[Foundation-l] It Is not Us
The web itself is passé http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
> > > > > http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 > > So some guy has proved that Facebook is growing faster than the web - at least, in the USA, why would anyone care about anywhere else? - so long as you ignore the bits of the web that are growing like mobile and video. Profound insight this isn't. Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
Actually, Facebook's losing members this year, not gaining, in the US / North American market. Not that this is relevant to the WMF. The great thing about the web writ large is that everyone can participate in the things they chose to. Facebook's popularity is orthogonal to WMF participation / Wikipedia usage and editage. On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Chris Keating wrote: >> http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 >> > So some guy has proved that Facebook is growing faster than the web - at > least, in the USA, why would anyone care about anywhere else? - so long as > you ignore the bits of the web that are growing like mobile and video. > > Profound insight this isn't. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 16:03, Fred Bauder wrote: > The web itself is passé > http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 > Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. That is funny, I like statistics. Like, how can you compare a virtually contentless and worthless (in the sense of future-proofness) social network to a content carrying service network? Obviously they can. I mean, Facebook grows slower than bacteria in the Amasonas rain forests, I'm sure they're very worried about that. And the amount of snowflakes in the Arctic, it's much more than the number of FB profile pictures. Worrying. (I cannot just come up anything on facebook providing any value after a few hours it's been posted. Even "likes" for a business are of questionnable value, to put it in the mildest tone.) But I understand your long standing, almost traditional worry about Wikipedia's future. ;-) Peter ps: my 2 'cents. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
What lovely abuse of statistics! By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute* increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in total internet usage. If their numbers are correct, then facebook is growing at the expense of the rest of the internet, but without the absolute numbers you can't tell if it's doing so to a significant extent. You really need to look at the growth in total internet usage pre- and post-facebook as well. I expect the existence of facebook has caused a noticeable increase in total internet usage (compared to pre-existing trend). It is creating new internet minutes, not stealing them from other sites. You should probably also look at Facebook's direct competitors. For example, usage of MySpace has declined enormously - a lot of Facebook's growth may have come from that decline. The article suggests Facebook is hurting the rest of the internet, but if it's really only hurting other social networking sites, then there is nothing to worry about. The most important data for us to look at is here: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProjects.htm. While that does show a year-on-year decline, that actually because of a spike a year ago (I don't know why). If you smooth things out a bit, we are seeing growth (albeit fairly low growth). What the rest of the internet is doing isn't really important. On 25 June 2011 15:03, Fred Bauder wrote: > The web itself is passé > > http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 > > Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. > > Fred > > > ___ > 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] It Is not Us
Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an encyclopedia. In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations. Fred > What lovely abuse of statistics! > > By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to > draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute* > increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in > total internet usage. If their numbers are correct, then facebook is > growing at the expense of the rest of the internet, but without the > absolute numbers you can't tell if it's doing so to a significant > extent. > > You really need to look at the growth in total internet usage pre- and > post-facebook as well. I expect the existence of facebook has caused a > noticeable increase in total internet usage (compared to pre-existing > trend). It is creating new internet minutes, not stealing them from > other sites. > > You should probably also look at Facebook's direct competitors. For > example, usage of MySpace has declined enormously - a lot of > Facebook's growth may have come from that decline. The article > suggests Facebook is hurting the rest of the internet, but if it's > really only hurting other social networking sites, then there is > nothing to worry about. > > The most important data for us to look at is here: > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProjects.htm. > While that does show a year-on-year decline, that actually because of > a spike a year ago (I don't know why). If you smooth things out a bit, > we are seeing growth (albeit fairly low growth). What the rest of the > internet is doing isn't really important. > > > > On 25 June 2011 15:03, Fred Bauder wrote: >> The web itself is passé >> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 >> >> Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. >> >> Fred >> >> >> ___ >> 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] It Is not Us
> Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they > can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an > encyclopedia. > > In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages > can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations. Are you saying Wikipedia should be less like an encyclopedia and more like a social network? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On 26 June 2011 17:46, Fred Bauder wrote: > Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they > can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an > encyclopedia. > > In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages > can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations. It's important to keep in mind that Facebook and Wikipedia have very different user structures. Facebook has one group: individual users chatting to their friends. There are some commercial entities doing stuff too, but the vast majority of users are just people chatting. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has too groups: readers and editors. There isn't a clear line between the two, but there is definitely a difference between readers and editors. That makes a very big difference when looking at these kind of statistics. Facebook just needs to look at how much people are using the site. We need to look at both how much people are editing and how much people are reading. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
