Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the charts,

The pattern though not the quantity of declining reverts since the 2007
peak certainly fits the theory that as the anti vandal bots and edit
filters have got more efficient so our level of vandalism has fallen. As
well as the theory that the drift to mobile is turning us from an
interactive medium to a broadcast one. But I don't buy the idea that
reverts are less than 1% of mainspace edits. Looking at a few random
screens of recent changes in recent days I always see at least 1 revert in
far fewer than a hundred mainspace edits. Is it possible that your stats
are only picking a subset of them such as not including reverts by bots, or
those that using undo rather than rollback?

One of the changes in EN Wikipedia has been the increase in non-mainspace
article edits, in particular the promotion of Articles for Creation and in
future the draft namespace as places for creating new articles. Also
userspace, when I train newbies I always advise them to start new articles
in sandboxes rather than run the gauntlets of NPP or AFC, I doubt I'm the
only one who does this. Am  I correct in assuming that these statistics
look at edits according to their namepace at the time when the statistics
run? If so it would be more accurate if we could include articles for
creation within mainspace. Otherwise one of the skews that will be in the
data will be the extent to which we steer new article creators towards AFC,
and of course the stats at any one moment in time will be skewed towards
some very recent edits being in AFC or sandboxes, whilst the same edits
from earlier months will now count in mainspace.

It would also be good to know whether these are surviving edits or total
edits. We have a very large number of articles deleted on the English
language wikipedia every day, and the de facto standards for deletion are
probably rather more deletionist than in 2007. The only big policy change I
can remember that effects this is the decision to make unreferenced new
BLPs a 7 day deletion criteria, but if these are surviving edits as opposed
to raw ones then one of the factors in the change will be the extent of
deletionism

PS I really like the way those charts show the bot spike in early 2013 when
the intrawikis moved to Wikidata

Regards

Jonathan

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:07:08 +0100
> From: Mark 
> 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 are counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it
> could be indicative of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing
> reassesment of metric definitions one thing discussed is whether we should
> count productive editors separately (I think we do), and if so on what
> basis (e.g. x edits per week/month which survived y days of not being
> reverted).
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm
> >
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Mark]

On 1/17/14, 3:55 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:

Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories, reverts are 
counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it could be indicative 
of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing reassesment of metric 
definitions one thing discussed is whether we should count productive editors 
separately (I think we do), and if so on what basis (e.g. x edits per 
week/month which survived y days of not being reverted).

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm



Thanks, that's interesting information!

Edits-that-survived is one baseline definition of productivity, though 
I'd be interested in data with a higher threshold for productive edit, 
if there's some way to distinguish them. For example what I really want 
to know is what the trends are for article-writing activity, e.g. how 
many editors we have who regularly expand articles with new information. 
Spot-checking some articles, these edits are by far in the minority, so 
in edit counts they are typically *completely* swamped by other kinds of 
editing. For example, picking one random article with a short edit 
history, here is a manual classification of its 12 edits:
- 2 substantial content additions (original author, plus 1 subsequent 
author who added a paragraph)
- 7 bookkeeping/formatting edits (category sorting, maintenance tags, 
infobox, bot replacing a template, etc.)

- 3 copyedit edits

Those are all valuable in various ways (and I do all three kinds of 
editing myself), but a minority of the edits (2/12) have produced the 
vast majority of the article content (and all of its references). What I 
fear with the aggregate edit counts is that minor changes in bookeeping 
edits swamp even significant changes in the content edits, because the 
content edits are a relatively small percentage of the total count. So 
I'd be interested in seeing data on those categories separated out, 
though it's admittedly difficult to collect.


One mechanically countable statistic might be a count of edits that 
include a reference. Would miss references not added with a  tag or 
other easily recognizable pattern, but might produce interesting trends 
nonetheless.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Erik Zachte]

Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories, reverts are 
counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it could be indicative 
of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing reassesment of metric 
definitions one thing discussed is whether we should count productive editors 
separately (I think we do), and if so on what basis (e.g. x edits per 
week/month which survived y days of not being reverted).

