Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning Schlottmann wrote: > It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future. > Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead > half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to > think about who will write Wikipedia in five years, this is the job of > those who will see themselves as stewards of the project then. I will > most probably not be among them, because I am now contributing for about > four years and can't possibly know what I will do five years from now. The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on that (Strategy plan). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Ziko van Dijk wrote: > * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, > they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They > are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be > better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports > could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) > team we already have. That's exactly the idea behind the flagged versions. The advantage is, that it is on-wiki, and does not need a media shift. And it can be done by every acknowledged editor, not just OTRS-team members. > * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become > a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who > candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an > e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a > little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested > in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link > him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to > fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by > his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie > politely. Providing an e-mail address is already encouraged. We could improve the wording a bit, though. But demanding a CV by prospective editors is slightly over the top. Mentoring is nice if optional, but please consider, that we don't have the active user base to mentor each and every newbie, whether they want it or not. Wikipedia once was about writing articles. These days is is developing into a bureaucratic nightmare and I strongly believe your proposal would be another step in a completely wrong direction. Pretty much every proposal nowadays is about control. Control about content and control about people. This is understandable, because of the impact Wikipedia has on public perception and the possible dire consequences for say living people. And we should be proud of the quality Wikipedia has to offer and the working of our quality control. But we should also be proud about the open culture and we should continue to welcom contributions by everyone. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Mark Williamson wrote: > Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August > and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and > languages since I was about 15. Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few - just think of how many of your class mates did like you. And they will find Wikipedia on their own, we don't need to recruit them. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Milos Rancic wrote: > * 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. Don't you think it is delusional hubris to plan with editors, who stay in the project from 15 to retiring age? For pretty much everyone Wikipedia is of passing interest. The phase can be 30 days, 100 days, two or three years. But very few people enjoy a hobby like this for decades. And the very few who do, will find Wikipedia on their own. We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who correct a fact, add some new information or fix a typo. It is nice to have extremely active editors, but the bulk of the content - as opposed to the copy editing and template filling - is done by passing contributors. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Milos Rancic wrote: > Now, we are starting with the implementation of the Scenario 1: we > want to attract more retired academicians and we don't care for > younger and we are very successful in that implementation. So, during > the next year we are getting 500 more contributors in the ages groups > between 60 and 79. > > This is year 2013 and we have the next situation: It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future. Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to think about who will write Wikipedia in five years, this is the job of those who will see themselves as stewards of the project then. I will most probably not be among them, because I am now contributing for about four years and can't possibly know what I will do five years from now. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Correct, we have built a system that does not value new users, but rather seeks to get rid of them. Its a pattern I have observed in some businesses as well. Subconsciously, people hate change. While they consciously want new users or wonder why the flow has stopped, their subconscious is busy erecting walls to stop new things/users. From: John at Darkstar To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49:15 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics > Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale > contributions coming from specific communities, specially from > educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of > Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research, > and some authors have shown that direct contribution approaches may > have negative consequences for both the quality of content and the > willingness of young authors to continue to contribute if the get > strictly negative responses to their first revisions. All the same, > semi-controlled strategies like providing a final version of the > contribution, may have better effects for both the quality of content > and maintaining the implication of young contributors. In this regard, > providing special tools for highlighting these contributions could > facilitate the work of experienced Wikipedia authors, who could then > provide more focused comments. > How the new contributors are approached by the community is very important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the dogfight starts? John ___ 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Henning Schlottmann wrote: > Don't you think it is delusional hubris to plan with editors, who stay > in the project from 15 to retiring age? For pretty much everyone > Wikipedia is of passing interest. The phase can be 30 days, 100 days, > two or three years. But very few people enjoy a hobby like this for > decades. And the very few who do, will find Wikipedia on their own. You have the point here, even it is not intentional. We need to think how to prolong average lifetime of an editor. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
geni wrote: > English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can > still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just > different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any > reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article. > [[Ordnance Survey]] is clearly notable. No article on De. Ordnance Survey would be a great addition to de-WP. I might write it myself *g*. But do you expect kids to write on those - for them - obscure topics? And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs. Recruiting efforts should be done where contributions to Wikipedia are not coming naturally. One of those fields are retired professionals. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