Hoi. Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When we show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. Thanks, GerardM On 26 June 2011 18:48, Chris Keating wrote: > > Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they > > can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an > > encyclopedia. > > > > In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages > > can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations. > > > Are you saying Wikipedia should be less like an encyclopedia and more like > a > social network? > ___ > 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] It Is not Us
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi. > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When we > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. > Thanks, > GerardM That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive people away. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:43, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the well wikipedia is about to create value for long term - social networks are about to create worthless things for the moment. g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:43, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the > > well wikipedia is about to create value for long term - social > networks are about to create worthless things for the moment. > > g > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > +1 As you mentioned earlier, Peter, most things on Facebook are in-the-moment and do last in any sort of repository of things people want to read for educational value. There is some entertainment value in places like lamebook.com, but that humor generally isn't above the brow (there is some witty banter, though). Our talk pages, on the other hand, provide insight in the archives on how the social dynamics shaped the creation of a product as well as provide general institutional knowledge. Wikimedia social networking features such as talk pages, mailing lists, and IRC channels produce millions of lines of collaborative work. This is what makes our system valuable. -- ~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] It Is not Us
+1 to Keegan. Different activities attract different thought of people. Social interactivity of Wikimedia websites and beyond is one of charms of Wikimedia movement, but it is a beneficial side effect of the Movement, a necessary consequence of its collaborative production to gather "the sum of the human knowledge" online for freely access. Spreading online social network pleasure itself is no mission of Wikimedia. Also I'd like to join Thomas's insight statistics should be accurate if we'd like to use on a basis of analysis. We cannot deduce a meaningful thought from wrongly combined statistics. Also on user consuming hours on the Web, I think it too much hypothetical everyone uses the same amount of time on a given tool, say, the Internet, which seems to me behind the stats mentioned. Cheers, Cheers, On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Peter Gervai wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:43, Gerard Meijssen >> wrote: >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the >> >> well wikipedia is about to create value for long term - social >> networks are about to create worthless things for the moment. >> >> g >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > +1 > > As you mentioned earlier, Peter, most things on Facebook are in-the-moment > and do last in any sort of repository of things people want to read for > educational value. There is some entertainment value in places like > lamebook.com, but that humor generally isn't above the brow (there is some > witty banter, though). > > Our talk pages, on the other hand, provide insight in the archives on how > the social dynamics shaped the creation of a product as well as provide > general institutional knowledge. Wikimedia social networking features such > as talk pages, mailing lists, and IRC channels produce millions of lines of > collaborative work. This is what makes our system valuable. > > -- > ~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 > -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
Hoi, I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. In my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special projects. We need to. Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our activities. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks.html On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > Hoi. > > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the > > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some > > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When > we > > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic > > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a > social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can > be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social > network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other > social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la > Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to > know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction > would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive > people away. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
> Hoi, > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. > In > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special > projects. We need to. > > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our > activities. > Thanks, > GerardM I always go back to the userbox controversy when I think about this. What would we look like if we had not only embraced userboxes but created a complex system of user categories based on them? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. In > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special > projects. We need to. Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about giving them a catchy name like "WikiProjects". Maybe we could give every article a "talk page" for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was some protocol for real time chats we could use... > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our activities. > Thanks, I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? Pete / the wub > On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen >> wrote: >> > Hoi. >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the >> > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some >> > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When >> we >> > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic >> > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> >> That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a >> social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can >> be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social >> network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other >> social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la >> Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive >> people away. >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