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm

Erik

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[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 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!  You know better than to say silly things 
>> like that.
>>
>> The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the 
>> prevented edits and the revert that would have taken place).  :-)  I 
>> used to do a lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's 
>> sake - I tried doing a bit over a year ago.  The amount of "surface" 
>> vandalism has gone down a *lot* since.
> 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:
>

I have heard much about the strategic priority, but much less about the 
rigorous data analysis. In particular, I have yet to see a demonstration that 
there is actually a decline in what we might call the "productive editor" 
population, people adding things to articles or otherwise improving them. 
Instead what's usually quoted are raw counts, things like "number of accounts 
that have made >5 edits in a month". But of course this kind of "blind 
quantitative" analysis is not a legitimate social-science methodology, at least 
not if some extremely strong ceteris-paribus assumptions are first validated.

To just pick one hypothesized confound among many that have been discussed on 
and off, there may have been a decline in the joint population of "vandals + 
vandal-fighters". These are counted as editors by the ">5 edits" criterion, but 
between them produce no net editing, so a decline in their joint population is 
not a real editor decline, and an increase in their joint population is not a 
real editor increase.

Another hypothesized confound is that there has been a wholesale replacement of 
"recent changes patrollers" with bots. A loss of net-95 editors because 100 
people who solely did recent-changes patrol were replaced by 5 bots that do the 
same job would be a decline of 95 raw-data editors, but not really a net loss 
in productive editors.

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 analysis of the accounts-making-edits raw data.

Best,
Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 analysis of the
> accounts-making-edits raw data.

+1  Better said than I, but expressed the same substantive argument.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Mark]

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 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!  You know better than to say silly things like
that.

The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented
edits and the revert that would have taken place).  :-)  I used to do a
lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried
doing a bit over a year ago.  The amount of "surface" vandalism has gone
down a *lot* since.

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:



I have heard much about the strategic priority, but much less about the 
rigorous data analysis. In particular, I have yet to see a demonstration 
that there is actually a decline in what we might call the "productive 
editor" population, people adding things to articles or otherwise 
improving them. Instead what's usually quoted are raw counts, things 
like "number of accounts that have made >5 edits in a month". But of 
course this kind of "blind quantitative" analysis is not a legitimate 
social-science methodology, at least not if some extremely strong 
ceteris-paribus assumptions are first validated.


To just pick one hypothesized confound among many that have been 
discussed on and off, there may have been a decline in the joint 
population of "vandals + vandal-fighters". These are counted as editors 
by the ">5 edits" criterion, but between them produce no net editing, so 
a decline in their joint population is not a real editor decline, and an 
increase in their joint population is not a real editor increase.


Another hypothesized confound is that there has been a wholesale 
replacement of "recent changes patrollers" with bots. A loss of net-95 
editors because 100 people who solely did recent-changes patrol were 
replaced by 5 bots that do the same job would be a decline of 95 
raw-data editors, but not really a net loss in productive editors.


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 analysis of the 
accounts-making-edits raw data.


Best,
Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 archiving -- so the class of users most likely to
get some kinds of barnstars would end up being the most underrepresented
in the dataset.

I haven't read their paper though - they may well have accounted for
that in some manner.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

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  wrote:

> On 14 January 2014 21:20, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> 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 effectiveness.
>
> > So you'd rather measure effectiveness through...the feeling in your
> water?
>
>
> No, he means doing things because they're susceptible to measurement,
> rather than because they're a good thing to do.
>
> The sort of thinking that leads to lightboxes over pages. "Just look
> at our response metrics!" Just look at your page.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[David Gerard]

On 14 January 2014 21:20, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo)  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 effectiveness.

> So you'd rather measure effectiveness through...the feeling in your water?


No, he means doing things because they're susceptible to measurement,
rather than because they're a good thing to do.

The sort of thinking that leads to lightboxes over pages. "Just look
at our response metrics!" Just look at your page.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

So you'd rather measure effectiveness through...the feeling in your water?


