Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 14/01/14 16:08, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote: >> Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic >> priority of WMF for many years. > > My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim > is well known. But al

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic > priority of WMF for many years. My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim is well known. But also entirely besides the point: I was referring to tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic > priority of WMF for many years. You are saying you have never heard of > it before? Well, here is some reading material for you: > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 14/01/14 15:38, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote: >> The English >> Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and >> is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the >> edit rate from that time predicts death of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > The English > Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and > is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the > edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. That's... come /on/ Tim!

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 10:14 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > Without publically displayed IPs for anonymous edits, people couldn't do > that. That has, traditionally, been very much useless in practice. It's extraordinarily rare that abuse teams will even speak to checkusers, and they have some veil of auth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

> On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > we're getting almost 3,000 thanks > actions a day, every day It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of barnstars — Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 14/01/14 14:10, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > We shouldn't assume linear growth over a ten year period. Indeed. The data strongly points to sublinear growth. The English Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regressi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 12:01 PM, Thyge wrote: I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of... True, but transparency has also always been important to Wikimedia. Without being a checkuser, or even an admin, peop

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: On 13/01/14 15:35, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly created and lasts as long as the cookie does. Those are going to pile up *really* fast, especially from browsers that do not keep cookies f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 01:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote: I don't follow what you're saying about a bot account being the only alternative. You can use the exact same user interface exposure (i.e., little "(thanks)" links) and simply post to the IP's talk page rather than creating an Echo (logged-in user) notific

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 13 January 2014 15:03, Steven Walling wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker wrote: > > > I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a > > mechanical "thank" any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a > > significant trend in using "thank" notifications

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 14/01/14 00:18, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: >> Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. > > Fair enough. > > So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well > designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker wrote: > I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a > mechanical "thank" any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a > significant trend in using "thank" notifications to express agreement with > people without having to actua

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

Steven Walling, 13/01/2014 23:24: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker wrote: I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very basic user interactions. It takes as much work to "thank" someone using notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. That's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a mechanical "thank" any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a significant trend in using "thank" notifications to express agreement with people without having to actually say "yeah, I agree" somewhere. That the loss of huma

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Blog posts by Foundation Board members

Dear all, Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have posted the first of a new series of monthly blog posts to the Wikimedia blog. The first post, from Vice Chair Phoebe Ayers, is an introduction to the Board, its mandate, and its work within the community. You can find that post at ht

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit "thank". I hit "okay". I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit the "talk" link, I hit the "new section" button, I fill in my message, I save my message. Ultimately, though, this compares apples to oranges; nobody is "technologizing" th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker wrote: > I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very basic > user interactions. It takes as much work to "thank" someone using > notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. > That's empirically not true. If I am

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 13/01/14 20:37, Risker wrote: Of course there already exists a way to thank IP editors. It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says "Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]." It is far more personal, far more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe crea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

Of course there already exists a way to thank IP editors. It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says "Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]." It is far more personal, far more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe create an account?) based on research o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour

Absolutely yes. It's suffucient to check in internet. Il 13/gen/2014 21:29 "Benoit Landry" ha scritto: > I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation: > "Hello, > I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form > a sincere friendship with you, please reply

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour

I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation: "Hello, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form a sincere friendship with you, please reply to me. I promise I'll be honest and maintain a good relationship with you. Kisses,Macoral Marriet" Make of that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of... regards, Thyge - Sir49 2014/1/13 Marc A. Pelletier > On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > > Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 13 January 2014 05:18, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > > Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. > > Fair enough. > > So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well > designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. Fair enough. So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that do create an account to retroactiv

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

Andrew sums up the situation in the UK very well. For some Wikimedian in Residence positions they are entirely funded by the chapter. Others involve funding from both the institution and the chapter. A third model involves a residency being funded by a third party. For example, there's a residency

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

I don't know if we can confidently assume non-registered users know that they're using a shared IP - one of the most frequent complaints from readers, historically, was some variant on "why the am I getting all these messages, I never edited anything" with varying degrees of alarm/distress. A