People and/or folks :) Would you (several of you, starting from Milos) please, OH please stop playing with me in 'Straw man' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) game!!! > But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have > plenty youngsters able to write science and technology articles. Did I say (or at least hint?) that there is no such youngsters??? It seems that it's high time to recollect backbone of arguing between me and Milos: 1) Milos said - let's focus our 'recruitment' only on people within 15-24 years age limits. 2) I objected that our effort should be limited by so tight limits, but I never (Never, NEVER) objected that people of 15-24 age are of significant interest to recruitment (better to say *evengelisation*) process. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:21 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo : >> Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship). >> So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to >> see 19-year old steward. >> >> ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same >> scientific/technology topic written by 19 year old guy/lady? ... >> FA-grade articles if any? > > Sure. The 19 has a reasonable chance of being at a university that > means they have access to reliant journals and at least some free > time. > > >> ... and let's discuss not exceptions but... mainstream. > > Then why are you talking about FAs? The mainstream are not FAs. > > But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have > plenty youngsters able to write science and technology articles. > While people keep pretty quiet about ages on en I've certainly run > across people at university or younger who work in those areas. > > > > > -- > geni > > ___ > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo : > Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship). > So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to > see 19-year old steward. > > ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same > scientific/technology topic written by 19 year old guy/lady? ... > FA-grade articles if any? Sure. The 19 has a reasonable chance of being at a university that means they have access to reliant journals and at least some free time. > ... and let's discuss not exceptions but... mainstream. Then why are you talking about FAs? The mainstream are not FAs. But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have plenty youngsters able to write science and technology articles. While people keep pretty quiet about ages on en I've certainly run across people at university or younger who work in those areas. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Oh, Milos... We were talking about articles on nuclear physics, aren't we? ... and you suddenly switched to stewardship. Why? With all due respect to the institution of stewardship (and each of our Stewards personally ;) ) what's the big deal with that in context of what we were talking before you switched. Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship). So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to see 19-year old steward. ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same scientific/technology topic written by 19 year old guy/lady? ... FA-grade articles if any? ... and let's discuss not exceptions but... mainstream. I completely agree with David Gerard, Mark and others that there is bright young contributors (new Stephen Hawking etc.) but I (1001th confirmation!) never said that we should stop recruiting among youngsters. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> Let me illustrate by example: >> I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!) >> years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to >> several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal >> may create :) >> >>> 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but >>> just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that >>> scientific field. >> >> Let's be realistic (though not cynical ;) ): >> >> 1. Far not in two years - not less than in 10 years. Will we be >> satisfied by popmusics/games-pedia until than +2-3 years (to create >> articles); >> 2. She or he may and may not became contributor in some scientific >> field. If she/he will see work of elders (in best - eventually pass >> the aprenticeship under control of master) during all these years it >> will increase both that probability to became and quality of future >> contribution. > > I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian > with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections > with ~95% of support). > > ___ > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Mark, I appreciate your input to this discussion as well as I believe you regarding your contribution to en:WP. Both of us (you and me) know that there are "bright" young people (geeks etc.) and ... not so bright. Besides I'm willing not to be snobbish geek and I trust that people (whatever their age are) who do not care about science but love fun are *NOT* "bad"/"wrong" etc. people. We, Wikipedians, love fun as well - though our fun is very ... wikiish :-P Exact figures of people of both kind (fun oriented and other) as well as volumes of their contribution are yet to come as age disclosure (as well as real names etc.) is more exception than rule. >From another point of view I do respect such contribution like entertainment stuff - I care about balance between those and articles about science and technology. I'm 'old school guy' so for me encyclopedia is about science and technology first of all. P.S. I'm going to question you about you contribution as I failed to discover it myself. I will do that by private mailing to safe everything that you would like to keep not so public. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August > and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and > languages since I was about 15. > > There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe, > I don't know how much they are able to contribute to de.wp but when it > comes to en.wp, you will find some of the brightest young people (in > addition to some not-so-bright ones (-: perhaps) > > Mark > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >>> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >>> at retired academics as the future of our user base. >> >> That's right point! >> >> If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something >> more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students >> >> As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about >> sports, movies and other entertainment staff. >> Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Henning >> Schlottmann wrote: >>> Milos Rancic wrote: In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are >>> wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least >>> regarding de-WP. Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >>> at retired academics as the future of our user base. >>> >>> Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not >>> even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates >>> can do vandal fighting and stuff like that, but writing and improving >>> articles needs access to academic literature and experience in academic >>> writing. 25 to 45 years olds usually have other priorities, they build a >>> career and a family. >>> >>> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have >>> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are >>> completely irrelevant for de-WP. >>> >>> Ciao Henning >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and languages since I was about 15. There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe, I don't know how much they are able to contribute to de.wp but when it comes to en.wp, you will find some of the brightest young people (in addition to some not-so-bright ones (-: perhaps) Mark On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >> at retired academics as the future of our user base. > > That's right point! > > If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something > more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students > > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about > sports, movies and other entertainment staff. > Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Henning > Schlottmann wrote: >> Milos Rancic wrote: >>> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger >>> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. >> >> Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are >> wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least >> regarding de-WP. Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >> at retired academics as the future of our user base. >> >> Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not >> even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates >> can do vandal fighting and stuff like that, but writing and improving >> articles needs access to academic literature and experience in academic >> writing. 25 to 45 years olds usually have other priorities, they build a >> career and a family. >> >> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have >> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are >> completely irrelevant for de-WP. >> >> Ciao Henning >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Yes here now. On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Samuel Klein wrote: > Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to > be in nyc by any chance this wknd? > > samuel klein. �...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266 > > On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" wrote: > > Hi There, > I"m a long time lurker on this list but work for Creative Commons and am a > semi-pro photog in my spare time. I just wrote a post about "the reality" of > pro photography on Wikipedia: > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16017 > > Figured you all would find it interesting! > > Best, > > Fred > > > > ~ ~ ~ > thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog > work / http://creativecommons.org > sights / http://flickr.com/fcb > sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis > status / http://twitter.com/mecredis > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter >wrote: > >> > That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to "recently uploaded > > > images" > > (I'm thinki... > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
2009/7/25 David Gerard : > 2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega : > >> * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions >> needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level. > > > Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level - > but a rising quality level. That is, the quality standards at > :en:WP:FAC are consciously being continually raised by the regulars, > so that it indicates "the best of the best" rather than measuring > generally the quality increase of en:wp. > > Looking at article classes (A-class, B-class, C-class, stub-class) for > en:wp may be a better measure - these tend to be assigned inside the > specialist wikiprojects on a topic. > There is little evidence for this in recent years. While for a long time the FA standards did rise (to keep the promotion rate at about 1 a day) that pattern ceased a couple of years back. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega : > * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions > needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level. Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level - but a rising quality level. That is, the quality standards at :en:WP:FAC are consciously being continually raised by the regulars, so that it indicates "the best of the best" rather than measuring generally the quality increase of en:wp. Looking at article classes (A-class, B-class, C-class, stub-class) for en:wp may be a better measure - these tend to be assigned inside the specialist wikiprojects on a topic. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
This is a good point, Milos. Quantity and quality are more related to each other than we may thought initially. For instance: * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level. * Most of editors contributing to FAs were high experienced editors, meaning more than 2.5 or 3 years participating in Wikipedia. And these editors tend to be very active ones (though they not necessarily get 'sysop' or other special privileges). I recall you that more than 50% of editors abandonned after aprox.. half a year, in all versions we studied. Therefore, the high experienced editors are taking care of top-quality content. Probably because they know, better than many other editors, the guidelines, procedures and daily workflows in the community. Of course, their knowledge (about the topics they contribute to) also matters. But I believe that the first condition is also critical. And you can get to that point with time, interacting with Wikipedia and the community. As a result, any attempt to improve the "feeling" of newcomers as they start to contribute is invaluable. I've read your comments about chats with sysops or article's main editors. I've also read about training environments (customized sandboxes, more friendly, etc.). So, all this makes *a lot of sense* in the current situation. Not because of quantity, but to improve *quality*. Best, Felipe. --- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió: > De: Milos Rancic > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics > So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need > quantity to > have sustainable community development or even just a > sustainable > stagnation. We shouldn't be shy of saying that quantity is > very > important to us because we are able to build quality. And, > yes, it is > possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about > that: we > have to think how to do that. If we don't think > (thinking=quality) how > to bring quantity and our quantity is lowering: we are at > the dead > end. > > ___ > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
