Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

[Nikola Smolenski]

Henning Schlottmann wrote:
 > John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the
>> skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping
>> them in their many years to come.
> 
> And what does Wikipedia get from those young people? We don't have the

Encyclopedic articles?

> man power to nanny them or teach them academic writing. We all are

We actually do - isn't that what most people have been doing all these 
years?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Al Tally]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Casey Brown  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally
> wrote:
> > I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> > based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for
> a
> > role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
> >
>
> I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
> definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
> from the members...
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>

Depends. Lack of activity could easily indicate business in real life.

-- 
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/28 Casey Brown :
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally wrote:
>> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
>> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
>> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
> definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
> from the members...

I agree, edits aren't really relevant. In fact, I think people that
aren't very active on the projects would make better ombudsmen since
they are less likely to be involved and can be more independent.
What's most important is whether or not they are active on the
commission.

Perhaps the WMF should take over this role? It is their privacy policy
being enforced. When the commission was founded the WMF was very small
and it would have been very difficult for them to do the job, but it
is much bigger now so might be able to manage.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Casey Brown]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>

I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
from the members...

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Al Tally]

This is strange - in times past, we have had only 3 ombudsmen at a time, and
now we have five. Are they all fairly active? Do they want to continue this
role? Have they all been contacted? I notice, for example, that the enwiki
based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.


-- 
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[effe iets anders]

I hope those procedures are fixed with a high priority. Because privacy is a
serious issue, and users are referred to the ombudsmen committee often,
assuming that is fully functional if necessary. If it is not, that means a
lot more responsibility for the WMF, the stewards etc. Are the current
members still willing to perform their tasks, are they able to? I hope this
gets fixed very fast.

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2009/7/27 Christophe Henner 

> 2009/7/27 geni :
> > 2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
> >> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> >> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation
> here.
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't appear to be.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> I'm working on it for a few days.
>
>
> By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is
> "laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work
> on cases.
>
> --
> Christophe
>
> ___
> 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] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Casey Brown]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Brian wrote:
> Oh, great. That basically covers it, assuming it is what I think it is (a
> site notice on all SUL wikis).

Yes, we've been using it since the 2009 Fundraiser for items ranging
from donation drives to Wikimania announcements to the current Board
elections.

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

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

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Brian]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 2009/7/27 Brian :
> > It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> > actually are!
>
> Strategy.wikimedia.org is part of SUL, moving from one space to the
> other is trivial. To reach a very large group of people (much larger
> than the group of people currently editing on Meta), we'll be using
> CentralNotices through the different stages of the process.
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>


Oh, great. That basically covers it, assuming it is what I think it is (a
site notice on all SUL wikis).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Erik Moeller]

2009/7/27 Brian :
> It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> actually are!

Strategy.wikimedia.org is part of SUL, moving from one space to the
other is trivial. To reach a very large group of people (much larger
than the group of people currently editing on Meta), we'll be using
CentralNotices through the different stages of the process.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[John at Darkstar]

Probably a separate wiki will isolate the content from the community and
 make it less accessible for for other users.

John

Brian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
>>> place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
>>> previously created wikis succumb to wiki rot and eventually link spam.
>> Why
>>> were those arguments rejected?
>> Did you see Erik's comment by any chance?
>> 
>>
>> --
>> Casey Brown
>> Cbrown1023
>>
> 
> No I hadn't, thank you.
> 
> It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> actually are! A new wiki is not a magic recipe for an insta-community and
> its hard to guarantee that everyone who would be interested in the content
> there will end up seeing it.
> ___
> 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] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Eugene Eric Kim]

Hi Brian,

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Brian wrote:
> No I hadn't, thank you.

See also my response:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-July/053355.html

> It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> actually are! A new wiki is not a magic recipe for an insta-community and
> its hard to guarantee that everyone who would be interested in the content
> there will end up seeing it.

I totally agree that a new Wiki is not a magic recipe for
insta-community. I also realize there's a barrier in getting existing
community members to shift to another Wiki, but there's also a barrier
to engaging those who are not already participating in Meta. Frankly,
I think the latter barrier is higher.