On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo)  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 the lack of sufficiently standardised
>> technological whizbangs ;p.
>>
>
> 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 effectiveness.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tilman Bayer]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Quite a few researchers have published quantitative analyses of barnstars, e.g.:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/July#cite_ref-7
(analyzed 21,299 barnstars awarded to 14,074 editors on the English
Wikipedia)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012/August#Briefly
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-04-30#Recognition_may_sustain_user_participation

Yes, some of them could probably have enhanced their datasets by
taking e.g. talk page archiving into account, but I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation.

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 whizbangs just because we can measure them rather than for 
an actual effectiveness.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

>
> 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, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

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  wrote:

> 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
> barnstars et. al., some people (like I do with User:Coren) move them off
> to a discrete subpage in their userspace, and some people simply remove
> old sections from their talk pages (which would make the template not
> show as a transclusion at all).
>
> 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.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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
barnstars et. al., some people (like I do with User:Coren) move them off
to a discrete subpage in their userspace, and some people simply remove
old sections from their talk pages (which would make the template not
show as a transclusion at all).

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.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

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 January 2014 10:49, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:

> 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  |  :
> @Philippewiki
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
>
> > On 13 January 2014 20:32, Philippe Beaudette  > >wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
> > > > actions a day, every day
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of
> > > barnstars
> > >
> > >
> > That would be difficult to track, but we can totally find out if there's
> > been any change in, say, wikilove.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Philippe Beaudette]

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  |  :
@Philippewiki


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On 13 January 2014 20:32, Philippe Beaudette  >wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
> > > actions a day, every day
> >
> > It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of
> > barnstars
> >
> >
> That would be difficult to track, but we can totally find out if there's
> been any change in, say, wikilove.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

On 13 January 2014 20:32, Philippe Beaudette wrote:

> > On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> > we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
> > actions a day, every day
>
> It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of
> barnstars
>
>
That would be difficult to track, but we can totally find out if there's
been any change in, say, wikilove.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 14.01.2014 15:53, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 January 2014 14:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  
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 wanted to be able to do the same thing
for anonymous users - it means "someone has noticed your good edit*,
immediate positive feedback. That's why I think we really need to make
the "thank you" mechanism work for anons, somehow.


- d.



I am certainly not against the thank you mechanism for IP editors (I 
still do not quite understand whether it is feasible, but this is a 
different issue). I also use the thank you mechanism myself, mostly in 
the cases someone corrected my typo or introduced some minor corrections 
- I just find it easier, because otherwise I would probably not go to 
their talk page which may be in watchlists of hundreds of users. For 
significant improvements I leave a custom message at the talk page. If 
there is a discussion I certainly believe that one should go and 
participate rather than thank for the specific messages - first, in this 
case thenking is more like likes in social media, second, it is not even 
visible to others. I mean, echo is a cool and useful thing, and I am 
happy to have it, but it should not replace the watchlist.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[David Gerard]

On 14 January 2014 14:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter  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 wanted to be able to do the same thing
for anonymous users - it means "someone has noticed your good edit*,
immediate positive feedback. That's why I think we really need to make
the "thank you" mechanism work for anons, somehow.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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" somewhere.

That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another 
technological
whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can 
be

expected from Wikimedia.

Risker



Actually, I think here there are two issues mixed here and this is why 
your message got such a reaction.


We do not have just two types of messages - human and automated ones. 
We actually have three: human custom, human templated, and automated 
templated messages. I do not see much of a difference between human 
templated and automated templated messages. For example, when I nominate 
a file for deletion on Commons, this is done by one mouse click, and the 
uploader gets an automated message on their talk page. I do not have any 
problems with this. Certainly not more than if I had to go myself to the 
talk page and leave a template. Well, may be if I did it manually, I 
also could add their talk page to my watchlist and potentially answer 
questions - but OTOH I would have by now thousands user talk pages on my 
watchlist, and it would be very difficult to manage. Anyway.