2009/7/25 Milos Rancic : > I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian > with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections > with ~95% of support). Yes. We must keep in mind that the Wikimedia projects attract some *ridiculously* smart, clueful and capable kids. I am still regularly shocked how young some fellow Wikimedian is, typically people I guess are in their mid-twenties turning out to be in their mid-teens. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, John at Darkstar escribió: > De: John at Darkstar > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Fecha: sábado, 25 julio, 2009 3:47 > I asked a source if they may grant us > access to some statistics on users > behaviour within social media. The time series starts well > before Nupedia. > That would be great, John. Though Wikipedia peculiarities should be taken into account, long time series would allow interesting comparisons. In particular, about the future trends that we may expect to find in the future, from patterns already observed in other scenarios with a wider timespan. Best, Felipe. > John > > Felipe Ortega wrote: > > --- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic > escribió: > > > >> De: Milos Rancic > >> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics > >> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > >> > >> Fecha: viernes, 24 julio, 2009 5:25 > > > >> 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). > >> > > > > You can check more precise figures and graphs in my > thesis about general statistics for survivability for all > logged editors and core editors (the top 10% most active > editors in each month), from the beginning until Dec. 2007, > in the top-ten language versions (at that time). > > > > http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis (page) > > http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/thesis-wkp-quantanalysis > (doc) > > > > As for the percentages of users by age, education > level, etc. my impression is that opinions from experienced > community members are often well oriented. But they're only > opinions. Until we get the results of the general survey, we > won't have a clear picture of the current "recruitment" > targets for all versions. > > > > Nevertheless, according to our updates, it seems that > the situation is not getting better from Jan 2008 onwards. > > > > Best, > > Felipe. > > > > > > > > > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundatio...@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
[Foundation-l] Two Ways to Wikipedia - a concept for more effective editing
Dear all, Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or "wisdom of the masses" or "swarm intelligence", that theoretical approach will certainly fail. Wikipedia is community-based, and it is a myth that "anyone can edit". In reality, unregistered and new users meet a lot of "resistance", as Ed Chi has called it. Quick reverts, often accompanied by a rude comment, are the result and lead to frustrations. Therefore I would like to suggest to reconsider the idea of "everyone can edit". My concept will make it possible to people have an influence on Wikipedia in two ways: * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian, they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their reports could be treated by a system similar to the current OTRS (support) team we already have. * Become a serious editor: For those who would like to edit, to become a Wikipedian, we must build an easy and secure path. Someone who candidates as a Wikipedian should be required to leave an e-mail-address (to facilitate communication) and present himself a little bit (why he wants to become a Wikipedian, what he is interested in). This can be in perfect anonimity. Then it would be great to link him with a mentor, someone who is following his steps and helps him to fit into the community. Edits by this newbie has to be reconfirmed by his mentor or other people we know of that they treat a newbie politely. With such a two-way-system, we would prevent spam and vandalism and help reducing frustrations. We would still make it possible for "instant collaborators" (IP users) to contribute (by "reporting"). Some could say that this system would highly modify the Wiki principle. But in fact reality has already modified it. Our openess exists only in theory, in practice we scare a lot of good willing people away. Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How do we approach newcomers (Was: Analysis of statistics)
Dear John, Sorry if I did not follow that entire conversation, but I would like to support the idea that we need more communication with IP and new users. I am not peticular happy with the notion "stable version", which comes from software development and should stay there. What you have described is certainly not happening on de.WP or eo.WP (where I know "Flagged Revisions" from). Flagged revisions simply means that edits from new people are not immediately visible to the general public, that's all. Kind regards Ziko 2009/7/25 John at Darkstar : > One thing I like with the stable versions is that it is possible to keep > one version stable while discussions about a future version goes on. > This makes it possible to have a discussion with the contributors about > how to solve a problem without reverting them, and to let them > A third thing we should do is to make something like the chat feature in > Facebook, but instead of organizing it around users communicating with > other users we should organize them as chatrooms about the articles. > This chatroom could give more specific information about the reminder > and also let the user speak to the admin who posted the reminder. > > Instead of an admin yelling to a newcomer in big letter after an edit > conflict the user gets a reminder and an option to talk to the admin. > This opens dialog and understanding. Add in the stable versions and we > get a lot more flexibility and an environment that supports education of -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Two questions about the licensing update of media files
Hello everyone. I have two questions. Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]? Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL. How about media files? Can I upload a media file licensed under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL? Sorry for my poor English. Thank you. [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian > with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections > with ~95% of support). BTW, one of the persons who trolled the project (sr.wp) was economist who is working now on the Encyclopedia of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > Let me illustrate by example: > I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!) > years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to > several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal > may create :) > >> 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but >> just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that >> scientific field. > > Let's be realistic (though not cynical ;) ): > > 1. Far not in two years - not less than in 10 years. Will we be > satisfied by popmusics/games-pedia until than +2-3 years (to create > articles); > 2. She or he may and may not became contributor in some scientific > field. If she/he will see work of elders (in best - eventually pass > the aprenticeship under control of master) during all these years it > will increase both that probability to became and quality of future > contribution. I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections with ~95% of support). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How do we approach newcomers (Was: Analysis of statistics)