This is a meta-issue for Wikis in general. One of the values of Wikis
is that they are One Big Space. Think back to my analogy of physical
space. When you fragment that space, you lose some of that value.
Sometimes, it's necessary, but when is not always clear. I think there
are ways to mitigate this through the tools themselves -- it's
something we've discussed off-and-on throughout the years in the
larger Wiki community. In the meantime, I think the solution is
careful reflection, but not to the point of paralysis. Think about it,
try it, learn from it.

This, by the way, is a good summary of my philosophy about process in
general. :-)

=Eugene

-- 
==
Eugene Eric Kim  http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates  http://www.blueoxen.com/
==

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

[Henning Schlottmann]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> 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).

"Long term" planning for the Foundation is not planning with
contributors who will write on Wikipedia for several decades. I have
almost 15 years of experience in a completely different field of
volunteering and in the very long term oriented culture of German
Vereine (~ non-profit associations, but ingrained in to German society
for 150 years). Even there you don't recruit people with the intention
to "keep them" for decades.

In the beginning Wikipedia offered professionals and aspiring students a
place where they could share their existing knowledge with others and
ultimately with the world. Now some here seem to think about building an
education system where kids can make their first steps in serious
non-fictional writing and get supported in their learning.

It is delusional to plan with Wikipedia volunteers to enter as
high-school students  and keep them as writers to their grave. Pretty
much every Wikipedian is a passing guest. He or she will share some of
their knowledge or just fix a few typos and leave afterwards. Maybe to
come back sometimes - or not. And that's perfectly fine, because that is
what we need, fresh outside knowledge. The Foundations job is to
facilitate this kind of contribution. The few long term authors will
grow out of these on their own - just like the core of volunteers in the
German Vereine I mentioned above evolved out of irregular 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

[Henning Schlottmann]

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
> Schlottmann wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Contributors, both young and old, do not need to be interested in the
> topic they contribute to - they need to see the value of the skills
> that they acquire in the process.  And we can help them learn about
> the benefits.

Well it certainly helps if you have a deeper understanding about the
topics you cover. And Wikipedia once was about people who have certain
knowledge and enjoy to share it with the world. It was originally not
about recruiting people to do research into topics they would never have
researched without Wikipedia.

> On wikimedia, bilingual young people can improve their mastery of
> second languages by translating articles into different languages.

Oh yeah - that is how most translations look like. A bilingual kid
trying to improve their mastery of a foreign language. Without even
understanding the topic of the text he or she is translating. We already
have too many of those "translations".

> On wikimedia, young people learn how to properly reference an article,
> which will help them as they progress in their education.

Originally Wikipedia was about People, who could already write academic
papers and did not need tutoring or learning those abilities on
Wikipedia for their future life.

> Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the
> skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping
> them in their many years to come.

And what does Wikipedia get from those young people? We don't have the
man power to nanny them or teach them academic writing. We all are
authors, first and foremost. I'm not going to change the diapers of any
promising "young people" who would like to make their first attempts of
focused writing on Wikipedia.

Ciao Henning


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

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Brian]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
> > I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
> > place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
> > previously created wikis succumb to wiki rot and eventually link spam.
> Why
> > were those arguments rejected?
>
> Did you see Erik's comment by any chance?
> 
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>

No I hadn't, thank you.

It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
actually are! A new wiki is not a magic recipe for an insta-community and
its hard to guarantee that everyone who would be interested in the content
there will end up seeing it.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Casey Brown]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
> I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
> place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
> previously created wikis succumb to wiki rot and eventually link spam. Why
> were those arguments rejected?

Did you see Erik's comment by any chance?


-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Christophe Henner]

2009/7/27 geni :
> 2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
>> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
>> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>
> Doesn't appear to be.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I'm working on it for a few days.


By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is
"laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work
on cases.

-- 
Christophe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Brian]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> As part of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Initiative, a new wiki (
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org
> ) is being soft-launched today.  This soft-launch is being announced
> only to foundation-l and a few other places, but is not at all secret
> - consider this an open-beta test.
>
> When you have a few moments, your input is greatly desired - please
> take time to look at the strategy wiki, to answer the questions there,
> and to start to think about what proposals you might have for the
> Foundation's five-year strategic plan.  The process for submitting
> proposals is at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> Call_for_Proposals .  You can familiarize yourself with the strategic
> planning process overall by reading the links on the Main Page.
>
> This wiki will be fully launched soon, but in the meantime, don't
> hesitate to make suggestions to either Eugene or myself.
>
> 
> Philippe Beaudette
> Facilitator, Strategic Plan
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> pbeaude...@wikimedia.org
>

I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
previously created wikis succumb to wiki rot and eventually link spam. Why
were those arguments rejected?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] strategy.wikimedia.org soft-launch

[Philippe Beaudette]

As part of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Initiative, a new wiki 
(http://strategy.wikimedia.org 
) is being soft-launched today.  This soft-launch is being announced  
only to foundation-l and a few other places, but is not at all secret  
- consider this an open-beta test.