Hoi, Recently research showed that the majority of our editors is multi lingual and edits on multiple projects. This is without considering Commons ... I have a user on 491 projects and I am certainly not the only one who has many many profiles. As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages, we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been on single projects. We can do better and we should do better for our majority. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks-ii.html On 28 June 2011 13:27, Peter Coombe wrote: > On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. > In > > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced > > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special > > projects. We need to. > > Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about > giving them a catchy name like "WikiProjects". Maybe we could give > every article a "talk page" for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's > go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was > some protocol for real time chats we could use... > > > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an > > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our > activities. > > Thanks, > > I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly > what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? > > Pete / the wub > > > > On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen > >> wrote: > >> > Hoi. > >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with > the > >> > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some > >> > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. > When > >> we > >> > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic > >> > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. > >> > Thanks, > >> > GerardM > >> > >> That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a > >> social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can > >> be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social > >> network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other > >> social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la > >> Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to > >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction > >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive > >> people away. > >> > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
> Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to > know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction > would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive > people away. > >From my perspective, this is exactly what is happening. Too many people want to be in the focus of attraction, and too many are doing politics instead of writing an encyclopaedia. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
>> Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive >> people away. >> > >>From my perspective, this is exactly what is happening. Too many people > want to be in the focus of attraction, and too many are doing politics > instead of writing an encyclopaedia. > > Cheers > Yaroslav Yes, that was the thinking behind suppression of full development of userboxes. Probably wise. But it still leaves us with underground movements, some with governments behind them--Turkey China Israel and doubtless more. And there are the professional, and amateur, public relations people promoting commercial and religious products. Actually, it is a miracle we do as well as we do. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
It looks like we understand the potential risks of adding social features, but I don't know that the merits have sunk in. ==Don't call it a Social Network, don't think of it as a revolution== Th first thing to do is banish the word "Social Network" from the discussion. "Social Network" evokes "Myspace and Facebook", which aren't exactly popular around here, a sentiment I share.When we talk about adding social features to Wikimedia, you must delete all your preconceptions about what a 'social network' is, and break it down into the most fundamental concept-- socializing on a network. Nobody here wants us to just become 'another' Facebook, shudder at the thought. We want to learn from social networks and keep the usable bits-- we don't want to literally become one. If that sound scary, remember changes around here are either optional or gradual or both-- never dramatic, unforeseen, controversial, and imposed. We wouldn't just make a facebook host on Wikimedia Instead, we'd start by little tiny things--Extension:Wikilove on prototype's a great example. We saw a feature of social networks that WAS consistent with our values-- the per-user "thumbs up". We wouldn't just feed that global social space straight into en.wp, we'd put it on incubator and probably start off with very boring projects like "Copy your home-project user page here and we'll help you translate it".Rules might eventually loosen, but a good starting point would be 'the kind of content projects routinely allow in user space or meta space"-- but in one single unified space, the logical extension to the single unified login. The point is, 'social features' on existing projects would be slow, gradual, with lots of talking, lots of debate, and maybe a couple referendums thrown in for good measure. We're not going to devolve overnight from our current status literally, "The most useful single collection of information on the planet" to merely a useless "innane personal trivial" overnight. We're easing into a slightly more social outlook, we aren't having a revolution or anything :) .We're mining other successful internet projects for the lessons we can learn from their-- we aren't out to blindly copy them and abandon our own mission. Terms like "A Facebook for Wikipedia" communicate an important idea in very few characters-- but it also brings a lot of misconceptions too. And we really do need these need these semi-social features. We have important work ahead of us, and we absolutely do need to increase our intercommunication/socialization abilities if we're going to do our best at that job. And it will NOT make us Facebook or Myspace. == Socializing is essential to intelligently running a Global Foundation== The