A reminder about motivation, purpose and money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
* Except media (i.e. Wikimedia Commons), we lack of any systemic work
on improving content. (I don't count particular initiatives, like
cooperation between Wikipedia in X language and University in X
country.)
Actually, I believe we lack of any systemic work on improving content on
Commons
* Except media (i.e. Wikimedia Commons), we lack of any systemic work
on improving content. (I don't count particular initiatives, like
cooperation between Wikipedia in X language and University in X
country.)
Actually, I believe we lack of any systemic work on improving content on
Commons
Well, I'm no better than you, I nearly always forget my camera, but if
you have time images nearly any village or major feature of the
landscape
is always welcome, even such places as Hooper... or things such as bear
turds.
I know my way to Commons which is substantiated by my contribution, and
when I have smth to upload, I eventually upload and even sometimes write
an
article to include the picture, but I would not call it a systemic work.
For me, an example of systemic activity would be the message on a
On 03/29/11 8:16 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
This
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Crestone,_Colorado
is the village I live in. Perhaps the rule have been bent a bit, but I
don't really see that civilization has been harmed, by doing so. What is
a reliable source varies with the
On 03/29/11 11:13 AM, wrote:
On 29/03/2011 18:19, Fred Bauder wrote:
Ghost towns in the American West are much written about.
Indeed: its part of the mythology.
Their inhabitants continue to be consulted.
Ec
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 03/29/11 11:13 AM, wrote:
On 29/03/2011 18:19, Fred Bauder wrote:
Ghost towns in the American West are much written about.
Indeed: its part of the mythology.
Their inhabitants continue to be consulted.
Ec
Indeed, I myself have been invited to a recording studio to transmit oral
On 03/29/11 1:43 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
2011/3/29 wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
Ah there is the reason, the sum of all human knowledge is approaching
completion. Well done to all.
We are very far from that.
All the issue is that of notability.
If we apply the current criteria, which is
A key problem is that it's difficult to find people who understand how
Wikipedia works but also want to disrupt the status quo. Most currently
active Wikipedians, pretty much by definition, like how Wikipedia works
right now. Even if they are concerned in theory about overall community
decline,
On 30/03/2011 18:44, Fred Bauder wrote:
Well, I'm no better than you, I nearly always forget my camera, but if
you have time images nearly any village or major feature of the landscape
is always welcome, even such places as Hooper... or things such as bear
turds.
Well if you leave the
The problem is simple. Our top contributors leave. Because the way things
work makes it simply intolerable.
*25%* of all respondents [in a survey of contributors] said they stopped
contributing because
*Some editors made Wikipedia a difficult place to work*
*
*
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM, The Mono m...@mono.x10.bz wrote:
The problem is simple. Our top contributors leave. Because the way things
work makes it simply intolerable.
*25%* of all respondents [in a survey of contributors] said they stopped
contributing because
*Some editors made
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
encyclopedia is a niche activity, with a finite amount of people who will
ever be willing to participate. If we
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
encyclopedia is a niche activity, with a finite amount of people who will
ever be willing to participate. If we accept this theory, it makes the very
strong focus on
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:26 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
encyclopedia is a niche activity, with a finite amount of people who
will
ever be willing to
Quote:Many volunteers don't have a lot to write.
This sounds like an opinion, not like a fact. Even on English wikipedia, we
still have about two hundred thousand plant species to describe, and
millions of animal species. And then I'm not talking about fungi and other
kingdoms
I do agree with
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:14 AM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:Many volunteers don't have a lot to write.
This sounds like an opinion, not like a fact. Even on English wikipedia, we
still have about two hundred thousand plant species to describe, and
millions of animal
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
* We need volunteer/community institutions. There are tons of
frustrations because there are no ways to solve many problems.
Indeed. Unfortunately, the various groups within the community that might
stand to lose
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:14, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:Many volunteers don't have a lot to write.
This sounds like an opinion, not like a fact. Even on English wikipedia, we
still have about two hundred thousand plant species to describe, and
millions of animal species.
