Well, respectfully I disagree, Gerard, on your view, or analysis of the stats. Edit is used vague on our community: from writing a FA almost alone to doing a WiiGnome task. We need both, but those two activities require not a same amount of communication skills as well involvement to wiki editing commuity lives.
We have a certain number of people who edit several languages. I edit English Wikiquote and Japanese (even most of those edits are on talks or project name spaces). I know some translators who edit several languages - but I'm not sure we assure every those "multilingual" editors edit main namespace of each projects mainly. I was honored to be called Aphaia on all wikis once by a certain editor who visited #wikipedia.ja, but it didn't mean I was then active as writer of articles - rather it may have meant I created interlang links aggressively. So I'd like to ask in which way we keep and assure our community as multilingual? Honestly I have been thinking this for years seriously. Even on meta, it was not once I was accused just because I left a note in Japanese - when I had a hardship to express my opinion enough in English. I remember still how I was accused then - I was accused because I didn't write in English "the language everyone can read". How then can such a community multilingual? Or in other words, what have we been doing for making our community multilingual? We have devout translators - and always I thank them and feel honored to collaborate with them, but, or because I have been working with them, I feel we need more other ways to assure and empower multilingual aspects of our Wikimedia community. Cheers, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > Recently research showed that the majority of our editors is multi lingual > and edits on multiple projects. This is without considering Commons ... I > have a user on 491 projects and I am certainly not the only one who has many > many profiles. > > As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages, > we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been > on single projects. We can do better and we should do better for our > majority. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks-ii.html > > On 28 June 2011 13:27, Peter Coombe <thewub.w...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hoi, >> > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. >> In >> > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced >> > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special >> > projects. We need to. >> >> Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about >> giving them a catchy name like "WikiProjects". Maybe we could give >> every article a "talk page" for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's >> go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was >> some protocol for real time chats we could use... >> >> > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an >> > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our >> activities. >> > Thanks, >> >> I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly >> what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? >> >> Pete / the wub >> >> >> > On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen >> >> <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hoi. >> >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with >> the >> >> > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some >> >> > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. >> When >> >> we >> >> > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic >> >> > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > GerardM >> >> >> >> That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a >> >> social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can >> >> be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social >> >> network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other >> >> social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la >> >> Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to >> >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction >> >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive >> >> people away. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
