Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Peter Southwood]

David,  
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)
Cheers,
Peter

PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to be 
notable and a listing of possible sources would also save a lot of wasted 
effort. Also a check against articles that have been deleted for good reasons, 
and articles in other languages with a reasonable accessible reference list.



-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
David Goodman
Sent: 12 March 2019 07:15
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

"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 the management think is important.

I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most  people
do not think them important.  We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
others interests.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> 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
> groups.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
>  wrote:
> >
> > ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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 can we not promote what
> proves
> > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
> >
> > 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> > Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> > 2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to
> some
> > improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia sites' internal search
> > engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.
> >
> > 2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people
> often
> > search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are no
> > articles in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program
> >
> > 3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
> > language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You
> can
> > see a sample here:
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04-15
> > . I plan to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time
> soon.
> >
> > 4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
> > that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
> >
> > 5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better
> than
> > nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews tool,
> > rather than just by language. It's documented at
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is
> that
> > the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria, India,
> > the Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The
> English
> > Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas it
> is
> > sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
> > also the most popular in the other four countries, even though languages
> > other than English are spoken there. The reason for this situation is, of
> > course, that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the languages
> of
> > these countries, and knowing what the most popular articles are can help
> > people who write in these languages choose how to write that will be
> > useful, and will hopefully raise the popularity of Wikipedias in these
> > languages. The same is true for the most popular Russian Wikipedia
> articles
> > in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, the most popular French Wikipedia articles in
> > Benin and Mali, etc. This is only an idea, but maybe it will be
> implemented
> > some day.
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[David Goodman]

"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 the management think is important.

I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most  people
do not think them important.  We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
others interests.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> 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
> groups.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
>  wrote:
> >
> > ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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 can we not promote what
> proves
> > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
> >
> > 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> > Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> > 2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to
> some
> > improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia sites' internal search
> > engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.
> >
> > 2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people
> often
> > search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are no
> > articles in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program
> >
> > 3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
> > language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You
> can
> > see a sample here:
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04-15
> > . I plan to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time
> soon.
> >
> > 4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
> > that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
> >
> > 5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better
> than
> > nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews tool,
> > rather than just by language. It's documented at
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is
> that
> > the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria, India,
> > the Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The
> English
> > Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas it
> is
> > sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
> > also the most popular in the other four countries, even though languages
> > other than English are spoken there. The reason for this situation is, of
> > course, that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the languages
> of
> > these countries, and knowing what the most popular articles are can help
> > people who write in these languages choose how to write that will be
> > useful, and will hopefully raise the popularity of Wikipedias in these
> > languages. The same is true for the most popular Russian Wikipedia
> articles
> > in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, the most popular French Wikipedia articles in
> > Benin and Mali, etc. This is only an idea, but maybe it will be
> implemented
> > some day.
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr appointed to the WMDE board

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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
way!

I wish a very warm welcome to Helene and Mirjam into the Wikimedia universe
and community. :)

Paulo - darwIn
Wikimedia Portugal

Lukas Mezger  escreveu no dia segunda, 4/03/2019
à(s) 11:24:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> I am happy to share with you that the Wikimedia Deutschland board has
> appointed Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr as additional members to the
> board.
>
> *Helene *is a free knowledge enthusiast and a co-founder of Coding Da
> Vinci, the first German open cultural data hackathon(1). For the past five
> years, she has worked as a project manager for community and technology
> projects in the fields of open government, data literacy and open culture
> at the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. *Mirjam *is a highly experienced
> expert in media and communications. Having worked as a freelance
> journalist, consultant, deputy editor-in-chief, press officer, and head of
> communications for 20 years, she has extensive experience at all levels of
> strategic communications.
>
> Both will be full members of the board until the next board elections at
> the general assembly in June 2020 and we are very much looking forward to
> working with Helene and Mirjam.
>
> The Wikimedia Deutschland board(2) of consists of up to 9 members. Seven
> members are elected by the general assembly for a two-year term. After the
> election, the seven board members can appoint up to two additional members
> to the board. As the general assembly on 1 December 2018 resulted in the
> election of six men and one woman, we decided to consider only applications
> from non-male candidates for the appointed seats. Subsequently, we
> published a profile with the skills and experiences which we considered to
> be most important for our board. We are happy that this approach was very
> successful: We received more than 80 recommendations and 16 applications of
> highly qualified candidates. Through this process, we have made some
> valuable experiences and contacts on which we want to build to further
> increase the diversity of candidates in upcoming board elections.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Helene und Mirjam to the Wikiverse!
> Kind regards,
>
> Lukas
>
> (1) https://codingdavinci.de/about/
> (2) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland#Board
> --
>
> Dr. Lukas Mezger
> Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[John Erling Blad]

