I wish it was true that we have reached a level of maturity and need fewer people, But unfortunately, even the the largest language Wikipedia, Wikipedia English, still needs much improvement.
For example, the readership base of our health related articles is much larger that the number of editors working on them. We don't have enough people to improve the health related articles to make them useful, then keep them up to date, and watch them for the inclusion of errors or poor quality edits. Much of this work needs to be done by real people not bots or gadgets. We do our best to watch the articles with the highest readership, like the Ebola. A great article highlighting one success http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/wikipedia-is-emerging-as-trusted-internet-source-for-information-on-ebola-.html But there are many other important medical articles that are read thousands of times a day and are start class articles or have outdated content. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages We are out recruiting new editors to help.. We are hopeful that connecting with health organizations with a common interest in disseminating health information will draw in enough people to make a noticeable change. It would be helpful to avoid giving a mixed message and not tell the world that we are mature and need less people. :-) Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Nicolas Jullien < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > to follow up on that troll, I invite you to (re-)discover the work by > Marwell and Oliver > "The Critical Mass in Collective Action" (1993) > http://books.google.fr/books/about/The_Critical_Mass_in_ > Collective_Action.html?id=14nA7_k05NsC&redir_esc=y > > which points that fact that after some times, project are "mature" and > need less people to participate. Maybe Wikipedia has entered in adulthood > (which is, sometime, boring) > > Nicolas > > Le 28/10/2014 16:14, Pierre-Carl Langlais a écrit : > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I cannot resist the temptation to troll a bit on this thread: >> *"we need 10K or even 100K new active editors": would it not result in >> even higher levels of bureaucracy? Internet technologies have certainly >> allowed to keeps large community running with fuzzy rules. Yet, I'm not >> so sure it has completely relieved us of bureaucracy: there's probably >> still a maximal ratio of participants/fuzziness. With about 30,000 >> active contributors during the past month, the English Wikipedia is by >> far one of the largest autonomous web community. By experience (I do not >> have any statistics at hand, sorry), I know that smaller communities >> like the Italian Wikipedia, Wikidata or OpenStreetMap (all around >> 2,000-5,000 contributors) manage to avoid the same level of bureaucracy >> sophistication. A lot of agreements can be done on a case per case >> basis, while with 10 times more contributors regular rules become >> necessary to avoid repeating the same discussions constantly. If you >> want to keep a community of 130,000 users consistent, I guess you would >> have to set up some kind of kafkaïan nightmare that would make the >> current english wikipedia looks like a libertarian paradise… >> *"English Wikipedia is suffering from a lack of adaptive flexibility". I >> would rather point a lack of communication between the community and the >> WMF. I have made some wiki archeology to document my last paper >> <http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=NEG_021_0021> on Wikipedia >> politics, and what strikes me in the 2001-2007 period is the high level >> of interaction between programmers and contributors. A lot of important >> features (like footnotes) were first suggested by users who do not have >> any kind of programming knowledge. We clearly need to reestablish this >> link (perhaps launching a wishlist would be a first step…). >> *Is Wikipedia decline an exception? It seems to me that all communities >> tends to attain a maxima, after which they slowly regress and stagnate. >> The growth of OpenStreetMap has for instance slowed down >> <http://scoms.hypotheses.org/241> after 2012. This is not because these >> communities cease to be cool (a case could be made that OpenStreetMap is >> way cooler than Wikipedia), but mainly, because having free time (in >> addition of motivation and ability to contribute on the web) is still a >> rare resource. Beginning a demanding job, having a child: all these >> current events of life strongly limits the level of implication within >> the population that would likely participate. Free time would certainly >> not account of the whole gender gap, but is still a bigger issue for >> women than for men: in a society that has not completely given up >> patriarchal cultural schemes, women are still required to do a lot of >> home-related tasks. On the French Wikipedia, we have long focused on >> enhancing contribution from the inside (through a very active project >> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Aide_et_accueil> to