When you have a few moments, your input is greatly desired - please  
take time to look at the strategy wiki, to answer the questions there,  
and to start to think about what proposals you might have for the  
Foundation's five-year strategic plan.  The process for submitting  
proposals is at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/ 
Call_for_Proposals .  You can familiarize yourself with the strategic  
planning process overall by reading the links on the Main Page.

This wiki will be fully launched soon, but in the meantime, don't  
hesitate to make suggestions to either Eugene or myself.


Philippe Beaudette  
Facilitator, Strategic Plan
Wikimedia Foundation

pbeaude...@wikimedia.org


Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Paths (was Analysis of statistics)

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 7/27/09 1:36 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hm. Mail hasn't been finished. I wanted to save it and consider
>> finishing it later (probably, I wouldn't send it). So, probably, you
>> should forget for this email :)
>>
> No problem, Milos :-). I've done the same thing myself in the past.

Actually, I should finish it...

I realized that I am wrong about one thing (and because of that I
stopped with writing): We are not deciding about the way of how
relevant knowledge would be distributed in the future (centralized or
decentralized). It will be decentralized. A year or two after Google
Wave becomes reality, we'll have [Google Wave] bots which would gather
knowledge for us from different sources, not just from Wikipedia.

However, we have a momentum of different kind and we shouldn't waste
it. Wikimedia is the biggest rational movement in the world. And we
should keep and develop it somehow.

But, I am far of any conclusion in relation to this issue and I should
continue to think about it :) Which, of course, doesn't stop others to
think about the same :)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Paths (was Analysis of statistics)

[Marc Riddell]

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell
>> wrote:
>>> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
>>> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
>>> reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in
>>> the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which
>>> in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring
>>> persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy
>>> refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the
>>> more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be
>>> left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this
>>> is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not
>>> confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer,
>>> more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being.
>> 
>> Fully agreed, especially with the last couple of sentences.
>> 
>> ... And except the last one. There will be no similar project to
>> Wikimedia, at least during this century. Projects like Wikipedia are
>> extremely expensive. Which [rational] projects have or had one million
>> of direct contributors? Great Wall, Chinese electrical system, Indian
>> railway system? Maybe. Wikipedia had momentum (and because of that
>> Jimmy's role is priceless) and it is very hard that we'll see another
>> project of such dimensions soon.
>> 
>> As we are inside of the project, we are not able to realize the
>> dimensions of what we are building. The biggest number of articles,
>> number of words, contributors... -- are just trees in the wood which
>> we have created. Numbers are just statistical facts which are not
>> important as is. But, all of them make a wood which existed never
>> before (and, probably, which won't exist for a long time again).
>> 
>> The point is that we, now and here, are making much bigger decisions
>> than how to keep ~10TB of data and build another 100TB of [very
>> useful] data in the next couple of years. Our work affects the whole
>> human civilization. Would we be able to keep or not our projects as
>> healthy places, this would give the answer which path would be used by
>> our civilization.
>> 
>> We have two non-exclusive possibilities: (1) centralized
>> 
on 7/27/09 1:36 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hm. Mail hasn't been finished. I wanted to save it and consider
> finishing it later (probably, I wouldn't send it). So, probably, you
> should forget for this email :)
> 
No problem, Milos :-). I've done the same thing myself in the past.