What does indeed make a difference and creates a sense of human 
interaction is custom messaging over templated messaging. I am myself a 
strong supporter of custom messages, and I do not use templates for 
communication except for the situations when I am legally bound to do it 
(deletion notices, copyvio notices, and block notices), and also welcome 
templates since they contain a lot of useful links. On my RfA in the 
English Wikipedia I was asked a question about it and went into some 
detail answering the question, and I am not going to repeat it here. I 
do believe that templates make Wikipedia more similar to MMORPG that we 
(at least I) would like to see it and in the sense contribute to the 
decline in number of active users. OTOH, I also see that someone who is 
overworked and had to communicate with dozens of users per day would 
choose over templating just to save time.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

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 entirely besides the point:  I was referring to
> that specific statement of yours:
> 
> "A linear regression on the
> edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030."
> 
> I kept expecting you to add "Netcraft confirms it" at some point.  :-)

Well, obviously I extrapolated a model to the point of absurdity, but
I think it's better to derive a model from data than to make
predictions based on unsubstantiated hope.

In my post at 05:19 UTC, I assumed a stable edit rate, which I thought
was an optimistic upper bound. But Matt thought that it was actually
pessimistic? So I gave an example of a model that I consider to be
pessimistic, for comparison. I don't think either model is realistic,
I think the most likely reality lies somewhere in between.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 specific statement of yours:

"A linear regression on the
edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030."

I kept expecting you to add "Netcraft confirms it" at some point.  :-)

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Erik Moeller]

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

Thanks for these links, which underscore how much work we have left to
do. None of these problems are trivial, and concerted efforts on
multiple fronts, both technical and social, are the only thing that
will make a difference in the long run.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

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 at around 2030.
> 
> That's...  come /on/ Tim!  You know better than to say silly things like
> that.
> 
> The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented
> edits and the revert that would have taken place).  :-)  I used to do a
> lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried
> doing a bit over a year ago.  The amount of "surface" vandalism has gone
> down a *lot* since.

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:











-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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!  You know better than to say silly things like
that.

The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented
edits and the revert that would have taken place).  :-)  I used to do a
lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried
doing a bit over a year ago.  The amount of "surface" vandalism has gone
down a *lot* since.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 authority.

Honestly, the normal block system would work just as well on those
anonymized users (with autoblocks doing their trick doing effectively
the same as an IP block for 99% of cases).

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Philippe Beaudette]

> On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
> actions a day, every day

It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of barnstars


—
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

On 14/01/14 14:10, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> We shouldn't assume linear growth over a ten year period. 

Indeed. The data strongly points to sublinear growth. The English
Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and
is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the
edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030.

Meanwhile, WMF revenue has gone from 2.4M (2006/2007) to 50.4M
(2012/2013).

I don't think backend scaling is really a problem we have anymore.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 01/13/2014 12:01 PM, Thyge wrote:

I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites
would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of...


True, but transparency has also always been important to Wikimedia. 
Without being a checkuser, or even an admin, people can see what 
company/ISP/school/government office a vandal is editing from, and 
report it to their abuse team.


Without publically displayed IPs for anonymous edits, people couldn't do 
that.


Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:

On 13/01/14 15:35, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly
created and lasts as long as the cookie does.  Those are going to pile
up *really* fast, especially from browsers that do not keep cookies for
any reason.


Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. On the
English Wikipedia, there were only ~27k anonymous edits per day over
the last month, so it would take 10 years to add 100M rows at that
rate, and the revision table has ~550M rows and we still haven't
bothered to shard it.


We shouldn't assume linear growth over a ten year period.  Nonetheless, 
the technical scalability problems are probably solvable.


Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Matthew Flaschen]

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) notification. I can't see any need for a
separate bot account.


Yeah, we could do that (using the edit API).  However, that still leaves 
the issue of a totally separate user experience (one goes in your 
contributions, one doesn't; different for the recipient), depending on 
what kind of user the recipient is.


Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

On 13 January 2014 15:03, Steven Walling  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I dunno, guys.  I certainly would take a talk page message over a
> > mechanical "thank" any day of the week.  More particularly, I notice a
> > significant trend in using "thank" notifications to express agreement
> with
> > people without having to actually say "yeah, I agree" somewhere.
> >
> > That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological
> > whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
> > expected from Wikimedia.
> >
>
> I don't view Talk page messages and thanks notifications as competing or
> detracting from each other, and I think pretty much everyone works on
> Thanks would agree. They are additive. It's helpful to have different
> levels and types of ways to engage with each other on the wiki.
>
>
Agreed. Re technological whizbangs

