rancic wrote:
In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least
regarding de-WP.
Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
July 17, 2009: the method of counting
Hello Milos,
What an informative note you made!
Thanks a lot!
There is a lot to think about but as for meantime would you please
provide more details on
If we assume that our target groups
are between 15 and 24...
(and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys)
?
As a part of that: do
Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking
at retired academics as the future of our user base.
That's right point!
If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something
more than cross-education of teenagers and students
As a matter od fact teenagers contribute
Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
(not
The retired academics trend is apparent at en.wikt too. There are many
valuable depth and quality contributions that they can make and few others
can.
It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our
2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
Milos Rancic wrote:
In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
wrong in your assumptions
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
sports, movies and other
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
Ciao Henning
* Mantra No.2:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Markus_Mueller/Mantras
Disclaimer:
Just to clarify: The passage below was one I quoted and was requoted by
Nikola. It was from another en.wikt admin, NOT ME. Moreover it is not
en.wikt policy and got negative response, but not as much as I would have
hoped, from those I believe to be retired and active academics and graduate
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
Dennis During wrote:
It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
users have appropriate weight in decision making
Who are our actual users? Students are of course well known to use
Dennis During wrote:
Uhm sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to confine ourselves with the
user vulgaris, which is by definition semi-literate imbecile :) Our target
Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Henning
Schlottmannh.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote:
But do we know how many professionals and other people from the general
public use Wikipedia every day? One of the most active contributors to
de-WP once told the story that he was at a pediatric with his sick
Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
(not
Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that
analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations
based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise
data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48
My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and
can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb
down articles to the needs of school curriculums.
Ciao Henning
There are
There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
there are some articles which could be explained in layman's terms,
particularly in maths and physics, that don't bother and just launch
into a forest of LaTeX.
I agree that every article ideally should have a Subject in a
--- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: viernes, 24 julio, 2009 5:25
Whatever means in the official
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Hall sinew...@silentflame.comwrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 16:31, Yaroslav M. Blanterpute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Who are our actual users?
This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
on how to treat cancer, but might be out
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Who are our actual users?
This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
on how to treat cancer, but might be
Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
to contribute =/= to write new articles / to add new info
#categorization
#linking
#templating
#bots making
#translating
#etc.
I know many young people who '''can''' clean up Wikipedia very well.
przykuta
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
Milos Rancic wrote:
In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and
: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: viernes, 24 julio, 2009 5:25
Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good
to have numbers about newcomers and those who made 10 or 100 edits,
so we may compare how do
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
* ... Older age groups are not interesting
anymore in the sense of quantity
Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that
their main
82 matches
Mail list logo
