Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/2010 23:23, Keegan Peterzell wrote: If you're never read it, you'd probably enjoy this article from the Journal of American History penned by the late, great Dr. Roy Rosenzweig from June 2006: http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 Lot of useful information, thank you. I'd like to pinpoint a few arguments from it: Among other things, the no original research policy limiting expert implication... I was always bothered by Wikipedia being a repository of traditional knowledge but not novel, challenging, trying ideas. Why not add a tab for each article, called hypothesis where original research is tolerated, though all the other wp rules still apply? People who don't want speculation or dubious content would read the main tab, people who want to know possible interpretations and hypothesis would also read the secondary tab. Also, it seems that experts and academicians don't like being challenged by profanes. (I think they need to learn to be) The Internet would now grind to a halt without such free and open-source resources as the operating system Linux, the Web server software Apache, the database MySql, and the programming language php. If someone can backup this affirmation with studies and sources, I would be grateful. I think there is a direct link between free software and free knowledge and culture. The transformation of solutions and ideas into proprietary goods with monetary value is a dead end, I think, and the major obstacle to progress and freedom. But it's extremely difficult to prove or disprove this theory because of the magnitude and complexity of its scope. However, it is essential to try to understand what is happening and what may happen with knowledge, both with the traditional systems and the free ones like wp. If we manage to have a clear idea and model of it, we can build better our philosophy, explain it better, and possibly achieve a bigger consensus. Back on the subject of encouraging participation, a general consideration: Practical solutions are immediate and efficient, but usually lead to unwanted deviations from the principles. So one should always ask himself or herself, what are the consequences of this practical solution? How strong is the change of perspective it introduces? Is this change desirable, mergeable with our main goals, or at least reversible? Or will we corrupt our direction for too long (or forever) if we implement this working approach? This questioning is notable with the recent questions of attracting more users, of censorship and of attracting experts. Should we retain our policies and stall our development or should we introduce change to keep growing? My point is to judge the impact of the change comparing it to our long-term direction. We cannot trade a short-term benefit for a long-term goal (expressed in our policies) if the modifications cannot be changed later. If we cede to censorship, can we regain our loss of independance? If we invite frivolous minds, can we educate them? If we give privileges to experts, can we teach them to rescind them later? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMH53tAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LDk4IAOOWkp0UQ9rcZ3HSv/og+GYu 9nF83JJz0LJ51GtPh28vcapxLsOghmFVGCrd/tD9AesGj9uh3F5LhAi/THxEJDxu wY+YpCN/A/6poTxaazy7x06n+cdJ3Yo3Q4UYdA9XP3V63352m/kp7hIT2hArhqeL wqxP58PD2XNEMgg3E8LX2UfdD7gLp6jB+Cd+F7Zmiw5mvLJ8y0j3CnH0yR19PxVs BCI1DZKZKOdfoAN+Jo2H8yxhe3zeIgwS5nEyJ5iJIvkt5Iuu2Yv8cjOS5NIsJ2e3 0zUZWiMmHSaxbDV9KsF2mgotNluYej5LOBOrdkeAsZeybkc5Q2eb+w2D4EPQe1o= =VnOr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: If we cede to censorship, can we regain our loss of independance? If we invite frivolous minds, can we educate them? If we give privileges to experts, can we teach them to rescind them later? I think if we've learned anything, it is our ability to right the ship. At one point I thought of Wikimedia as a pontoon, with a motor. At this point, it is a catamaran, with a sail hanging high. In the long run we'll reach shore, until then we're sailing in any direction. Which is fine, because for some reason it works. When we wind up at a strange island, we'll figure out the language. Magellan taught us that :) -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/2010 03:25, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: But now it's standard for any site to have well-structured facepages (profiles) to provide for academic the mean to: * properly introduce himself/herself; * get the idea about who is some other contributor/peer; * communicate with other people in well-structured way (structured by groups with particular interests etc.) with modern means to express support of one's opinion etc. It seems founded. So my point is not increase of distraction from content (as main object of contributor care, intended care I would stress) but the opposite - significant decrease of such distraction by eliminating the need of DIY self-care (which is not intended at all). I think it would be interesting to develop this idea. The last but far not least: if we really would like to attract more academics we have to change socialization policies and/or traditions as academics (most of them) don't like/appreciate blind (anonymous) peer cooperation. We could make a expert class of users, widely known, with admin powers on pages of their domain of expertise, with the possibility to lock articles temporarily from normal editors during edit wars. But they should be expected to give fair attention to alternatives, and respect the NPOV. They would still respond to admins and superadmins. Or would it be too conflicting with the wikimedians principles? I'm always dubious about compromises, because they generally achieve no other goal that artificial consensus at the cost of the conflicting goals. Or we can look at that in such way: if we are talking about credibility of content we have to