Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009-08-24 Thread Dennis During 
What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much progress
on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements
connected with those.  Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor
population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that
honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study. As
WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will
continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and
a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the
projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such
folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve.
Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady
narrowing and deadening of the projects.

The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user
needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the
obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.

IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good a
job the projects are doing.

And therein may lie some of your recommendations.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
> foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
> Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
> planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
>
> We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
> Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
> bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
> here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
> the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
> discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any
> additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much
> knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
>
> Hoi,
> I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was
> done..
> Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning
> to
> all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
>
> The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for
> instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
> for
> Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
> illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
> suspense
> of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
> while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
> accomplishment.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> > Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more
> > sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an
> > article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated
> > articles on the fauna and flora of our region...
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen :
> > > Hoi,
> > > For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
> only
> > > milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is
> > > meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
> > language
> > > Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
> other
> > > African language projects that have no life in them.
> > >
> > > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> > however
> > > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
> progress
> > in
> > > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
> that is
> > > writing a Wikipedia.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 
> > >
> > >> I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
> is
> > >> the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it.
> > >> Ziko
> > >>
> > >> 2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> > >>
> > >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
> us a
> > >> thrill
> > >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> > >>
> > >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> > enough
> > >> of a
> > >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
> > millionth
> > >> > article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
> inquiries
> > from
> > >> > the media.
> > >> >
> > >> >

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009-08-24 Thread Cox, Serita 
Awesome :) 

-Original Message-
From: Fowler, John 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: Lanzerotti, Laura; Cox, Serita
Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

Hi all,

I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.

We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any
additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much
knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.

Best,
John

-Original Message-
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

Hoi,
I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was
done..
Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning
to
all. Articles do that better then anything I know.

The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for
instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
for
Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
suspense
of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
accomplishment.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 

> Hi Gerard,
> Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more
> sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an
> article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated
> articles on the fauna and flora of our region...
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> 2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
> > milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is
> > meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
> language
> > Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
> > African language projects that have no life in them.
> >
> > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> however
> > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
> in
> > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
> > writing a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 
> >
> >> I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
> >> the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it.
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >> 2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> >>
> >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
> >> thrill
> >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> >>
> >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> enough
> >> of a
> >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >> >
> >> > I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
> millionth
> >> > article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
> from
> >> > the media.
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains 
confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients.  
It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail 
shall only be used by the person(s) nam

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009-08-24 Thread Fowler, John 
Hi all,

I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.

We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any
additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much
knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.

Best,
John

-Original Message-
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

Hoi,
I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was
done..
Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning
to
all. Articles do that better then anything I know.

The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for
instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
for
Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
suspense
of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
accomplishment.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 

> Hi Gerard,
> Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more
> sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an
> article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated
> articles on the fauna and flora of our region...
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> 2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
> > milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is
> > meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
> language
> > Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
> > African language projects that have no life in them.
> >
> > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> however
> > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
> in
> > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
> > writing a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk 
> >
> >> I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
> >> the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it.
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >> 2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> >>
> >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
> >> thrill
> >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> >>
> >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> enough
> >> of a
> >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >> >
> >> > I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
> millionth
> >> > article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
> from
> >> > the media.
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains 
confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients.  
It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail 
shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no 
other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other 
persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended 
purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If y

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

2009-08-24 Thread Thomas Dalton 
2009/8/24 Chad :
> I don't know. I don't follow those discussions. I was just clarifying the
> question as to "what user roles play into this?" Right now, that only
> includes the sysadmins.

Implementing the final decision is a job for sysadmins, certainly, but
it shouldn't be the sysadmin the makes the final decision. It's like
desysoppings - they are implemented by stewards, but stewards have
nothing to do with deciding who to desysop.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

2009-08-24 Thread Chad 
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/24 Chad :
>> The only user requirement for this is that a shell user has to
>> perform the actual decision. The community makes the decisions
>> about opening/closing new projects, and the sysadmins carry
>> out the actual task.
>
> But what is "the community" (the community of the project being
> closed? the meta community? the Wikimedia community as a whole? the
> Wikimedia community minus the community of the project being closed?
> etc.) and what is required for something to be considered a "decision"
> (majority? supermajority? consensus? unanimity?)?
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't know. I don't follow those discussions. I was just clarifying the
question as to "what user roles play into this?" Right now, that only
includes the sysadmins.

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

2009-08-24 Thread Thomas Dalton 
2009/8/24 Chad :
> The only user requirement for this is that a shell user has to
> perform the actual decision. The community makes the decisions
> about opening/closing new projects, and the sysadmins carry
> out the actual task.