If you're receiving this message, it's because I've successfully pushed on
coloured lumps of plastic, sending electrical signals translated from
English-language characters into unicode characters, themselves translated
into binary signals, which are encoded by a lump of intricately etched and
forked metal the size of a transit card. These are then sent as electrical
signals, translated into pulses of light, translated back into electrical
signals (repeat an unknown number of times), and reach a hunk of metal on
your floor or desk containing a similarly etched piece of metal that
translates them from pulses of electricity to unicode strings to character
representations on a screen that ( assuming it isn't a CRT or some weird
LED...thing) consists of a couple of squares of plastic with liquid,
crystalline shapes connected to tiny transistors. There's tamed lightning
there too.

Some of the technical details may be wrong (Dammit, Jim, I'm an analyst,
not a computer engineer!) but the point is that if 'technological
whizbangs' are what you're objecting to, you should probably junk your
computer. What I think you probably mean instead is that the message
conveyed is, because it's in a standardised format, somewhat artificial. It
doesn't give you the freedom to express the full gamut of human sentiments.
And, well, it doesn't, because it was never designed to. If you want to
write a love sonnet to a user for clearing up the copyright backlog,
'thanks' is not for you. If you want to drop in a template that transcludes
in some CSS and SVG images in order to render a barnstar (potentially
containing a love sonnet - I don't judge), 'thanks' is not for you. On the
other hand, if what you want to do is say 'good job', you probably don't
need all the capabilities and complications of a system oriented around
trancluded templates with love sonnets in them. It's a much higher barrier
than is actually necessary for what you're trying to achieve, which is just
the internet equivalent of a thumbs up.

Is there some loss of human contact? Well, potentially - there is whenever
things are standardised - but, at least with the things /I/ use thanks for,
there wasn't really any human contact initially. "Thanks for your edit on
[page]" on a talk page doesn't really provide much more than "[user]
thanked you for your edit on [page]". I know that whenever I've received
thanks for that kind of thing, it's cheered me up quite a bit, so evidently
the loss isn't /that/ great. In exchange, it dramatically reduces the
barrier to giving that thumbs up - we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
actions a day, every day, and I'd argue that's A Good Thing (and probably
not something we saw when the options were 'Wikilove or bust', because a
high barrier for a one-size-fits-all action does not benefit small uses of
that action).

Yes, it's less human than big long messages and barnstars and plaudits.
That's fine - things worthy of big long messages != things worthy of a
thumbs up, and Thanks is designed for the latter. When we have some spare
cycles, if we want to reduce the barrier to more long-form thank-yous,
that's probably a good thing to do as well. Just, please, nobody send me
any love sonnets.

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

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 allow users that
> do create an account to retroactively rename their contribs).

Yes.

> Wouldn't that affect caching though?

Not very much. We already give anonymous users a session cookie on
edit, which suppresses the frontend cache, the primary reason being
(drumroll) user talk page message notification. So the impact would be
that the cache-suppressing cookie would have a longer expiry time.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Steven Walling]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I dunno, guys.  I certainly would take a talk page message over a
> mechanical "thank" any day of the week.  More particularly, I notice a
> significant trend in using "thank" notifications to express agreement with
> people without having to actually say "yeah, I agree" somewhere.
>
> That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological
> whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
> expected from Wikimedia.
>

I don't view Talk page messages and thanks notifications as competing or
detracting from each other, and I think pretty much everyone works on
Thanks would agree. They are additive. It's helpful to have different
levels and types of ways to engage with each other on the wiki.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Steven Walling, 13/01/2014 23:24:

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker  wrote:


I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very basic
user interactions.  It takes as much work to "thank" someone using
notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.



That's empirically not true.

If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
message takes several new page loads and steps.


This is technically not true. Gadgets such as the navigation popups or 
LiveRC can places dozens of message types on talk pages with one or two 
clicks, including {{thanks}} or {{grazie}} (for IPs) on it.wiki. See 
screenshot: 


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Risker]

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 contact, replacing it with another technological
whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
expected from Wikimedia.