Hi Keegan,
Thank you for starting with a compliment!
If your intention is to stress the point that we wikipedia is also a
community, and not just a bunch of article writers, I agree. I am not sure
what you mean with our content is ridiculously misunderstood for the fifth
most popular website in
Milos,
Fully agree with your remark about the WYSIWYG editor!
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
...
* We need, for example, WYSIWYG editor. Some more important features,
too. And it is not expensive.
* In the world where the funniest thing is to send an
On 03/29/2011 09:14 AM, teun spaans wrote:
Quote:Many volunteers don't have a lot to write.
This sounds like an opinion, not like a fact. Even on English wikipedia, we
still have about two hundred thousand plant species to describe, and
millions of animal species. And then I'm not talking
Hello,
2011/3/29 wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
On 28/03/2011 18:35, Nathan wrote:
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are more
complex, or simply because more of what people know is documented than
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
2011/3/29 wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
On 28/03/2011 18:35, Nathan wrote:
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are
On 03/29/2011 11:40 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
The second issue as I see it, we might not be approaching the sum of all
human knowledge but we're running out of what the core non/semi-professional
community can contribute. We are at over 3.5 million articles (go Pokemon)
I strongly disagree. I see
And even if that was true for the English Wikipedia, it certainly is not for
other large Wikipedias, which seem to have the same trend, according to the
study.
2011/3/29 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
On 03/29/2011 11:40 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
The second issue as I see it, we might not be
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:08, GoEthe.wiki goethe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
And even if that was true for the English Wikipedia, it certainly is not for
other large Wikipedias, which seem to have the same trend, according to the
study.
2011/3/29 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
On 03/29/2011
On 03/29/2011 01:11 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
Let's say that there is Wikipedia in X language with just one editor.
That editor is expert in, let's say, medieval history and has passion
toward chess. That person would spend years in: (1) writing basic
articles -- although he is not astronomer,
yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
2011/3/29 wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
On 28/03/2011 18:35, Nathan wrote:
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are more
complex, or simply because more of what
That's actually a good point.
How can we assess if editors are leaving because they reached the
limit of *their
*knowledge, or for other reasons?
Facebook, for example, has a rather annoying feature that if you try to shut
down your account, it asks you why (and tries to guilt you into staying).
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:03, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The problem isn't that all the articles will be written according to his
level of knowledge, but possibly that:
1. All the articles that he was interested in and are at his level of
knowledge he already wrote.
2. All
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:55, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
And as absolute amount of required efforts will just raise (needed
knowledge for writing articles is just higher and higher), we need to
think about relative amount of required efforts (making things more
accessible) about
This
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Crestone,_Colorado
is the village I live in. Perhaps the rule have been bent a bit, but I
don't really see that civilization has been harmed, by doing so. What is
a reliable source varies with the context.
Fred
If I look at the articles for
On 29/03/2011 16:16, Fred Bauder wrote:
This
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Crestone,_Colorado
is the village I live in. Perhaps the rule have been bent a bit, but I
don't really see that civilization has been harmed, by doing so. What is
a reliable source varies with the
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
encyclopedia is a niche activity,
On 29/03/2011 18:19, Fred Bauder wrote:
Ghost towns in the American West are much written about.
Indeed: its part of the mythology.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 29/03/2011 03:04, Sarah wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:10, Jan-Bart de Vreedejanb...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
It seems that our natural reaction is to immediately question the numbers
and the underlying studies. We are Wikimedians and will not rest until we
are sure that we are looking
George Herbert wrote:
There's a lot more content to get to. The community behavior problems
in the way of getting to content annoy me a lot of days.
I don't understand this comment. Which community behavior problems stop you
from contributing content?
MZMcBride
George Herbert wrote:
There's a lot more content to get to. The community behavior problems
in the way of getting to content annoy me a lot of days.
I don't understand this comment. Which community behavior problems stop
you
from contributing content?