Marc


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Paths (was Analysis of statistics)

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell 
> wrote:
>> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
>> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
>> reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in
>> the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which
>> in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring
>> persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy
>> refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the
>> more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be
>> left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this
>> is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not
>> confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer,
>> more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being.
>
> Fully agreed, especially with the last couple of sentences.
>
> ... And except the last one. There will be no similar project to
> Wikimedia, at least during this century. Projects like Wikipedia are
> extremely expensive. Which [rational] projects have or had one million
> of direct contributors? Great Wall, Chinese electrical system, Indian
> railway system? Maybe. Wikipedia had momentum (and because of that
> Jimmy's role is priceless) and it is very hard that we'll see another
> project of such dimensions soon.
>
> As we are inside of the project, we are not able to realize the
> dimensions of what we are building. The biggest number of articles,
> number of words, contributors... -- are just trees in the wood which
> we have created. Numbers are just statistical facts which are not
> important as is. But, all of them make a wood which existed never
> before (and, probably, which won't exist for a long time again).
>
> The point is that we, now and here, are making much bigger decisions
> than how to keep ~10TB of data and build another 100TB of [very
> useful] data in the next couple of years. Our work affects the whole
> human civilization. Would we be able to keep or not our projects as
> healthy places, this would give the answer which path would be used by
> our civilization.
>
> We have two non-exclusive possibilities: (1) centralized
>

Hm. Mail hasn't been finished. I wanted to save it and consider
finishing it later (probably, I wouldn't send it). So, probably, you
should forget for this email :)

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

[Foundation-l] Paths (was Analysis of statistics)

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
> reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in
> the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which
> in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring
> persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy
> refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the
> more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be
> left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this
> is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not
> confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer,
> more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being.

Fully agreed, especially with the last couple of sentences.

... And except the last one. There will be no similar project to
Wikimedia, at least during this century. Projects like Wikipedia are
extremely expensive. Which [rational] projects have or had one million
of direct contributors? Great Wall, Chinese electrical system, Indian
railway system? Maybe. Wikipedia had momentum (and because of that
Jimmy's role is priceless) and it is very hard that we'll see another
project of such dimensions soon.

As we are inside of the project, we are not able to realize the
dimensions of what we are building. The biggest number of articles,
number of words, contributors... -- are just trees in the wood which
we have created. Numbers are just statistical facts which are not
important as is. But, all of them make a wood which existed never
before (and, probably, which won't exist for a long time again).

The point is that we, now and here, are making much bigger decisions
than how to keep ~10TB of data and build another 100TB of [very
useful] data in the next couple of years. Our work affects the whole
human civilization. Would we be able to keep or not our projects as
healthy places, this would give the answer which path would be used by
our civilization.

We have two non-exclusive possibilities: (1) centralized

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

[Marc Riddell]

on 7/27/09 8:32 AM, Dennis During at dcdur...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
> 
> To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
> the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
> turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those
> who control the projects.

And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in
the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which
in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring
persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy
refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the
more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be
left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this
is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not
confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer,
more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being.

Marc Riddell

> 
> As we have more to protect (formatting, layout, content organization,
> stylistic unity) there is a negative attitude toward anyone who might
> jeopardize it through clumsy attempts at improvement.  I sometime notice and
> feel a tendency to be more cooperative and patient with someone I perceive
> as being older.  I'm pretty sure that younger contributors sense my efforts
> to communicate with them as, um, adult.  This provides a bias against
> younger would-be contributors.
> 
> Facilitating contributions by newbies is part of what might help make for an
> easier induction of all new users, which provides a modest tendency to favor
> the young without disfavoring the old.  Having a bit more structure to new
> user induction seems to be the inevitable direction to go to elicit breadth
> on the projects. Out existing low-structure approaches need to be
> supplemented with attractive more-structured paths.
> 
> Perhaps inviting structured feedback (eg article ratings with links to
> article talk pages) to draw folks into low risk-of-damage active involvement
> would enable us to get more from those a little less bold and motivated.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> 
>> Bleh.
>> 
>> When did this become an either-or proposition?
>> 
>> You go recruit retired professionals.  I'll go recruit young people.
>> Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go
>> after teachers.  Everybody wins.
>> 
>> The only way to lose is if either:
>> 
>> A) You believe one of these groups should not be participating in Wikipedia
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> B) You believe efforts to recruit professionals will actually
>> interfere with my efforts to recruit young people, etc.
>> 
>> If you believe A) then frankly I believe you are out of touch with the
>> ethos of the projects.  Different groups may need a different amount
>> of guidance before they are prepared to contribute, but there is no
>> group of people we should be categorically shutting out or
>> discouraging.
>> 
>> If you believe B) and somehow think that recruiting one group somehow
>> interferes with recruiting other groups, then I'd like to see an
>> explanation of that.  It seems unlikely in most cases.
>> 
>> Besides which, there are many things we can be doing (such as
>> improving the editing interface and documentation) that should widely
>> benefit most groups of potential new editors.
>> 
>> -Robert Rohde
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Ombudsman commission

[geni]

2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
> Thanks.
>
> Lodewijk
>

Doesn't appear to be.