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
groups.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
 wrote:
>
> ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
> > Hoi,
> > 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 can we not promote what proves
> > to be of interest [1] ?
> >
>
> Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
>
> 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> 2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to some
> improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia sites' internal search
> engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.
>
> 2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people often
> search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are no
> articles in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program
>
> 3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
> language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You can
> see a sample here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04-15
> . I plan to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time soon.
>
> 4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
> that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder
>
> 5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better than
> nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews tool,
> rather than just by language. It's documented at
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is that
> the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria, India,
> the Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The English
> Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas it is
> sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
> also the most popular in the other four countries, even though languages
> other than English are spoken there. The reason for this situation is, of
> course, that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the languages of
> these countries, and knowing what the most popular articles are can help
> people who write in these languages choose how to write that will be
> useful, and will hopefully raise the popularity of Wikipedias in these
> languages. The same is true for the most popular Russian Wikipedia articles
> in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, the most popular French Wikipedia articles in
> Benin and Mali, etc. This is only an idea, but maybe it will be implemented
> some day.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Ilario valdelli]

Hi Leila,

I have put my own but the problem we have in Switzerland is connected to 
the multi-lingualism.


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 
better.


Kind regards


On 06/03/2019 22:12, Leila Zia wrote:

Hi all,

As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
demographics and user motivations and characteristics).

If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on how
much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this is
your chance to indicate interest at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages

I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating some
of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.

As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
is needed. :)

Best,
Leila

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Peter,

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.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:31 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Vito,
> 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 copyedit
> anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if
> I can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write
> about? Is it greatly affected by what other people choose to read?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Vi to
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
>
> 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 already popular topics you'll end up having no
> resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
> "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
> XX century".
>
> The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
> promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
> free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
> diversity and quality.
>
> Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
> very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
> will gain a complete influence over us.
>
> To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
> *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
> people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
>
> If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
> ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
> the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> > want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
> they
> > want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
> what
> > they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> > see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> > interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> > our writing skills for our own benefit.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > 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 can we not promote what
> > proves
> > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > > >
> > > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> > how
> > > > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
> > is
> > > > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> > > > >
> > > > > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr appointed to the WMDE board

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

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.



*Itzik Edri*
Chairperson
it...@wikimedia.org.il
+972-54-5878078




On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:24 PM Lukas Mezger 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> I am happy to share with you that the Wikimedia Deutschland board has
> appointed Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr as additional members to the
> board.
>
> *Helene *is a free knowledge enthusiast and a co-founder of Coding Da
> Vinci, the first German open cultural data hackathon(1). For the past five
> years, she has worked as a project manager for community and technology
> projects in the fields of open government, data literacy and open culture
> at the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. *Mirjam *is a highly experienced
> expert in media and communications. Having worked as a freelance
> journalist, consultant, deputy editor-in-chief, press officer, and head of
> communications for 20 years, she has extensive experience at all levels of
> strategic communications.
>
> Both will be full members of the board until the next board elections at
> the general assembly in June 2020 and we are very much looking forward to
> working with Helene and Mirjam.
>
> The Wikimedia Deutschland board(2) of consists of up to 9 members. Seven
> members are elected by the general assembly for a two-year term. After the
> election, the seven board members can appoint up to two additional members
> to the board. As the general assembly on 1 December 2018 resulted in the
> election of six men and one woman, we decided to consider only applications
> from non-male candidates for the appointed seats. Subsequently, we
> published a profile with the skills and experiences which we considered to
> be most important for our board. We are happy that this approach was very
> successful: We received more than 80 recommendations and 16 applications of
> highly qualified candidates. Through this process, we have made some
> valuable experiences and contacts on which we want to build to further
> increase the diversity of candidates in upcoming board elections.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Helene und Mirjam to the Wikiverse!
> Kind regards,
>
> Lukas
>
> (1) https://codingdavinci.de/about/
> (2) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland#Board
> --
>
> Dr. Lukas Mezger
> Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Peter Southwood]

Vito, 
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 copyedit 
anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if I 
can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write about? Is 
it greatly affected by what other people choose to read?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Vi to
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

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 already popular topics you'll end up having no
resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
"near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
XX century".