community is a part of the leadership of the foundation. The community contributed in a billion ways throughout the year, but elections especially require the global community to come together intelligently make very important decisions. To help run a foundation, we need to be able to talk to each other. talk to each other, and we need to understand each others values, not just their votes, not even just their direct rationales-- we have to understand each others values. I have to intelligent collaborate with people without knowing _anything_ about their culture, their values, or their traditions. I know what my projects' missions are, but I don't automatically presume to know what their projects' purposes are just because the sign on the door says "Wikipedia". If you ask me to make a global decision, one of the first things I want to know is what editors of other projects and other languages believe. There are changes I feel comfortable supporting for my own home project, but I wouldn't want to 'impose' as a global policy unless I can hear from the people being affected. Right now, there's no permanent venue for that kind of discussion. We can't really form policy with a community that can't communicate with itself.Having a semi-social space where everyone's in the same place, can use the same templates, can see the same user pages, etc-- that alone would be good. ==Socializing promotes high-quality, NPOV articles== If I am editing the English language biography of a historical Arabic-language subject, I want to be able to communicate with the Arabic-language users and enlist their help understanding whatever it is I need help with.When I see articles on wars fought by English-speaking nations against non-English-speaking nations, I always wonder what the "other side's" article's look like, but machine translation only goes so far.Right now, it's hard for bilingual editors of corresponding articles to ever get to share notes unless the idea occurs to them on their own-- socializing would help promote the idea that cross-language collaboration is a good thing. "Spanish-American War", you should talk to the editors of the corresponding article on es! Here's a list
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages, > we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been > on single projects. We can do better and we should do better for our > majority. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks-ii.html I can second this massively-multilingual finding-- going through the language data, it's very clear that we do not have hundred of separate populations, we populations that are highly interconnected and full of overlap, in really interesting ways. Early in the last election, I had an instinct that our lack of discussion was being caused by a lack of communication skills. This instinct turned out to be dead wrong-- glad I actually looked. Certainly there are language barriers, but they are smaller than I expected.The untapped potential for a viable a global community IS in fact here-- we just have to rally that nascent community. Alec See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alecmconroy/Language_study#Visualizing_our_languages ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
Well, respectfully I disagree, Gerard, on your view, or analysis of the stats. Edit is used vague on our community: from writing a FA almost alone to doing a WiiGnome task. We need both, but those two activities require not a same amount of communication skills as well involvement to wiki editing commuity lives. We have a certain number of people who edit several languages. I edit English Wikiquote and Japanese (even most of those edits are on talks or project name spaces). I know some translators who edit several languages - but I'm not sure we assure every those "multilingual" editors edit main namespace of each projects mainly. I was honored to be called Aphaia on all wikis once by a certain editor who visited #wikipedia.ja, but it didn't mean I was then active as writer of articles - rather it may have meant I created interlang links aggressively. So I'd like to ask in which way we keep and assure our community as multilingual? Honestly I have been thinking this for years seriously. Even on meta, it was not once I was accused just because I left a note in Japanese - when I had a hardship to express my opinion enough in English. I remember still how I was accused then - I was accused because I didn't write in English "the language everyone can read". How then can such a community multilingual? Or in other words, what have we been doing for making our community multilingual? We have devout translators - and always I thank them and feel honored to collaborate with them, but, or because I have been working with them, I feel we need more other ways to assure and empower multilingual aspects of our Wikimedia community. Cheers, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Recently research showed that the majority of our editors is multi lingual > and edits on multiple projects. This is without considering Commons ... I > have a user on 491 projects and I am certainly not the only one who has many > many profiles. > > As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages, > we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been > on single projects. We can do better and we should do better for our > majority. > Thanks, > GerardM > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks-ii.html > > On 28 June 2011 13:27, Peter Coombe wrote: > >> On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> > Hoi, >> > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. >> In >> > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced >> > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special >> > projects. We need to. >> >> Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about >> giving them a catchy name like "WikiProjects". Maybe we could give >> every article a "talk page" for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's >> go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was >> some protocol for real time chats we could use... >> >> > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an >> > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our >> activities. >> > Thanks, >> >> I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly >> what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? >> >> Pete / the wub >> >> >> > On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hoi. >> >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with >> the >> >> > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some >> >> > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. >> When >> >> we >> >> > show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic >> >> > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > GerardM >> >> >> >> That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a >> >> social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can >> >> be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a "social >> >> network" can only be interpreted as making it more like some other >> >> social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la >> >> Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to >> >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction >> >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive >> >> people away. >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> foundation-l mailing list >> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> >> > ___ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundat
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
> So I'd like to ask in which way we keep and assure our community as > multilingual? Honestly I have been thinking this for years seriously. > Even on meta, it was not once I was accused just because I left a note > in Japanese - when I had a hardship to express my opinion enough in > English. I remember still how I was accused then - I was accused > because I didn't write in English "the language everyone can read". > > How then can such a community multilingual? Or in other words, what > have we been doing for making our community multilingual? We have > devout translators - and always I thank them and feel honored to > collaborate with them, but, or because I have been working with them, > I feel we need more other ways to assure and empower multilingual > aspects of our Wikimedia community. > > Cheers, I believe that in this context the multilingual community means that the source of information can be in any language, and the information is created and stored in as many languages possible. This is in my opinion the most important. The rest - what language we use for communication in the projects, whether there is any coordination of the policies of different projects, or whatever - may be important by itself but not the core of our business. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
I think people should be more flexible in their postings. It is OK to write a message in Japanese and also in not quite perfect, or even rather poor English. Send both. And if there is no English just use Japanese, even on this list. We can all go to Google translate and see more or less what it says. The world is moving simultaneously in two directions: English as lingua franca and towards mulilingualism. I have no real hope of learning Japanese, but if someone is young and spending a lot of time on a multilingual site they are going to learn other languages naturally. People can be very fluent in their native language. There is no reason they should not use it and say exactly what they mean. Fred > Well, respectfully I disagree, Gerard, on your view, or analysis of > the stats. Edit is used vague on our community: from writing a FA > almost alone to doing a WiiGnome task. We need both, but those two > activities require not a same amount of communication skills as well > involvement to wiki editing commuity lives. > > We have a certain number of people who edit several languages. I edit > English Wikiquote and Japanese (even most of those edits are on talks > or project name spaces). I know some translators who edit several > languages - but I'm not sure we assure every those "multilingual" > editors edit main namespace of each projects mainly. I was honored to > be called Aphaia on all wikis once by a certain editor who visited > #wikipedia.ja, but it didn't mean I was then active as writer of > articles - rather it may have meant I created interlang links > aggressively. > > So I'd like to ask in which way we keep and assure our community as > multilingual? Honestly I have been thinking this for years seriously. > Even on meta, it was not once I was accused just because I left a note > in Japanese - when I had a hardship to express my opinion enough in > English. I remember still how I was accused then - I was accused > because I didn't write in English "the language everyone can read". > > How then can such a community multilingual? Or in other words, what > have we been doing for making our community multilingual? We have > devout translators - and always I thank them and feel honored to > collaborate with them, but, or because I have been working with them, > I feel we need more other ways to assure and empower multilingual > aspects of our Wikimedia community. > > Cheers, > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: >> Hoi, >> Recently research showed that the majority of our editors is multi >> lingual >> and edits on multiple projects. This is without considering Commons ... >> I >> have a user on 491 projects and I am certainly not the only one who has >> many >> many profiles. >> >> As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many >> languages, >> we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always >> been >> on single projects. We can do better and we should do better for our >> majority. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defence-of-social-networks-ii.html >> >> On 28 June 2011 13:27, Peter Coombe wrote: >> >>> On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen >>> wrote: >>> > Hoi, >>> > I have read the replies that are against social networking >>> functionality. >>> In >>> > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd >>> sourced >>> > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support >>> special >>> > projects. We need to. >>> >>> Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about >>> giving them a catchy name like "WikiProjects". Maybe we could give >>> every article a "talk page" for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's >>> go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was >>> some protocol for real time chats we could use... >>> >>> > Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter >>> or an >>> > IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our >>> activities. >>> > Thanks, >>> >>> I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly >>> what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? >>> >>> Pete / the wub >>> >>> >>> > On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hoi. >>> >> > Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us >>> with >>> the >>> >> > opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source >>> some >>> >> > activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular >>> newbies. >>> When >>> >> we >>> >> > show a social side to our work on open content (not only >>> encyclopaedic >>> >> > content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. >>> >> > Thanks, >>> >> > GerardM >>> >> >>> >> That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a >>> >> social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the proje