talk about credibility of contributors as peers in teamwork first. Maybe convincing internationally recognized experts to contribute articles as wp users (like Hawking on Astrophysics) would start the desire among experts to have a say among their peers? So wp could become a little more a place of exchange of expert knowledge. That's why we will need as much of realexact info on facepages as possible plus as much de-virtualization by mean of meetups as possible. Look on experience of de:WP. Why not create Wikipedians clubs in localities and schools that try to maintain a few pages about specific information dear to the members, yet still of encyclopedic value, like the local history or cultural highlights or natural wonders or a local artist or project, or just a shared dream, a story, a feeling, a song, etc. Why not propose to schools to publish the adventurous projects of each classes in a special section of the WMF foundation ? Sincerely, Pavlo On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:16 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHl4KAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LQPsH/3zdYUVHtsCezGM13Xx3DR5B LLLzbctmxTbDy+HrkEQWRWZacZvGGNNa6/ke5vKymLphfsurge7+UkJxZFFtHQeC zSgnL3it2sDYSUVhtsGF9s63hzz1L/oUUz7qmKSiNxsM885aCk+t5W729Zt0a/1c DMlKRKjWWowUDJsIHdqQ3g4KbTbhs+zkH+KaCFWQx41cT5otDT73ExlaETaHksYT WTqAm/8mXdjgFP4Np/fJ5m/OyYV35pmE5uZzHAq69MQLKXVTSoOcC7CdYF34lQHV m8zlz4xu/5tCBcRsnOdWIUvhpoXeh4UbHG9jLUhHShKp0Bm60c1NAd9cnjBausg= =4e98 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
--- El sáb 19-jun-10, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió: Any idea how to improve their motivation? Considering how similar we Argentines are to the Serbs I would suggest to take a far less scientific approach: Motivate them to write about their home towns, football teams, favourite players, pop-singer, etc. Once they have climbed the learning curve of not only the interface but the entire social context behind editing Wikipedia, it's a lot easier to focus them into a WikiProject to improve the content of a specific scientific topic. Tako sam i ja počeo! Good luck, Mariano.- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/2010 01:49, Milos Rancic wrote: * At another faculty we have a teaching assistant among Wikimedians. After two projects, we've concluded cooperation because students didn't quite understand work on Wikipedia and started with confrontation. That information is key. Why people from the teaching establishment don't understand Wikipedia? Why don't they see, for example, that it's one of the best ideas about protecting and sharing information? Why do they judge it so mediocre when they can participate to make it brilliant? Why people in the education doesn't see or understand this? What are their arguments and their inner barriers? Do they have good counter arguments, is it a prejudice, an incompatibility of personality, or ignorance? Where are the explanations? What IS Wikipedia? What are the structures and consequences of this meme, this slogan: imagine a world where each human being has access to the entire human knowledge? Where are they theorized, wordized, schematized? Do the members of this mailing list even agree? Do we know what wp is? Where are the wikimedian efforts converging to? What kind of world are they creating? Have we got tendency towards democracy, consensus, participation, sharing, unanimity, respect, liberty, freedom of expression and of choice, listening, dialoguing, or have we not? Why people, values, projects and actions of betterment (to our eyes) of the world are not listened to, trusted, voted, seconded, motioned, consensually applied, critically applauded, desired, rewarded and understood? If you're never read it, you'd probably enjoy this article from the Journal of American History penned by the late, great Dr. Roy Rosenzweig from June 2006: http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
I have found some of the suggestions for increasing participation strange. Wikipedia is not a MMORG, it is not a social networking site, it is not a file/picture/video hosting service, it is an online encyclopedia. Some people like the first three. However trying to turn Wikipedia into a combination of them is not how we go about writing an encyclopedia. We need to attract people who are interested in writing an encyclopedia and need to drive away / direct to the appropriate venue those who are looking for something different. My suggestion for increasing editor numbers would be to promote Wikipedia at Universities. McGill has a Wikipedia club. Promoting the formation of clubs at other Universities would have a positive influence. Currently most University students are female ( about 55% ) http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091023110831548 however Asperger syndrome occurs 5 times more frequently in males than females. This might have something to do with the gender ratio we see. :-) -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
I would support Gerard's point that Wikipedia needs to have strong community (social network in modern buzzwords) as all such projects are results of well coordinated effort of community (with work differentiation etc.) but not of chaotic crowd/horde of individuals. Common goal and work means community, doesn't it? What is more important - community or communication is chicken-egg dilemma obviously. So regarding Wikipedia is not a ... social networking site, it is not a file/picture/video hosting service, it is an online encyclopedia. I think that Wikipedia is same time online encyclopedia (in it front pages so to say) _and_ social networking site (to maintain project community ecosystem) _and_ hosting service (to provide multimedia for articles) in it back-office. Regarding MMORG situation is much different because of strong negative side effect(s) of this metaphor/attitude being used for Wikipedia. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, With due respect, the amount of wordage on our talk pages, IRC channels, mailing lists and even skype calls and conferences is such that I disagree with you. It is exactly because we do not foster communication that many people do not feel at home at Wikipedia. The first years of Wikipedia there were no social networking sites and Wikipedia gave a sense of community. Now that such sites are well established, we find that we do not find the new people that we so desperately want come to us. Yes, we are about creating educational content in our Wikipedia, Wiktionary and .. and .. We have however our fair share of social problems and your appreciation of what improved social networking functionality has to offer is sadly wrong. Look at Wikia they have invested in a healthy community and it is paying off for them because they show a healthy grow. Your suggestion of clubs at universities is in and of itself a good one. These clubs are welcome, they are able to bring us new contributors. The question I have for you is, do you realise that such a club is a social structure and effectively very much like what you dismissed in your proposal? So in conclusion, we should care for our social networks and we should grow them in any way we can. You are right that the creation of educational content is what we achieve, but we should appreciate our social networks for what they do; they bring us and keep us together. Thanks, GerardM On 19 June 2010 13:51, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: I have found some of the suggestions for increasing participation strange. Wikipedia is not a MMORG, it is not a social networking site, it is not a file/picture/video hosting service, it is an online encyclopedia. Some people like the first three. However trying to turn Wikipedia into a combination of them is not how we go about writing an encyclopedia. We need to attract people who are interested in writing an encyclopedia and need to drive away / direct to the appropriate venue those who are looking for something different. My suggestion for increasing editor numbers would be to promote Wikipedia at Universities. McGill has a Wikipedia club. Promoting the formation of clubs at other Universities would have a positive influence. Currently most University students are female ( about 55% ) http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091023110831548 however Asperger syndrome occurs 5 times more frequently in males than females. This might have something to do with the gender ratio we see. :-) -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ 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] Encouraging participation
To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:16 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. We were and are working with various professors of Belgrade University. In brief: benefits are thin. * One of the Serbian Wikimedians is a professor who is working at one of the top institutes in US. He has almost cult status at one of the faculties in Belgrade: If he says that something should be done, that is out of question. So, he made an initiative to introduce professors and students in work on Wikipedia. I've made two lectures and we had one set of student's works. And we had just one set of students' works. * At another faculty we have a teaching assistant among Wikimedians. After two projects, we've concluded cooperation because students didn't quite understand work on Wikipedia and started with confrontation. * At one more faculty (actually, just a different department of the previous one), I made similar cooperation. It passed as the first one. Just one set of students' works. I am still trying to make a long term cooperation with some professor or so. But, it is not going easy. The most of the participants in that process are not motivated properly for participation in Wikipedia. It is not fun to them. Any idea how to improve their motivation? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
Hello James, It seems to me (moreover I'm quite sure) that nobody is talking about making content editing more complicate and/or about fancy and nasty distracting stuff like different bellswhistles. But now it's standard for any site to have well-structured facepages (profiles) to provide for academic the mean to: * properly introduce himself/herself; * get the idea about who is some other contributor/peer; * communicate with other people in well-structured way (structured by groups with particular interests etc.) with modern means to express support of one's opinion etc. Yes, Wikimedia platform provides very flexible and rather mighty (HTML-based) DIY means to organize some profile/facepage but they distract from content creation, do not they (as well as any DIY stuff do)? Yes, Wikimedia platform provides very flexible and rather mighty (HTML-based) DIY-means to organize some groups of interest (portals, projects) but... (see above). So my point is not increase of distraction from content (as main object of contributor care, intended care I would stress) but the opposite - significant decrease of such distraction by eliminating the need of DIY self-care (which is not intended at all). The last but far not least: if we really would like to attract more academics we have to change socialization policies and/or traditions as academics (most of them) don't like/appreciate blind (anonymous) peer cooperation. Or we can look at that in such way: if we are talking about credibility of content we have to talk about credibility of contributors as peers in teamwork first. That's why we will need as much of realexact info on facepages as possible plus as much de-virtualization by mean of meetups as possible. Look on experience of de:WP. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:16 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ 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