The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
diversity and quality.

Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
will gain a complete influence over us.

To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
*information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.

If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"

Vito

Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
ha scritto:

> The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they
> want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what
> they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> our writing skills for our own benefit.
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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 can we not promote what
> proves
> > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > >
> > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> how
> > > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
> is
> > > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> > > >
> > > > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
> > > > then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
> some
> > > > of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
> > > > needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
> > > >
> > > > As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
> > > > community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
> > > > is needed. :)
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Leila
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
> > > >
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Peter Southwood]

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 interested in and it is 
not covered, I may well spend some time improving coverage of the missing 
material, assuming I can find reliable sources. I don't think I am unique in 
this attitude, so I predict that getting good feedback on what is missing will 
inspire the people who would edit those subjects anyway, to improve them. It is 
very interesting and useful to me to know what readers are missing from my 
special interest areas and a complete waste of my time nd everyone else's to 
flood me with information on what people don’t find on topics I have no 
interest in editing. I will go to the trouble of trying to add information on a 
topic if even one person clearly and politely asks for it on a talk page. Also 
if someone does not understand what is written I will try to clarify, as that 
also improves the encyclopaedia. Clear, well targeted feedback is good, floods 
of garbage is not. Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:53 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

 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 from their area, 
most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop culture is what 
makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. It's when they 
find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for some internal reason 
they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on. 

Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that 
this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I 
always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. I 
am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the 
"popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality on 
very specific topic is still increasing.

A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information are 
useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing links, 
pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and so on, 
your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such statement, but 
at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited a "pop" article 
in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in organic chemistry 
or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it gives a hint that is 
probably fine.
Go on and explore.



Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to  ha 
scritto:  
 
 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 already popular topics you'll end up having no
resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
"near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
XX century".

The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
diversity and quality.

Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
will gain a complete influence over us.

To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
*information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.

If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"

Vito

Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
ha scritto:

> The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they
> want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what
> they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

Hi all,

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, to keep the
focus of the current thread on the original topic.

Thanks,
Leila

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:51 AM Edward Saperia  wrote:

> 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
> articles great starting points for further exploration
> .
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> wrote:
>
> > ‬
> >
> > > 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 what *is* in
> > demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
> > choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
> > "popular".
> >
> > While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
> > Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
> > most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
> > reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
> > popular topics won't hurt.
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Edward Saperia]

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
articles great starting points for further exploration
.

Ed


On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> ‬
>
> > 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 what *is* in
> demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
> choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
> "popular".
>
> While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
> Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
> most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
> reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
> popular topics won't hurt.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

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 
"smarter" students in the class or in the group of people in front of me at an 
event are those who already edited something or who want to know more or are 
willing to compile a form to state their opinion or similar. 

Plus, every topic is multifaceted somehow, it's the same for the most popular 
ones. It's strange when long-time editors seem to miss this aspect. There is 
always a specific disease, an historical event, a place or a person in a family 
history linked to a most searched topic. You can detect many missing specific 
things just focusing on a core topic and starting from there. Again, maybe it's 
worth reminding also how our editors are quite good at doing this, and this 
type of information is therefore a starting point. In some of this comments, it 
always look like an end per se. 

Seriously, if someone is so superficial to just edit something with no depth 
because it's on a list, (s)he will just do something equally superficial 
somewhere else. Clinically, I might state that it's probably a good thing if 
this occur in an area with huge focus, it actually lowers the possible 
long-term disfunctionalities induced by a rigid approach, something that it's 
more subtle to detect in less supervised areas.

in any case, these lists can change a lot from area to area so it is not even 
driven by the "mass", if you give a country in South America or Asia the same 
focus on a western country you end up with very unusual guideline. it's nice to 
know that you expertise in an area even if less taken into account in the 
average community around you, it's useful in a different part of the word. 



Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 13:32:12 CET, Amir E. Aharoni 
 ha scritto:  
 
 ‬

> 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 what *is* in
demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
"popular".

While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
popular topics won't hurt.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> Hoi,
> 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 can we not promote what proves
> to be of interest [1] ?
>

Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:

1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
2016 or so, led by Dan Garry as the product manager, and this lead to some
improvements in the functionality of Wikimedia sites' internal search
engine, although I don't remember what they were exactly.

