Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:42:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
Open these two pages:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
Each has four bar charts with yellow
On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the
Well, Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia,
so it had to be
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 January 2013 01:23, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the
Well,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:53:46AM +, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the
Well, Esperanza ended up ossified faster than the rest of wikipedia,
so it had to be taken down.
I'm worried about people saying the same thing won't
On 15/01/13 00:21, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with
opposition - in the case of references in particular. And not only from
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who
will block for putting references in
Yes, of course - why didn't we think of that? Actually the lack of
rules and lack of punishments means (meant) it was bloody hard to game
the system. Now we have a calcified set of rules and an oligarchy,
passive-aggressives have a field day. Rules-lawyers abound, polite
requests to the
Socialization is usually best achieved through rewards rather than
through punishments. The principle reward is a sense of achievement when
good editing is done or good administrative work done. In the case of
editing the reward, absent trouble, is instantaneous as your work is
published.
Fred
Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with
opposition - in the case of references in particular. And not only from
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who
will block for putting references in numerical order. These are the
sorts of
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
edit,
eventualism) are always going to be
Hi Andreas/Nemo
Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
Right now,
Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
and almost in all language versions of them: [...]
Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Andreas/Nemo
Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?
I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
month, as that is where the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
This has often made people wonder if the causes are external
(Facebook?
Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
I've fixed the link to the English charts: I accidentally
Hello,
I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.
Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
the project.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:59:28 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:34:46 +0530, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.
Happy New Year to all,
Yann
Welcome to the club. I retired from Russian Wikipedia about
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
Open these two pages:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:
Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?
:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually makes
the problem a lot harder!
(does
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:50:39PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
The correct solution to newbies being chased off is not ban them upfront.
The
correct solution is to deal with those chasing off the newbies ;-)
There is a tremendous difference between a clickthrough warning that
one might
On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:
Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?
:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:32:00 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:
Having said that, there have been suggestions to introduce social
networking features in Wikipedia. WikiLove is a step in that
direction. So, what could be the next step? Befriend users and see
On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:
Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?
:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually
On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:
For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.
I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).
Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 10:30:
On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:
For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.
I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this; I
On 8 January 2013 10:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping spammers
at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less motivated and
experienced) users.
Yes, MediaWiki captchas are, presently, literally
On 08/01/13 11:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 10:30:
On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:
For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.
I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't
On 8 January 2013 12:10, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 08/01/13 11:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less
Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers
Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 13:10:
In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less
Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by
software or by humans)? How come other websites don't
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 13:10:
In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less
Care to elaborate? Do we know how are
It's the worst kept secret in the world that you can hire people to
decode your captchas -- http://decaptcha.biz/ for example. Better
captchas don't work because you are competing against people and if
people can't solve the captcha ...
Middle name of Jimmy Wales has worked well for me.
On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
Right now, en.wikipedia rules
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:48:46AM -0500, Risker wrote:
all. New editors don't know what BRD means (Bold, Revert, Discuss).
some oldereditors typically don't either. They often read it to mean the
opposite
of what it actually means.
WP Consensus works by switching between 2 different
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:42PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
instruction? Encourage people to write on subjects they know...
Normal people won't be so much of an expert that
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:57PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
I almost wonder if having a warning flag for highly sensitive or
contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
edits (500? ... some number) to ask about contributions on the
article talk page first, rather
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:57PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
I almost wonder if having a warning flag for highly sensitive or
contentious article, encouraging editors without some threshold of
edits (500? ... some
With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
that could be
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.
But we need to understand what's wrong with the current way of doing things as
part of the discussion.
Consider a famous example in Japan: Several
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:10:33PM +, David Gerard wrote:
On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
Note: Adds a threshold, thus negatively influences editor retention.
But we need to understand what's wrong with the current way of doing things
as
On 08/01/13 20:30, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:
For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.
I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this;
David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
Fred Bauder, 08/01/2013 19:41:
It's the worst kept secret in the world that you can hire people to
decode your captchas -- http://decaptcha.biz/ for example. Better
captchas don't work because you are competing against people and if
people can't solve the captcha ...
Middle name of Jimmy
On 9 January 2013 06:41, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
at all just an en:wp problem.
How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
the
On Jan 9, 2013 1:07 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:42PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
Along the lines of noneuclidian geometry...
What if we experiment (at least conceptually) with inverting that
instruction? Encourage people to write on
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:56:52 -0600, Mark wrote:
On 1/4/13 9:57 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no
solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems,
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
We have been, to some extent, the victims of our own success. We grew
exponentially and not organically, and given the roots of our community,
the usual group structural forms were eschewed. There was also practically
no money
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 03:11:03 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The lack of flagged revisions is a key contributor to this state of
affairs. The English Wikipedia is ridiculously vulnerable to
vandalism. Is
it surprising that that
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the
Erik Moeller, 04/01/2013 08:02:
I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent rise and
decline paper resonate with you:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
well-intentioned, good
This thread may have started weird, but it seems to be going in a very good
direction: we're all very concerned about editor retention, we all see
problem areas we agree on, and we are all grasping at new ideas that seem
more or less like straws. This is bad news, but it has to remain on the
On 4 January 2013 13:03, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that showed
On 4 January 2013 13:39, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm afraid the shooting gallery is already coded into Twinkle/Huggle. It
is the use of that coding that is at issue. It could be used to
encourage, reward and advise as well as to enforce.
This is currently implemented by
It would probably be easier to code and use Wikipedia the Game which
had ingame commands such as view, edit, upload, discuss, search, etc
which called http pages on Wikipedia than to add game features to wiki
software. One could start with any mud coding with an appropriate
license.
Fred
I've
http://www.freep.com/article/20130104/FEATURES01/130104028/Wikipedia-is-driving-away-newcomers-report-says?odyssey=nav|head
A news report on the study that newbies are dropping out very early
indeed - being driven out by preremptory and mechanical treatment,
well before they can be driven out by
Tim and Erik's views aren't at all incompatible or mutually exclusive;
they're just looking at opposite ends of the same problem, which stated
fully is that experienced editors leave and the pace of new editors turning
into experienced editors is too low to maintain a steady community size.
Erik's
On 4 January 2013 15:41, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
Editing an article was easy. All I needed to know was simple and intuitive
syntax for headings, bold, italic and links. It was easy to see article text
through this syntax.
I spent idle time in the holiday week working on
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, but
nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days of old.
Certainly, it will not. For the
On 1/4/13 9:57 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
I guess I could write much more. But at the end, I have no solution.
I could imagine some partial solutions for some of the problems, but
nothing that could really bring Wikipedia to days
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
which is a project very much along these lines. I'm not sure what the
current status of that is, but it definitely seems like a good
approach for
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
options that
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
emotional connection to: it is not good to start with your own research,
your supervisor's
On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal
or
emotional
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 5, 2013 12:51 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
1a. Do
On 1/4/13 5:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly close personal or
emotional connection to: it is not good to start
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 1/4/13 5:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2013 17:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
1a. Do *not* pick a source that you have a particularly
On 04/01/13 18:02, Erik Moeller wrote:
I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the editor
retention problem as you seem to suggest,
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
way towards solving
On 4 January 2013 00:01, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the
On 04/01/13 16:01, Steven Walling wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
way towards solving
73 matches
Mail list logo