But what is "the community" (the community of the project being
closed? the meta community? the Wikimedia community as a whole? the
Wikimedia community minus the community of the project being closed?
etc.) and what is required for something to be considered a "decision"
(majority? supermajority? consensus? unanimity?)?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

2009-08-24 Thread Chad 
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Andrew
Turvey wrote:
> First, if the conclusion is that no procedure exists, a notice should be put 
> on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects stating this 
> so that peoples' expectations are appropriately managed.
>
> Second, is that correct? Looking at 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Herero_Wikipedia
>  it seems that there certainly was a procedure in the past where articles 
> were shifted back into the Incubator.
>
> Most importantly, should there be a procedure? Keeping projects open is a 
> drain on resources, such as removing vandalism. There is a level of activity 
> below which the positive benefits of the project are outweighed by the drain, 
> although it's clearly not worth closing a project if the effort to do this is 
> not a worthwhile investment.
>
> Do you need particular user rights to action such requests?
>
> - "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>> From: "Gerard Meijssen" 
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, 20 August, 2009 19:01:39 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
>> Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects
>>
>> Hoi,
>> There is no procedure because what comes closest to a consensus amount to a
>> lot of work. Work that does not forward our mission one iota. The fact that
>> people vote and comment is not that special, people do ... if they vote that
>> I will wear a tutu at Wikimania and a consensus says that I should, I still
>> have to volunteer to wear that tutu. It is the same as voting for a bug in
>> bugzilla. The votes are not considered so why bother ?
>>
>> As to the language committee, it does only consider new requests for
>> projects ... if it were to expand its services it would be in indicating
>> what issues exist that deal with language support that would make a
>> difference to the usability of our software. It would not be drinking from
>> the poisoned chalice that is closing projects. The closest we came to
>> expressing an opinion is that we would prefer the content of a to be closed
>> project to be imported into the Incubator. This is a not good for Incubator
>> because they get dead wood loaded into their project 
>>
>> So all in all in my opinion it is best to leave these things as is and
>> ignore requests for closure.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> 2009/8/20 Huib! 
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I noticed that there are still a lot of open request for closure on Meta
>> > so I decided to contact a LangCom member (Robin) asking him about how
>> > and when the projects will be closed or when the requests will be
>> > closed, but I recieved a answer I didn't expected.
>> >
>> > Robin told me there was no policy (
>> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects ) about the
>> > closure of projects so the request can stay open for always.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think its kind of strange that we people can make a request, that
>> > there are people who are voting and spending there time commenting on
>> > the request or even worse have stress because there project could be
>> > closed but the request will never be closed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there a way to change this with a new policy, or with a different com
>> > for the closure, because this seems to me a waste of time for a lot of
>> > people, people can stop editting projects just because the think the
>> > project will be closed.
>> >
>> > At this moment there are 27 request for projects to be closed, (
>> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ) I think
>> > 50% is a easy closure for keep or close. The oldest project is from 2007
>> > that would mean its still open after 2 years :/
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Huib Laurens*
>> >
>> > Web: Forgotten-beauty.com 
>> > Email: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com 
>> > ___
>> > 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
>

The only user requirement for this is that a shell user has to
perform the actual decision. The community makes the decisions
about opening/closing new projects, and the sysadmins carry
out the actual task.

-Chad

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

2009-08-24 Thread Andrew Turvey 
First, if the conclusion is that no procedure exists, a notice should be put on 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects stating this so 
that peoples' expectations are appropriately managed. 

Second, is that correct? Looking at 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Herero_Wikipedia
 it seems that there certainly was a procedure in the past where articles were 
shifted back into the Incubator. 

Most importantly, should there be a procedure? Keeping projects open is a drain 
on resources, such as removing vandalism. There is a level of activity below 
which the positive benefits of the project are outweighed by the drain, 
although it's clearly not worth closing a project if the effort to do this is 
not a worthwhile investment. 

Do you need particular user rights to action such requests? 

- "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote: 
> From: "Gerard Meijssen"  
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"  
> Sent: Thursday, 20 August, 2009 19:01:39 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, 
> Portugal 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects 
> 
> Hoi, 
> There is no procedure because what comes closest to a consensus amount to a 
> lot of work. Work that does not forward our mission one iota. The fact that 
> people vote and comment is not that special, people do ... if they vote that 
> I will wear a tutu at Wikimania and a consensus says that I should, I still 
> have to volunteer to wear that tutu. It is the same as voting for a bug in 
> bugzilla. The votes are not considered so why bother ? 
> 
> As to the language committee, it does only consider new requests for 
> projects ... if it were to expand its services it would be in indicating 
> what issues exist that deal with language support that would make a 
> difference to the usability of our software. It would not be drinking from 
> the poisoned chalice that is closing projects. The closest we came to 
> expressing an opinion is that we would prefer the content of a to be closed 
> project to be imported into the Incubator. This is a not good for Incubator 
> because they get dead wood loaded into their project  
> 
> So all in all in my opinion it is best to leave these things as is and 
> ignore requests for closure. 
> Thanks, 
> GerardM 
> 
> 2009/8/20 Huib!  
> 
> > Hello, 
> > 
> > I noticed that there are still a lot of open request for closure on Meta 
> > so I decided to contact a LangCom member (Robin) asking him about how 
> > and when the projects will be closed or when the requests will be 
> > closed, but I recieved a answer I didn't expected. 
> > 
> > Robin told me there was no policy ( 
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects ) about the 
> > closure of projects so the request can stay open for always. 
> > 
> > 
> > I think its kind of strange that we people can make a request, that 
> > there are people who are voting and spending there time commenting on 
> > the request or even worse have stress because there project could be 
> > closed but the request will never be closed. 
> > 
> > 
> > Is there a way to change this with a new policy, or with a different com 
> > for the closure, because this seems to me a waste of time for a lot of 
> > people, people can stop editting projects just because the think the 
> > project will be closed. 
> > 
> > At this moment there are 27 request for projects to be closed, ( 
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ) I think 
> > 50% is a easy closure for keep or close. The oldest project is from 2007 
> > that would mean its still open after 2 years :/ 
> > 
> > -- 
> > *Huib Laurens* 
> > 
> > Web: Forgotten-beauty.com  
> > Email: abi...@forgotten-beauty.com  
> > ___ 
> > 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] New projects opened

2009-08-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
There are many ways you can approach paid contributions. Saying that it does
not work is certainly for localisation manifestly incorrect. The success of
the translatewiki.net rally is a case in point. It does work.

Now there is a question about WHO is paying for localisations. The team of
translatewiki.net does not have the money to pay for targeted languages. We
do not have much of an incentive to do that either because it is not in our
interest. Providing better infrastructure for localisations in software and
in infrastructure is critical. LocalisationUpdate IS fundamental in bringing
localisations in a more timely manner. This has been accepted by the WMF...
for me it is a matter of putting you money where your mouth is... my mouth.

When someone ANYONE wants to pay for the localisation for a language, at
translatewiki.net we do not care about it being paid for, we care about the
quantity and the quality of localisations and we prefer it when the
localisation is paid for to do the initial localisation and the maintenance
for at least a year.. This is necessary to get the discussion going for that
language..

When the WMF says in so many words that they want to support the African
languages, it has to be be credible.. Only saying that you want to make it
happen is just talk. Having work shops in Africa in Africa is extremely
expensive when we have people fly in. For the cost of someone travelling to
South Africa , I am sure we can find people to localise African languages. I
believe that the quality of localisation is one key performance indicators
for the projects in a language.. The Dutch Wikipedia does exceedingly well
and one reason for it is that the localisation is ALWAYS complete and of the
best quality.

When a NGO is willing to pay for localisation, it makes absolute sense. It
will be dificult for the WMF or for translatewiki.net to pay for
localisation. My foundation, could if it would. It would if it had the money
and it would if it was to demonstrate the relation between quality
localisation and the state of health of a project.
Thanks.,
  GerardM



2009/8/23 Samuel Klein 

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Erik Zachte
> wrote:
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >
> >> I am of course thinking about the list of 1000 articles
> >> each wikipedia should have. Just completing a
> >> significant part of that list is an accomplishment for
> >> a tiny pool of editors, but is within reach, and
> >> can serve as a useful incentive.
> >
> > Here is the url
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have
>
> This was used as a wiki-building exercise in swahili in 2006, and it
> was rather successful.
> http://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Makala_za_msingi_za_kamusi_elezo
>
>
> > I hope one the outcomes of
> > the strategic
> > process will be that Wikimedia starts to invest more actively in outreach
> to
> > parts of the world that are in need.
>
> Agreed.  Though our greatest asset when it comes to outreach such as
> this may be the local and diaspora community members who are active
> editors/readers/supporters.
>
>
> > The current 'laissez faire' / 'trickle down' policy where we wait till
> > people start helping themselves
> > has not been very productive for some parts of the world.
>
> Agreed.  Even in English, this hasn't led to productive relationships
> with contributors in some subject areas.
>
>
> > Maybe pay for translation of a basic set of articles to any language with
> > more
> > than 1 million speakers, which is deemed in need of support, per yet to
> be
> > defined criteria?
>
> I'm not sure that paying for translation is needed, or the best
> available incentive.  Embassy-sponsored contests and writing sprints
> seem like a fine idea to me.  Fame in an educational or national
> context seems to me likely to attract potential long-term
> contributors.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests
>
>  Certainly we should expand the community to actively include people
> who already write in that language who wish to help, whether or not
> they currently are able to edit.
>
> > This could serve as incentive, show that we really care, serve as
> > example of what could follow,
> > it would make our content also appear in Google in that language,
> > which for many of us already involved has been a starting point.
> <
> > Of course there are practicalities to consider. Who guards the 100
> essential
> > articles in a language until a community self-organizes?
> > We might need a variation of the current policies for new projects, where
> > now an active community is a prerequisite.
> > Instead we might publish those 100 article as a protected showcase with
> > different procedures to open up the wiki for general editing.
>
> Why protected?  The small wiki monitors are quite able to keep a new
> wiki from being overrun.  I do see your point that having articles
> attracts contributors, as well