-- 
geni

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

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Meadow Mari Wikipedia

[Milos Rancic]

Here is the response :)


-- Forwarded message --
From: slavakileev 
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 14:03
Subject: Re: Meadow Mari Wikipedia
To: Millosh 
Cc: Сай 




10.07.09, 12:32, "Millosh" :

> I see that you are not coming too often on Meta Wikimedia. So, just to inform 
> you that Meadow Mari Wikipedia has been created: http://mhr.wikipedia.org/


Hello, Millosh!

I am glad to write you a letter. Please post my mail to foundation-I
mailing list, because I am writing from my smartphone and it is a
little bit difficult for me to post this letter to mailing list.

Thanks a lot for creation of Mari Wikipedia. In fact, I could open
mhr.wikipedia.org from 12 July (dns servers has updated their
records). But it is just in time. Our forum started at 10 July and
finished at 15 July. I expected 150 participants, but in fact there
were only 102. All participants are active native mari, most of them
can write and read Mari.

I had a chance to take a flore during the forum. I have told about
this good event - creation of Mari Wikipedia and wrote an url address
on the screen.

Moreover, all participants were diveded on four group and there was an
practical lesson(practice) for each group. During this lesson
particerants had learned about mari language in computer technology
(mari keyboard layout, mari dictionary, mari social network). And
starting from 12 July this lesson had included Mari Wikipedia. So only
two of four groups were introduced with Wikipedia at this practical
lesson. And for one grope I had introduced Wikipedia myself. I have
shown how to make edits, how to search and navigate through the wiki.
I have told about some tools such as page history, recent changes.

During this forum I have made some contacts. I have introduced
wikipedia to a dj, who works on a radio station, they have a lot of
informational texts on Mari language, that were used in radio
programs, and now they can give this texts for wikipedia for free.

We are going to start at September, because now most of
people(including me) are on the Summer holidays. Once again, thanks a
lot for creation of Mari Wikipedia - it is a great step for our small
mari nation!

Yours sincerely,
Slava

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

[Dennis During]

It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.

To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those
who control the projects.

As we have more to protect (formatting, layout, content organization,
stylistic unity) there is a negative attitude toward anyone who might
jeopardize it through clumsy attempts at improvement.  I sometime notice and
feel a tendency to be more cooperative and patient with someone I perceive
as being older.  I'm pretty sure that younger contributors sense my efforts
to communicate with them as, um, adult.  This provides a bias against
younger would-be contributors.

Facilitating contributions by newbies is part of what might help make for an
easier induction of all new users, which provides a modest tendency to favor
the young without disfavoring the old.  Having a bit more structure to new
user induction seems to be the inevitable direction to go to elicit breadth
on the projects. Out existing low-structure approaches need to be
supplemented with attractive more-structured paths.

Perhaps inviting structured feedback (eg article ratings with links to
article talk pages) to draw folks into low risk-of-damage active involvement
would enable us to get more from those a little less bold and motivated.

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> Bleh.
>
> When did this become an either-or proposition?
>
> You go recruit retired professionals.  I'll go recruit young people.
> Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go
> after teachers.  Everybody wins.
>
> The only way to lose is if either:
>
> A) You believe one of these groups should not be participating in Wikipedia
>
> or
>
> B) You believe efforts to recruit professionals will actually
> interfere with my efforts to recruit young people, etc.
>
> If you believe A) then frankly I believe you are out of touch with the
> ethos of the projects.  Different groups may need a different amount
> of guidance before they are prepared to contribute, but there is no
> group of people we should be categorically shutting out or
> discouraging.
>
> If you believe B) and somehow think that recruiting one group somehow
> interferes with recruiting other groups, then I'd like to see an
> explanation of that.  It seems unlikely in most cases.
>
> Besides which, there are many things we can be doing (such as
> improving the editing interface and documentation) that should widely
> benefit most groups of potential new editors.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Dennis C. During

Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity
with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l