One thing I like with the stable versions is that it is possible to keep one version stable while discussions about a future version goes on. This makes it possible to have a discussion with the contributors about how to solve a problem without reverting them, and to let them experiment with the articles. To further aid in this it should be possible to set a future action when no further work is done on the article. Such a future action could be "mark for inspection if not edited in 12/24/48/72 hours". Within this timeframe the contributor can use the article as a sandbox, and when he leaves the new version will be inspected before becoming the new stable version. Another thing we could do is to add some kind of method to place markers on articles without interfering with the ongoing edits. Usually when someone writes on an article and some admin places a template in the text the newcomers will be scared off. It would be better if such markers was more like reminders for the contributors and didn't lead to an edit conflict. A third thing we should do is to make something like the chat feature in Facebook, but instead of organizing it around users communicating with other users we should organize them as chatrooms about the articles. This chatroom could give more specific information about the reminder and also let the user speak to the admin who posted the reminder. Instead of an admin yelling to a newcomer in big letter after an edit conflict the user gets a reminder and an option to talk to the admin. This opens dialog and understanding. Add in the stable versions and we get a lot more flexibility and an environment that supports education of new editors instead of a very hostile environment that punish everyone that makes trivial mistakes. Of course we shall not allow trolling, but it is not necessary to revert every change that may be a newcomer that tries to edit an article. John Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > John, > > Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;) > >> Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with >> oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? > > But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible? > If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we > should just to embody in Wikipedia community such thing as > apprenticeship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprenticeship . Isn't it > sorta funny that Wikipedia contain guidelines which seems to be > ignored by project community? ;) > >> How >> can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? > ... >> Perhaps it is possible >> to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the >> dogfight starts? > > Some people believe that it's good for newcomer to put him/her into > the middle of dogfight from the day1. I'm not really supporter of > that approach - there will be more than enough dogfights in future. > So it's really important (mission-critical in terms of Wikipedia > mission) what happens before the first dogfight. > > We have some stuff (RSS-feeds, personal sandboxes etc.) to assist both > grossmeister and apprentice, but sure we should develop some more. > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM, John at Darkstar wrote: >> How the new contributors are approached by the community is very >> important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How >> can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? >> Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with >> oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible >> to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the >> dogfight starts? >> >> John >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
John, Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;) > Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with > oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible? If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we should just to embody in Wikipedia community such thing as apprenticeship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprenticeship . Isn't it sorta funny that Wikipedia contain guidelines which seems to be ignored by project community? ;) > How > can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? ... > Perhaps it is possible > to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the > dogfight starts? Some people believe that it's good for newcomer to put him/her into the middle of dogfight from the day1. I'm not really supporter of that approach - there will be more than enough dogfights in future. So it's really important (mission-critical in terms of Wikipedia mission) what happens before the first dogfight. We have some stuff (RSS-feeds, personal sandboxes etc.) to assist both grossmeister and apprentice, but sure we should develop some more. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM, John at Darkstar wrote: > > How the new contributors are approached by the community is very > important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How > can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? > Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with > oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible > to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the > dogfight starts? > > John > > ___ > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and > energy even in 12 years old persons. > > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" and they are giving a strong contribution to various > scientific fields. Not to talk about constant battles against vandals. Milos, don't blame me in that what I'm not doing. I know, that I'm narrow-minded to certain extent (as all of us are :) ) but not as much as you think so describe me :)) Let me illustrate by example: I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!) years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal may create :) > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. Let's be realistic (though not cynical ;) ): 1. Far not in two years - not less than in 10 years. Will we be satisfied by popmusics/games-pedia until than +2-3 years (to create articles); 2. She or he may and may not became contributor in some scientific field. If she/he will see work of elders (in best - eventually pass the aprenticeship under control of master) during all these years it will increase both that probability to became and quality of future contribution. > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" Oh well, so we do need that "world of mature people" existing NOW, not that it will born in future if (!) youngsters will stay in it long enough being leaved on themselves. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles >> about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but >> neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding >> museums, literature (but Harry Potter and likes) etc. > > Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and > energy even in 12 years old persons. > > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" and they are giving a strong contribution to various > scientific fields. Not to talk about constant battles against vandals. > > ___ > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to be in nyc by any chance this wknd? samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266 On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" wrote: Hi There, I"m a long time lurker on this list but work for Creative Commons and am a semi-pro photog in my spare time. I just wrote a post about "the reality" of pro photography on Wikipedia: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16017 Figured you all would find it interesting! Best, Fred ~ ~ ~ thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog work / http://creativecommons.org sights / http://flickr.com/fcb sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis status / http://twitter.com/mecredis On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > > That's a great idea. Having a prominent link to "recently uploaded > > images" > > (I'm thinki... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Hi Milos, Thanks a lot for so informative comment. Sorry but you provided more for my new counterargumentation than "beat" previous portion :) Let me start bottomup (I have such habit) > ... we are at the dead end Wikipedia community evolve and became different, who said that it's signs of death? I like this quotation of wise person: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." By this I mean that we should have thorough research howto treat current tendencies (while I don't mean to do nothing until that research will be done). > yes, it is > possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about that: we > have to think how to do that. Yes, it's quite *possible* that quantity of people within "15-24" age range will bring quality of articles that are "sexy"/"cool" for those ...agers, but what about articles that: - are boring for them if not of any interest for them; - they have no clue about that field of science&technology that this article should be about; - they are unable to comprehend the literature about that topic - just because they are too young and not yet educated ??? Scenario analysis: There was no reason to waste invest time into Scenario1 - nobody (not me, neither anybody else) said that we should abandon wiki-evangelisation of youngsters. Scenario3 seems very scary in terms of imbalance in articles quantity and quality: only topics which seems "cool" for youngsters will be covered (see above). >From other point of view don't you think that 100% concentration on youngsters recruiting will be treated by elders community members like age discrimination increasing their discomfort in projects (like Ukrainian) where they are in dramatic minority (that is their percentage is much less than in country population)? I mean they could decrease their contribution if not leave project instead of evangelisation among friends and colleagues. And what I'm saying is not just my guesswork - I know many cases of such elders decisions. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >>> * ... 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 :) ) > > I have to say a lot about this, but I'll try to be concise... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles > about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but > neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding > museums, literature (but Harry Potter and likes) etc. Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and energy even in 12 years old persons. Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world of mature people" and they are giving a strong contribution to various scientific fields. Not to talk about constant battles against vandals. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale > contributions coming from specific communities, specially from > educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of > Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research, > and some authors have shown that direct contribution approaches may > have negative consequences for both the quality of content and the > willingness of young authors to continue to contribute if the get > strictly negative responses to their first revisions. All the same, > semi-controlled strategies like providing a final version of the > contribution, may have better effects for both the quality of content > and maintaining the implication of young contributors. In this regard, > providing special tools for highlighting these contributions could > facilitate the work of experienced Wikipedia authors, who could then > provide more focused comments. > How the new contributors are approached by the community is very important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the dogfight starts? John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Well, well, well > ... even if your > observations are true Not so bad for the beginning: you can suggest that my observations might be correct. By the way, when I wrote "Face the facts!" I meant (and still mean) observations first of all. > ... You are cynical, and ... > your conclusions are wrong. Would you please be so kind as to concentrate on weaknesses of my conclusions, but not on you personal judgement about my personality? I have doubts that you grasped my conclusions (maybe because I missed/failed in clear explanation provisioning) so let me put everything once again: 1) Observation as survey (summary) of facts was (and still is): Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding museums, literature (but Harry Potter and likes) etc. As it could be easily seen (from all this discussion and beyond) it's far not only my point. 2) Conclusion: If we are serious in "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." (are we?) we should attract people of other (older) ages as they are able to contribute that part of "sum of all knowledge" which is out of teenager's activity focus right now. What is wrong (and what is cynical, by the way) in that conclusion? I'm not saying that this conclusion could not be wrong, but please be specific versus just putting "Wrong!" label. I'm aware that this conclusion could help (serve) only as part of solution but not the complete solution. So? :) On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Дана Friday 24 July 2009 16:42:06 Pavlo Shevelo написа: >> > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to >> > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit? >> >> Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic >> in analysis and straight in putting things as they are. >> Face the reality. Period. >> Nothing else. > > Well, I don't think you are realistic. You are cynical, and even if your > observations are true, your conclusions are wrong. > >> > Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> > > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about >> > > sports, movies and other entertainment staff. >> > > Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. > > ___ > 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