MZMcBride
Point of view editors who
2011/3/30 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
George Herbert wrote:
There's a lot more content to get to. The community behavior problems
in the way of getting to content annoy me a lot of days.
I don't understand this comment. Which community behavior problems stop
you from contributing
2011/3/30 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
George Herbert wrote:
There's a lot more content to get to. The community behavior
problems
in the way of getting to content annoy me a lot of days.
I don't understand this comment. Which community behavior problems
stop
you from contributing
Hi Everyone,
It seems that our natural reaction is to immediately question the numbers and
the underlying studies. We are Wikimedians and will not rest until we are sure
that we are looking at 100% accurate numbers.
We could also look at this another way. Looking around me and talking to
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are more
complex, or simply because more of what people know is documented than
it was 4 years ago... it's harder in a variety of ways for people to
contribute
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are more
complex, or simply because more of what people know is documented than
it was 4 years ago... it's harder in a variety of ways for people to
contribute
On 28/03/2011 18:35, Nathan wrote:
The bar for contributing is higher. Whether because editing is more
technically challenging, or because the rules and standards are more
complex, or simply because more of what people know is documented than
it was 4 years ago... it's harder in a variety of
Best post I have read in a long time.
At 20:10 28-03-2011, you wrote:
Ah there is the reason, the sum of all human knowledge is approaching
completion. Well done to all.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Don't worry, I'm sure everybody forgives you, even if some might
never forget. It's all in the archives and in your contributions,
right? Or have you been able to have oversighted some of the more
compromising material? That seems to work for a lot a folks.
At 23:32 28-03-2011, you wrote:
I'd
Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
While encouraging those that are doing this hard work now, I invite others to
stop doubting the data, and simply focus on the fact that we have a lot of
work to do and lets try to solve this together. It could be something simple
like really helping out a new user
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:10, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems that our natural reaction is to immediately question the numbers and
the underlying studies. We are Wikimedians and will not rest until we are
sure that we are looking at 100% accurate numbers.
We could
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:20, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Going along with this
theory that we've brought in a majority of the people who are willing to
work on these free projects already, perhaps the focus should shift to
making their lives easier? And maybe from there, the pool of
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:20, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Going along with this
theory that we've brought in a majority of the people who are willing to
work on these free projects already, perhaps the focus should shift to
making their lives easier? And maybe from there, the pool
Let's start with a couple of simple facts:
* Our main product is Wikipedia.
* Wikipedia has been built on Internet.
* Wikipedia has been built by volunteer community.
* Mature Wikipedia editions have now a lot of articles. Many
volunteers don't have a lot to write.
* Mature Wikipedia editions have
On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
encyclopedia is a niche activity, with a finite amount of people who will
ever be willing to participate. If we accept this theory, it makes the very
strong focus on increased participation
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 14:18, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I encourage everyone to review Sue’s March update [2], and the editor
trends study itself [3]. It is a deeply important topic, and each report
is only a few pages long. ...
The Board thinks this is the most significant
I think that somewhere along the way we lost sight of many of the qualities
that make the wiki model work.
There are certain patterns, which a wiki community needs to follow to be
successful - beyond assume good faith, there are principles such as forgive
and forget that are just as crucial to
Wouldn't someone leaving returning as a new username be a loss of 1 and a
gain of 1? Thereby being a net change of zero?
I'm sure there is some username churn in the stats, but I'd be surprised if
it was a significant portion (more than 1%) of tens of thousands of users.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 27,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 17:27, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
It says: Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble
successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the
English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a
year after their first
I am really not sure how many of them are clean starts and socks. Probably
not a lot, but I also doubt that the number is insignificant. Given privacy
policies and people deliberately covering their tracks when using a new
identity, we probably can only guess at real numbers.
Hazarding a guess I
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 21:20, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am really not sure how many of them are clean starts and socks. Probably
not a lot, but I also doubt that the number is insignificant. Given privacy
policies and people deliberately covering their tracks when using
60 matches
Mail list logo