greet >> newcomers) with little results (at most, we have only slowed down an >> inevitable decline). Apparently, the most efficient (but hardest) way to >> enhance participation would be to make some global change on society >> (reforming evaluation rules for researchers, reducing working time, >> creating a basic income, you name it…). >> >> That's all, folks >> >> PCL >> >> Le 28/10/14 14:27, Aaron Halfaker a écrit : >> >>> Hey folks, >>> >>> I'm breaking this thread of discussion out since it's not really >>> relevant to the thread it appeared in. >>> >>> Personally, I'm not studying Wikipedia. I'm studying the nature of >>> socio-technical communities with Wikipedia as an interesting case >>> study. Wikidata might be an interesting case study for something, but >>> personally, I'm mostly interested in how mature communities/systems >>> work & break down. When it reaches maturity, I hope that Wikidata >>> will benefit from what I have learned. >>> >>> -Aaron >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Gerard Meijssen >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hoi, >>> I agree when it is the only thing I said. >>> >>> Yes, I asked you personally and Toby ... and Erik (both of them >>> and several times) and I always hear "good idea, should be easy, >>> we ill look into it and we get back to you". But as I said, your >>> reply is relevant when it is the only thing I said and it is not. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 28 October 2014 13:43, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Gerard. Did you file the feature request? If not, you are >>> ranting at the wrong mailing list. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hoi, >>> Despair is a personal emotion. What makes you think that >>> despair is an attack on a person? It is not. Oliver, I >>> despair about what the Research list has become and, I >>> will explain why. >>> >>> What I despair about is the overwhelming amount of >>> Wikipedia related noise. Noise because it feels to me like >>> the same subjects are covered in endless similar ways. I >>> despair because when something new happens OUTSIDE of >>> this, the English Wikipedia it is completely ignored. >>> >>> Much of what I hear feels like noise because it lacks >>> practical relevance. Research, statistics could show "What >>> are people looking for most in Wikipedia but cannot find". >>> We do not have that because of no reason I can think of >>> and, it has been promised often enough for years now. The >>> Swedish Wikipedia finds that their bot generated articles >>> has rejuvenated their Wikipedia but the research community >>> is quiet about it.. Ignores it ? Wikidata has statistics >>> [1] its data has a real meaning about Wikipedia, about >>> Wikidata and about the sum of all information AVAILABLE to >>> us. >>> >>> The consequence of all this self promotion is that there >>> is no attention for anything else.. Yes, we know there is >>> a gender disparity but what about people with a mental >>> health problem.. We have way more people editing who are >>> "enriched" with a diagnosis than is average. What do our >>> projects mean for them, does it help them with their self >>> awareness, does it help them recover, is our community >>> aware of it and how does it cope or fail to cope. What >>> practical steps can we take to make these valuable >>> contributors more secure, less anxious? >>> >>> Researching the same things over and over does not help us >>> understand WIkipedia, our "other projects", our >>> communities. It does not help us achieve our aim; it is >>> "share in the sum of all knowledge", we do not even share >>> all the knowledge that is available to us. Why not? How >>> can we do this? >>> >>> Jane knows the tool that provides a selection of >>> Wikipedias with search results from Wikidata. It works, >>> Ori looked at it from a performance point of view. NOTHING >>> NEEDS TO BE DONE TO IMPLEMENT IT. It does not happen. A >>> research question would be "Why". >>> >>> The statistics for Wikidata are not up to date because the >>> dumps are faulty. It is not clear, obvious that it is of >>> real concern to the people responisble. However this data >>> IS used to run specific bots based on what the numbers >>> show. The numbers matter, the statistics matter they have >>> a real demonstrable impact. >>> >>> What I am looking for is relevance and I find only >>> research for more fine grained explanations not for >>> solutions. It is why I despair, it is because it feels so >>> much like a colossal waste of time when you consider that >>> researching subjects with a different objective would help >>> us forward so much. >>> >>> Maybe my expectations are unrealistic and people doing >>> research are just another incrowd doing their own thing. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php? >>> reverse >>> >>> On 28 October 2014 00:15, Oliver Keyes >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> If it's that trivial to implement, implement it. >>> >>> That's a very compressed way of saying; I think it's >>> fine for us to disagree on this list. But, really? >>> Pine's email made you "despair"? It, by inference, >>> made you conclude he doesn't accept new things? You >>> find the absence of a feature actively irrational? >>> >>> It's okay for Pine's vision to be different from >>> yours, or mine, or Aaron's, or anyone else's. >>> Wikimedia's ethos is not built on any one person's >>> vision: it is built on the sum of all of our hopes (in >>> an ideal universe). It's not a one-in, one-out system >>> where ideas must be harshly and actively countered so >>> that yours can take primacy. >>> >>> So let's try and stay non-hyperbolic and civil on this >>> list, please. As a heuristic; if even /you/ feel a >>> need to write an apology for your email into an email, >>> don't hit send. >>> >>> On 27 October 2014 17:14, Gerard Meijssen >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hoi, >>> I read your mail again. It makes me despair. >>> >>> Wikimedia research is NOT about Wikipedia, not >>> exclusively. When I read what is an inspiration to >>> you I find all the reasons why Wikipedians do not >>> accept anything new. Why we still do not have a >>> search that also returns information on what is >>> NOT in that particular Wikipedia. It is only one >>> example out of many. It is however so easy to >>> implement, it defies logic that it has not >>> happened on all Wikipedias. It is just one example >>> that demonstrates that we do not even share the >>> sum of all information that is available to us. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Sorry, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 20 October 2014 08:23, Pine W >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Both of the presentations at the October >>> Wikimedia Research Showcase were fascinating >>> and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I >>> would like to continue to discuss the themes >>> from the showcase about Wikipedia's >>> adaptability, viability, and diversity. >>> >>> Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing >>> internal adaptations, and the slowing of those >>> adaptations, reminded me of this statement >>> from MIT Technology Review in 2013 (and I >>> recommend reading the whole article [2]): >>> >>> "The main source of those problems (with >>> Wikipedia) is not mysterious. The loose >>> collective running the site today, estimated >>> to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing >>> bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere >>> that deters newcomers who might increase >>> partipcipation in Wikipedia and broaden its >>> coverage." >>> >>> I would like to contrast that vision of >>> Wikipedia with the vision presented by >>> User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), >>> which I re-read when I need encouragement: >>> >>> "THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA >>> One gateway >>> to the wide garden of knowledge, >>> where lies >>> The deep rock of our past, >>> in which we must delve >>> The well of our future, >>> The clear water >>> we must leave untainted >>> for those who come after us, >>> The fertile earth, >>> in which truth may grow >>> in bright places, >>> tended by many hands, >>> And the broad fall of sunshine, >>> warming our first steps >>> toward knowing >>> how much we do not know." >>> >>> How can we align ouselves less with the former >>> vision and more with the latter? [3] >>> >>> I hope that we can continue to discuss these >>> themes on the Research mailing list. Please >>> contribute your thoughts and questions there. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> [1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw >>> <http://youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw> >>> >>> [2] >>> http://www.technologyreview. >>> com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ >>> >>> [3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, >>> I will borrow and tweak a quote from from >>> George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. >>> Kennedy: "Some people see things as they are >>> and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things that never >>> were and say, 'Why not?'" >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- >>> research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Oliver Keyes >>> Research Analyst >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- >>> research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > -- > Maître de Conférences (HDR) / Associate Professor. > LUSSI - iSchool, M@rsouin. Institut TELECOM Bretagne & UEB > In charge of the Master "Information Systems Project Management and > Consulting" > http://www.telecom-bretagne.eu/studies/msc/information-systems-management/ > Co-animator of the "ICT and Society" Institut Mines-Telecom's research > network > > http://nicolas-jullien.lussi-ischool.eu/ > Skype: Nicolas.Jullien1 > Tel +33 (0) 229 001 245 > TELECOM Bretagne, Technopôle Brest Iroise CS 83818 > 29238 BREST CEDEX 3 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