Risker


On 13 January 2014 17:36, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> 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 of user interaction because nobody is removing
> the ability to leave thankful talk page messages - indeed, I think they
> still serve a very useful purpose. I tend to thank people when they've made
> an edit I appreciate; I head over to their talkpage and give barnstars when
> this is indicative of wider good work on their part, or it's a /really/
> great edit. All we've done is added some granularity to the system,
> reducing the barrier for small amounts of thanks.
>
>
> On 13 January 2014 14:24, Steven Walling  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very
> > basic
> > > user interactions.  It takes as much work to "thank" someone using
> > > notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
> > >
> >
> > That's empirically not true.
> >
> > If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
> > two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
> > message takes several new page loads and steps.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Product Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

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 of user interaction because nobody is removing
the ability to leave thankful talk page messages - indeed, I think they
still serve a very useful purpose. I tend to thank people when they've made
an edit I appreciate; I head over to their talkpage and give barnstars when
this is indicative of wider good work on their part, or it's a /really/
great edit. All we've done is added some granularity to the system,
reducing the barrier for small amounts of thanks.


On 13 January 2014 14:24, Steven Walling  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very
> basic
> > user interactions.  It takes as much work to "thank" someone using
> > notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
> >
>
> That's empirically not true.
>
> If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
> two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
> message takes several new page loads and steps.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Steven Walling]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to "technologize" such very basic
> user interactions.  It takes as much work to "thank" someone using
> notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
>

That's empirically not true.

If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
message takes several new page loads and steps.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Isarra Yos]

On 13/01/14 20:37, Risker wrote:

Of course there already exists a way to thank IP
editors.  It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says
"Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]."  It is far more personal, far
more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe create an
account?) based on research on the effects of template versus personalized
talk page messages to new editors, and doesn't require anyone to write any
code whatsoever.

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.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

I can see it now - a thank link that goes to the user's talkpage and 
opens a new section edit window, maybe with the header prefilled... but 
that would force a real interaction, and encourage real discussion...


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Risker]

Of course there already exists a way to thank IP
editors.  It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says
"Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]."  It is far more personal, far
more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe create an
account?) based on research on the effects of template versus personalized
talk page messages to new editors, and doesn't require anyone to write any
code whatsoever.

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.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Thyge]

I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites
would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of...

regards,
Thyge - Sir49


2014/1/13 Marc A. Pelletier 

> On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> > Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with 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 retroactively rename their contribs).
>
> Wouldn't that affect caching though?
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[James Forrester]

On 13 January 2014 05:18, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

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

​We've talked about using the cached Parsoid HTML for read requests (with
user-specific CSS styling applied at request time) rather ​than uncached MW
HTML renders for a while. This'd be a good impetus to actually doing that.
:-)

J.
-- 
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 retroactively rename their contribs).

Wouldn't that affect caching though?

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Andrew Gray]

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 11 January 2014 06:10, Gryllida  wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, at 6:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>> These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
>> ...
>> 2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address
>
> They already share talk page and contribs. I don't see notifications being a 
> problem: each of them *knows* that the IP is shared, and has registration 
> instructions readily available if such situation is a problem.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Jan 13, 2014 7:25 AM, "MZMcBride"  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 us to
> >basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to deliver a
Talk
> >page message for the IP.
>
> 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) notification. I can't see any need for a
> separate bot account.
>
> >That's probably not going to happen, to be honest, and there isn't the
> >manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper anonymous
> >notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is right,
> >just use the Talk page. :)
>
> Ignoring Echo and the Thanks extension-specific logging, if I had to
> guess, I imagine strictly adding in the ability to thank anonymous users
> would take about thirty minutes of work. We've had a stable API for
> posting talk page messages for years and the user interface code is
> already written and deployed. As far as I can tell, you'd simply do a
> quick check after someone clicks the thanks link and then clicks "ok" that
> goes something like...
>
> if ( target user is anon ) { post to IP talk page }
>
> else if ( target user is logged in ) { send Echo notification }
>
> If you're gung-ho about implementing the ability to thank anonymous users,
> I think the correct answer is to submit a changeset with proposed
> modifications to the Thanks extension to make that dream a reality.
>
> MZMcBride

Tangentially related, have we ever considered adding the required fields
for creating an account, username and password, to the edit interface for
IP editors? We could have a save edit as attributed to your IP button as we
have now, and next to it a save as new user with those two fields. Has such
a setup been discussed before? (I understand there is probably more reading
to be presented for creating an account, but there probably are reasonably
user friendly solutions to be found that don't deter the anon edit that it
would lead to a net loss of edits)

>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[MZMcBride]

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 deliver a Talk
>page message for the IP.

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) notification. I can't see any need for a
separate bot account.

>That's probably not going to happen, to be honest, and there isn't the
>manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper anonymous
>notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is right,
>just use the Talk page. :)

Ignoring Echo and the Thanks extension-specific logging, if I had to
guess, I imagine strictly adding in the ability to thank anonymous users
would take about thirty minutes of work. We've had a stable API for
posting talk page messages for years and the user interface code is
already written and deployed. As far as I can tell, you'd simply do a
quick check after someone clicks the thanks link and then clicks "ok" that
goes something like...

if ( target user is anon ) { post to IP talk page }

else if ( target user is logged in ) { send Echo notification }

If you're gung-ho about implementing the ability to thank anonymous users,
I think the correct answer is to submit a changeset with proposed
modifications to the Thanks extension to make that dream a reality.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Steven Walling]

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 all
> thoughts are welcome.
>

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 deliver a Talk
page message for the IP. That's probably not going to happen, to be honest,
and there isn't the manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper
anonymous notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is
right, just use the Talk page. :)

My instinct here is to try and use this as an experimental tool for showing
IPs the advantages of logging in. That is, show them an "unclaimed" account
with thank you or other notification, then prompt them to sign up after
they read it. This would give us temporary anonymous notifications and also
show people what they would get for taking a moment to sign up. This kind
of technique is extremely powerful for demonstrating the value in
registering for a site, and you can similar examples in many other places,
such as Twitter's "log in and tweet" flow that happens if you use one of
their share buttons on a news article etc.

If you look at our draft (emphasis on the draft) documentation at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition you will see us
mentioning ideas like the "proto-account" that Tim brought up as well.
(Just to poke at the technical issue Marc brought up... is there any reason
we wouldn't use Redis for this? It seems well suited to storing high
volumes of data we would intend to be temporary.)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

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, and we seem to cope with those. On the
English Wikipedia, there were only ~27k anonymous edits per day over
the last month, so it would take 10 years to add 100M rows at that
rate, and the revision table has ~550M rows and we still haven't
bothered to shard it.

-- Tim Starling



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 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.

They could be cleaned up at interval, but then what attribution do edit
gets?  The IP as though there wasn't a cookie?

More questions that'd need to be answered: do you keep that user table
row around for checkuser?  (And I would say that the checkusers will
demand that you do).  What about talk pages?  Use whichever IP's happens
to be in use to have a User talk:Anonymous_192837?  Do we keep /those/
around indefinitely?

Don't get me wrong; I would *love* to get rid of "anonymous-by-IP" users
- they give /less/ privacy than an account do.  But the UX is
complicated to get right, and the needed code changes would be
pervasive.  For instance, you'd want users to be able to intuitively
"import" what they did anonymously into a newly created account in a way
that their IP will never have been shown.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Tim Starling]

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 schools that connect to the internet through a single
> IP. 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.

We could have a persistent cookie with an ID number assigned to
anonymous users, and send messages to that. Then anons would get their
messages despite roaming between IP addresses, and they wouldn't get
messages for other people who happen to share their IP.

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.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Gryllida]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, at 6:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
> ...
> 2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address

They already share talk page and contribs. I don't see notifications being a 
problem: each of them *knows* that the IP is shared, and has registration 
instructions readily available if such situation is a problem.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 not (yet) been killed.
I think about 30-50k persons have been thanked with the simple 
{{grazie}} template on it.wiki across the years.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons#Thanks


Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
thanks versus mistakes.


On it.wiki, anonymous talk pages are purged monthly (with some conditions).

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[David Gerard]

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  wrote:
> 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"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes  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 "thank you" to casual drive-by contributors
>> would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.
>>
>> Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
>> hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
>> thanks versus mistakes.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Kevin Rutherford]

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"  wrote:
> 
>> On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes  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 "thank you" to casual drive-by contributors
> would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.
> 
> Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
> hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
> thanks versus mistakes.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[David Gerard]

On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes  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 "thank you" to casual drive-by contributors
would give them quite a buzz, I'd think.

Perhaps a timeout? Say, you can thank an IP for their edit within 1
hour? We can experiment and see what time gives the best amount of
thanks versus mistakes.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Nathan]

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 that
separately and used it to encourage participation by our readers, all the
projects should benefit.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Sam Klein]

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 the same person.  Nevertheless
we could make it fun for them to see the wall of comments left for the last
user of that IP, and any global notifications for it.

The same message could highlight that they are logged out, in case they
didn't realize (right now it's not easy to notice when you get logged out
in the middle of a session, unless you've set a custom skin / color in your
prefs).

SJ


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, 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 schools that connect to the internet through a single
> IP. 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.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[MF-Warburg]

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" :

> For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
> with the person, I assume.
>
>
> On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos  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 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 a
> single
> >> IP. 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.
> >>
> >> Ryan Kaldari
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> > 1. Why not?
> > 2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
> > thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
> > themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
> > through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.
> >
> > Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
> > but they seem like interesting points to me.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Product Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Jasper Deng]

"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  wrote:

> For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
> with the person, I assume.
>
>
> On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos  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 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 a
> single
> >> IP. 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.
> >>
> >> Ryan Kaldari
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> > 1. Why not?
> > 2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
> > thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
> > themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
> > through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.
> >
> > Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
> > but they seem like interesting points to me.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Product Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Oliver Keyes]

For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.


On 10 January 2014 12:11, Isarra Yos  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 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 a single
>> IP. 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.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
> 1. Why not?
> 2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. Alternately,
> thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make the edit
> themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just letting that
> through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.
>
> Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just now,
> but they seem like interesting points to me.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Isarra Yos]

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 schools that connect to the internet through a single
IP. 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.

Ryan Kaldari
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



1. Why not?
2. A time limit might help resolve that with ipv4 addresses. 
Alternately, thanks could potentially be nice even if they didn't make 
the edit themselves, since it's the general feeling and such, so just 
letting that through for ipv4 addresses might be an option.


Mind I'm mostly just echoing something someone else said on IRC just 
now, but they seem like interesting points to me.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Ryan Kaldari]

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 a single
IP. 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.

Ryan Kaldari
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Andrea Zanni]

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  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > * Nathan wrote:
> > > >We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the
> > > fundraiser.
> > >
> > > That would make many editors very annoyed and angry and drive them
> away.
> >
> > I very seriously doubt that is the case Banners irritate
> > people, but anyone with a sincere interest in contributing to Wikimedia
> > should be able to accept the necessity of maintaining both the financial
> > and human resources of the movement.
> >
>
> This is just what I was going to say.  That would be charming; we could
> ensure that each IP only sees it once per year.  SJ
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Samuel Klein]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
> wrote:
>
> > * Nathan wrote:
> > >We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the
> > fundraiser.
> >
> > That would make many editors very annoyed and angry and drive them away.
>
> I very seriously doubt that is the case Banners irritate
> people, but anyone with a sincere interest in contributing to Wikimedia
> should be able to accept the necessity of maintaining both the financial
> and human resources of the movement.
>

This is just what I was going to say.  That would be charming; we could
ensure that each IP only sees it once per year.  SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann  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 for people to donate to
> >Wikimedia.
>
> That would make many editors very annoyed and angry and drive them away.


I very seriously doubt that is the case, and if they object to efforts to
publicly attract new editors to Wikimedia projects... Banners irritate
people, but anyone with a sincere interest in contributing to Wikimedia
should be able to accept the necessity of maintaining both the financial
and human resources of the movement.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* 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 and angry and drive them away.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 variant of the many {{thanks}} templates and post them on 
their talk pages with some JavaScript mimicking the "thanks" button.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Nathan]

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 mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Amir E. Aharoni]

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 Yaroslav M. Blanter 

> 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 thanked them?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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 thanked them?

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,