2. Google's Project Tiger provided lists of articles for which people often
search in the Google search engine in India, and about which there are no
articles in Wikipedias in languages of India. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program

3. Last year I made a list of articles that people search for in their
language using the interlanguage links search box and cannot find. You can
see a sample here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amire80/WEIRD/2018-04-09%E2%80%932018-04-15
. I plan to make this list nicer-looking and auto-updating some time soon.

4. The GapFinder project is another tool that helps people find articles
that are missing in some wikis: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/GapFinder

5. This is just an idea, but it's written down, which is a bit better than
nothing: Show the most popular articles by country in the PageViews tool,
rather than just by language. It's documented at
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207171 . The rationale for this is that
the most popular English Wikipedia articles in the U.S., Nigeria, India,
the Philippines, and South Africa are significantly different. The English
Wikipedia is the most popular one in all these countries, but whereas it is
sensible that it's popular in the U.S., it's a bit depressing that it's
also the most popular in the other four countries, even though languages
other than English are spoken there. The reason for this situation is, of
course, that there is little content in the Wikipedias in the languages of
these countries, and knowing what the most popular articles are can help
people who write in these languages choose how to write that will be
useful, and will hopefully raise the popularity of Wikipedias in these
languages. The same is true for the most popular Russian Wikipedia articles
in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, the most popular French Wikipedia articles in
Benin and Mali, etc. This is only an idea, but maybe it will be implemented
some day.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

‬

> 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 what *is* in
demand is useful, as long as the editors clearly know that they have the
choice to write what is *important* and that "important" is not equal to
"popular".

While I haven't ran a proper survey about this, conversations that with
Wikipedia editors from various "big" and "small" languages tell me that
most of them already understand it, and this is good. Nevertheless,
reminding people that Wikipedia is not supposed to be just about covering
popular topics won't hurt.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 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 from their area, 
most of the time they look also for "pop" topics. Finding pop culture is what 
makes them stay and grow interest as much as everything else. It's when they 
find a deleted ye useful page of something of interest for some internal reason 
they think wikipedia it's not worth spending time on. 

Based on that experience, in all the discussions when people who claim that 
this focus on such pop information lower our image or damage our workflow, I 
always question where these opinions come from and if they are peer-reviewed. I 
am a scientist, I look at data. it has been years people are claiming the 
"popmaggedon" of wikipedia is soon, and in the meantime its overall quality on 
very specific topic is still increasing.

A balanced encyclopedia comes from trying to fill the gaps, all information are 
useful in that direction. As long as someone else is studying missing links, 
pages existing in other languages, encouraging what editors want and so on, 
your idea is just part of patchwork. I cannot peer-review such statement, but 
at least i can tell you it is said by someone who never edited a "pop" article 
in all his wikipedia life and manage projects of outreach in organic chemistry 
or biophysics, to name the last ones. So I hope that it gives a hint that is 
probably fine.
Go on and explore.



Il lunedì 11 marzo 2019, 10:08:23 CET, Vi to  ha 
scritto:  
 
 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 already popular topics you'll end up having no
resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
"near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
XX century".

The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
diversity and quality.

Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
will gain a complete influence over us.

To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
*information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.

If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"

Vito

Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
ha scritto:

> The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they
> want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what
> they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> our writing skills for our own benefit.
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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 can we not promote what
> proves
> > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > >
> > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> how
> > > > much data we collect in your language, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Vi to]

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 already popular topics you'll end up having no
resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
"near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
XX century".

The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
diversity and quality.

Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
will gain a complete influence over us.

To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
*information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.

If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"

Vito

Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
ha scritto:

> The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what they
> want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see what
> they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> our writing skills for our own benefit.
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > 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 can we not promote what
> proves
> > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > >
> > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> how
> > > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
> is
> > > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> > > >
> > > > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up. Since
> > > > then, we have run a pilot test on enwiki and we are investigating
> some
> > > > of the results to see if any changes in the survey questions are
> > > > needed. You have now time until 2019-03-15 to indicate interest.
> > > >
> > > > As always: this call is primarily a service to your language
> > > > community. If you like it, take action on it. If you don't, no action
> > > > is needed. :)
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Leila
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-February/091762.html
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >