Would your work be influenced by an analysis of the academic biographies which
are most searched for that are not on Wikipedia yet? (assuming that such an
targeted analysis was available)
PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to be
"with popular topics cannibalizing resources."
What resources can be cannibalized? The limiting resource in WP is
interested people writing, improving, and validating articles. People
choose their own topics. This is different from an organization where
staff can be directed to work on what
Hi Lukas, Helene and Mirjam ,
I join Camelia and Itzik in congratulating Wikimedia DE for finding an
ingenious and clever solution for giving more gender diversity to the
board, and getting those two fantastic new acquisitions to the board in the
I wish a very warm welcome to Helene and
We should be using a grid for what people are reading about, instead
of using countries. That will give a better representation of large
countries vs small countries. It will also better reflect local ethnic
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
> בתאריך יום א׳, 10
I have put my own but the problem we have in Switzerland is connected to
Italian, for instance, which is one big language in WIkipedia, is at the
opposite a minority in Switzerland.
Any study is interesting, but if it could be country-based, it would be
I am also writing about what I am (sometimes mildly) interested in, and I
am sure there will be enough materials for me to edit until I die, but you
would be surprised to learn how many people have no idea on what they
could/should edit, and are happy to take suggestions.
That is great news, Lukas!
I'm happy to see that more and more boards diverse their membership. I
think it's an important thing and a valuable contribution to the ability of
our organizations to see the big picture behind our current movement
activities and thinking.
I do not agree with you, but that may be because we edit differently. I write
about what I am interested in, and know enough about to be reasonably
efficient. There is enough of it to keep me busy indefinitely. I read the
topics that interest me and I don't know enough about to write. I
We edit what we choose to edit. Usually the is things we are interested in and
know something about. 2 billion people can go search for something I have no
interest in and it will not move me to edit that topic. However, if a fairly
substantial number of people look for something I am
This is a very interesting discussion. I'm going to fork this thread in the
next 2 hours (unless one of you do this in the meantime) for us to continue
the conversation around using search as a signal for improving Wikipedia in
there. It would be best, for current and future readability,
We can consider this an opportunity, e.g. popular media often touches on
diverse cultural and political themes, and international sports tournaments
give people a reason to learn about different countries. If people find our
project this way then so be it, we can just try and make sure those
Reminding is easy, it's analyzing that it's complex.
I suspect that editors and readers are probably a little bit smarter than
generally assumed. It's quite "obvious" that editors understand what is an
encyclopedia, after years. When I make an informal survey, statistically the
בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת Gerard Meijssen <
> I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but really
> why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people are
> actually looking for and do not find.. Why
> The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares
I agree, although I'd make it a bit more focused: an encyclopedia that is
*only* popularity-driven is indeed scary. It's good to mention this, and
not once, but repeatedly.
However, providing Wikipedia editors with information about
I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who
published articles on Science and Nature basically, and in the end I think they
are probably qualified to have an idea of what a good encyclopedia should be.
The point is that these people open wiki for topics far away
That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics
cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three
sports, some TV series and three or four music topics.
These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start
focusing energies on these
Mail list logo