To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
Message-ID: 52d9a98c.8070...@hackish.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 1/17/14, 3:55 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories,
reverts
On 01/16/2014 05:02 PM, Mark wrote:
These confounds might, in the end, not account for much after all. But I
have been looking and haven't found even an attempt to *really*
substantiate claims that the number of actual encyclopedia editors has
declined, versus just superficial quantitative
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 23:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 1/14/14, 5:56 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 14/01/14 15:38, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling
On 13.01.2014 23:57, 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 actually say yeah, I agree
On 14 January 2014 14:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
What does indeed make a difference and creates a sense of human interaction
is custom messaging over templated messaging.
It's the human interaction bit. I was *delighted* when I got a thank
you for an edit, and really
On 14.01.2014 15:53, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 January 2014 14:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
wrote:
What does indeed make a difference and creates a sense of human
interaction
is custom messaging over templated messaging.
It's the human interaction bit. I was *delighted* when I
On 13 January 2014 20:32, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org 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
Barnstars mostly use a set of templates, right? (At least, the 80% case).
We could ballpark it fairly effectively by checking for that set, no?
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
Yes, but what you'd then have to do is either go through the database dumps
or hit the API and check individual diffs. Database-stored information on
templates is where are those templates linked from, not and when were
those links added (unless something has changed relatively recently)
On 14
On 01/14/2014 02:18 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Database-stored information on
templates is where are those templates linked from, not and when were
those links added (unless something has changed relatively recently)
And even then that'd give dubious results. Some talk page get archived
There is inherent humour in being unable to test the comparative efficacy
of a technological whizbang due to the lack of sufficiently standardised
technological whizbangs ;p.
On 14 January 2014 11:32, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 01/14/2014 02:18 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:
Add to this the complexity that several barnstars are subst:ed rather
than transcluded -- but not all -- and you end up with a completely
intractable problem.
Bah humbug.
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director,
Oliver Keyes, 14/01/2014 20:36:
There is inherent humour in being unable to test the comparative efficacy
of a technological whizbang due to the lack of sufficiently standardised
technological whizbangs ;p.
I'd rather call is a systemic bias which makes us favor standardised
technological
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:
Add to this the complexity that several barnstars are subst:ed rather
than transcluded -- but not all -- and you end up with a
So you'd rather measure effectiveness through...the feeling in your water?
On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes, 14/01/2014 20:36:
There is inherent humour in being unable to test the comparative efficacy
of a technological whizbang due to
On 14 January 2014 21:20, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather call is a systemic bias which makes us favor standardised
technological whizbangs just because we can measure them rather than for an
actual
Aha. I totally agree with that, then, but I don't think it's the motivation
for this feature.
On 14 January 2014 13:28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2014 21:20, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
On 01/14/2014 04:07 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
but I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation.
I'd wager that what they have gotten might be a poor sample; there is
certainly a correlation between being a power/advanced user and more
intricate talk page
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.
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
On 13 January 2014 05:18, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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
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 m...@uberbox.org
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Not as fast as revisions, and we seem
On 13/01/14 20:37, Risker wrote:
m...@uberbox.orgOf 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
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
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 this kind
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 human
Steven Walling, 13/01/2014 23:24:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
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 (and
On 13 January 2014 15:03, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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
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)
On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org 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
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
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!
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 project
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org 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:
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
that
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 also
On 11/01/14 06:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
1. Anonymous editors don't get notifications
2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address
Problem #2 isn't as prominent as it use to be, but there are still many
large companies and
On 01/12/2014 10:57 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
We could even allocate a row in the user table for them, which would
be beneficial for various features that currently exclude anons due to
the need to link to a user ID.
What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly
created and
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 for
any reason.
Not as fast as revisions,
I really really wish we could thanks IPs too. It sucks to treat them like
second class citizens.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Something like the new message orange bar :)
I guess that designers and Growth people may know an answer, but
Steven Walling wrote:
With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't
give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The
only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to
basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to
On Jan 13, 2014 7:25 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't
give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The
only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require
These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
1. Anonymous editors don't get notifications
2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address
Problem #2 isn't as prominent as it use to be, but there are still many
large companies and schools that connect to the internet through
On 10/01/14 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
1. Anonymous editors don't get notifications
2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address
Problem #2 isn't as prominent as it use to be, but there are still many
large companies and
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.
On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/14 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
1. Anonymous editors
I imagine that once IPv6 is widely in use, this problem will go away
and we'll be able to turn on all notifications (including Thanks) for
anonymous editors.
Not completely correct when it comes to public computers and mobile IPs.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Oliver Keyes
On that occasion, do IPs still receive information about messages on their
talk page? (Since the orange bar was abolished and they now go through echo
notifications all well)
Am 10.01.2014 21:29 schrieb Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org:
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate
I would very much enjoy notifications as an IP for IPs.
We can make a few carve-outs:
- major hubs (schools, businesses, wifi providers with thousands of users)
can be excluded.
The message/framing to IPs would be slightly different than that for
logged-in users: since we can't be sure it's
I think we should just thank everyone, on at least a yearly basis, with a
thank you drive similar to what we do for fundraising. It doesn't need to
be for a specific edit or tied to any one IP. After the fundraiser hits the
goal we usually run it a little with a thank you banner, and if we did
On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.
Apparently that's the reason.
However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
would be FANTASTIC. Saying
The downside of this is when we inevitably start thanking vandals by accident.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For 1: because it'd be impossible to
Yeah. It shouldn't be like welcome messages, it should be specifically
for thanking for good edits.
But this is a cultural issue, not a software issue.
On 10 January 2014 21:30, Kevin Rutherford ktr...@hotmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is when we inevitably start thanking vandals by
David Gerard, 10/01/2014 22:02:
However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
would be FANTASTIC. Saying thank you to casual drive-by contributors
would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.
You already can, even on the unwelcoming ;) en.wiki and de.wiki: talk
pages have
On 08.01.2014 15:22, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Hi,
Is there any plan to allow using the Thanks feature to thank
anonymous
Wikimedia users?
A Hebrew Wikipedia user asked me about this, saying that it may be
even
more useful to thank anons than logged-in users.
How would they know someone
Something like the new message orange bar :)
I guess that designers and Growth people may know an answer, but all
thoughts are welcome.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014/1/8
We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the fundraiser.
I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing
drives, even though editing is really the core way for people to donate to
Wikimedia.
___
Wikimedia-l
Amir E. Aharoni, 08/01/2014 15:32:
Something like the new message orange bar :)
Yeah, orange bar be blessed.
I guess that designers and Growth people may know an answer, but all
thoughts are welcome.
As long as the orange bar works (it doesn't on mobile, beware), you can
just use a
* Nathan wrote:
We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the fundraiser.
I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing
drives, even though editing is really the core way for people to donate to
Wikimedia.
That would make many editors very annoyed
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Nathan wrote:
We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the
fundraiser.
I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing
drives, even though editing is really the core way
Agreed.
It's nice to feel the community behind Wikipedia (well, when it doesn't
bite you)
and the feeling that somebody noticed you fixed a typo is even nicer.
Aubrey
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Nathan
62 matches
Mail list logo
