> * ... Older age groups are not interesting > anymore in the sense of quantity
Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we? > In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that > their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the > long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit > people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when > those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?). :) My point is not switch from "15-24" to "50+" age limits, but to object narrowing of limits too much. I mean that combining of several age diapasons could provide "best of two worlds" result. And "recruiting" process should go as snowball - for example "50s" should hunt for more "50s" (as "30s" seems not mature enough to do that really well :) ) On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Milos Rancic<mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that > analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations > based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise > data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions. > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo<pavlo.shev...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If we assume that our target groups >>> are between 15 and 24... >> (and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys) > > 15-24 is the main recruiting phase. Also, there is the next reasoning behind > it: > > * We already reached the peak. Older age groups are not interesting > anymore in the sense of quantity (of course, retired academicians > *are* interesting, but there are not a lot of them; again, relatively > speaking). > * If we reached the peak, we are able just to catch new generations in > bigger numbers. > * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young > people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become > retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a > very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors. > However, if we don't attract younger than us, Wikimedia projects will > die with us. > > In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that > their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the > long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit > people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when > those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?). > >> I mean are you talking about people who just come (enter the door), or >> about those, who come and stay (don’t leave and eventually grow to >> “most active”)? >> >> My aim is to point following: to accommodate newcomers is not less >> important than to attract attention (educate as you say) of >> prospective candidates. > > Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good to have > numbers about newcomers and those who made 10 or 100 edits, so we may > compare how do we attract attention through the time. However, I think > that those numbers are relatively stable in the past couple of years > (let's say, from 2005 or so). > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l