Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[John Vandenberg]

It would be good to extend the research of War of 1812 to non-English
Wikipedias.

I've had a quick look and it is surprising how many of the articles 'pretty
good', but none are very good. I think that there is a depth level at which
non-English writers say 'I could easily add more, but the [non-English]
article is good enough; if you want more detail you'll almost certainly
know English language and should go read the English article. My time is
better spent expanding another [non-English] article that isnt yet good
enough.'

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Oct 29, 2012 3:28 AM, "Steven Walling"  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Richard Jensen  wrote:
>
>> Look at it demographically: apart from teenage boys coming of age, the
>> population of computer-literate people who are ignorant of Wikipedia is
>> very small indeed in 2012.  That was not true in 2005 when lots of editors
>> joined up and did a lot of work on important articles.
>
>
> You seem to be disregarding the entirety of the developing world and
> non-English speakers in that statement.
>
> --
> Steven Walling
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[Laura Hale]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <
langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Therefore, does occasional editors matter ? I should say yes. For
> instance, on the French wikipedia some new editor did a brilliant job on
> [[Napoléon III]]. Once the article became an FA, he stopped being active :
> to him, its main, ponctual, work was over.
>
>
The different types of editing should be understood.  I might have an
interest in [[Lauren Jackson]] and actively maintain the article about her
during her competitive career.  That's all I might do on Wikipedia is work
on that one article, where I've substantially improved that one article.

On the other hand, I might be a big fan of the [[Canberra Capitals]],
[[Seattle Storm]] or [[Australia women's national basketball team]] and
work on editing inside the main article and all articles that relate to it,
but not to articles about the Bullen Boomers, Chicago Sky or women's
basketball.

At the same time, I could be an editor that likes women's sport so I edit
everything in and around that topic.  This would include Lauren Jackson,
women's basketball, the Chicago Sky in addition to Mia Hamm, [[Florence
Griffith-Joyner]], [[Cambodia women's national football team]].

At each level, there are potential issues for how to approach it for
content improvements: How much you do, when you do it, etc.  It gets
interesting when you start looking at editing nodes (not for the whole
Wikipedia necessarily) but for specific topic areas.  You can begin to see
this pattern more clearly.  I can tell you based on my own observations
that the broad group tends to not do substantial content additions but
article maintenance, category additions, etc.  They appear everywhere, may
even have high edit counts but if you look at the content added, it isn't
much.

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

Well, I don't think that the real discrepancy lays between IPs and users. 
Registration is purely a matter of formality : as you get acquainted with 
Wikipedia as an IP, you are likely to contemplate the advantages of having a 
unique identity. It is not that IPs never write FAs, but that, most of the 
time, they finally go through the registration process before finishing their 
work.

Yet, we can perhaps draw a reliable distinction between occasional and 
(relatively) permanent editors. The first one are rather passing by, writing 
only the stuff they are interested in, going away from wiki once they feel 
tired of it, possibly coming back whenever they feel like it. The second one go 
extensively beyond their initial scope of edition and get to assume the current 
general affairs of the community.

Therefore, does occasional editors matter ? I should say yes. For instance, on 
the French wikipedia some new editor did a brilliant job on [[Napoléon III]]. 
Once the article became an FA, he stopped being active : to him, its main, 
ponctual, work was over.

Le 30 oct. 2012 à 20:59, Laura Hale  a écrit :

> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
> Well, this is based on  my experience as GA author and reviewer. I have never 
> seen an IP successfully nominate an article (I did see nominations once or 
> twice, they failed quickly, as the articles were not up to GA level and IP 
> never came back). And of course, I have yet to see an IP GA reviewer (that is 
> not a troll or a useless if good faithed newbie). If you are aware of any 
> successful GANs were the primary author was an IP, I'd like to look at them. 
> I'd hypothesize that:
> 
> But that wasn't the point raised.  The point raised was not: can IP addresses 
> successfully navigate Wikipedia process?  It was: can IP addresses 
> successfully create content?  If you're focused solely on process, then yes, 
> correct.  You will not see IP addresses engaged their because the rules 
> generally prohibit it.
> 
> On the other hand, if the issue is can ip addresses create content, then it 
> appears to me, yes, they can create content and do so successfully without 
> getting their content rolled back.  They are an important group.  in the area 
> I write in, between 10% and 35% of all edits to articles appear to be made by 
> IP addresses.  (Most of them based on the regional interest for the topic.)  
> They often include information that has improved articles and can learn 
> sourcing.  This is not always the case, but happens often enough that their 
> editor value should be considered.
> -- 
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[Laura Hale]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

>  Well, this is based on  my experience as GA author and reviewer. I have
> never seen an IP successfully nominate an article (I did see nominations
> once or twice, they failed quickly, as the articles were not up to GA level
> and IP never came back). And of course, I have yet to see an IP GA reviewer
> (that is not a troll or a useless if good faithed newbie). If you are aware
> of any successful GANs were the primary author was an IP, I'd like to look
> at them. I'd hypothesize that:
>

But that wasn't the point raised.  The point raised was not: can IP
addresses successfully navigate Wikipedia process?  It was: can IP
addresses successfully create content?  If you're focused solely on
process, then yes, correct.  You will not see IP addresses engaged their
because the rules generally prohibit it.

On the other hand, if the issue is can ip addresses create content, then it
appears to me, yes, they can create content and do so successfully without
getting their content rolled back.  They are an important group.  in the
area I write in, between 10% and 35% of all edits to articles appear to be
made by IP addresses.  (Most of them based on the regional interest for the
topic.)  They often include information that has improved articles and can
learn sourcing.  This is not always the case, but happens often enough that
their editor value should be considered.
-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[Jodi Schneider]

GA is not necessarily like other articles. Among other things, more
knowledge of process and more task-focused collaboration are probably
typical (any evidence of that?).

For the German WP, there is solid research on FA, concluding that "We
explore on the German Wikipedia whether only the mere number of
contributors makes the difference or whether the high quality of featured
articles results from having experienced authors contributing with a
reputation for high quality contributions. Our results indicate that it
does matter who contributes."
Stein, K., & Hess, C. (2007). Does it matter who contributes: A study on
featured articles in the German Wikipedia. In *HT '07: Proceedings of the
eighteenth conference on hypertext and hypermedia* (pp. 171-174). ACM.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1286240.128629

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:

>  Well, this is based on  my experience as GA author and reviewer. I have
> never seen an IP successfully nominate an article (I did see nominations
> once or twice, they failed quickly, as the articles were not up to GA level
> and IP never came back). And of course, I have yet to see an IP GA reviewer
> (that is not a troll or a useless if good faithed newbie). If you are aware
> of any successful GANs were the primary author was an IP, I'd like to look
> at them. I'd hypothesize that:
> * they are a tiny percentage of the whole (if we have more than a 10 GAs
> written by anons in our pool of 15,000 or so, I'd be very surprised; if
> more than 100 I am willing to eat a hat, or more constructively, I'll write
> a DYK (if possible) on a subject of your choice :D);
> * majority of anon-written GAs are old, have been already delisted, or
> would not pass a modern GA review (and if nominated for a current GA
> review, would fail, due to not meeting criteria and the primary author
> being unreachable to address the issues raised).
>
> --
> Piotr Konieczny
>
> "To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on 
> one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
>
> On 10/29/2012 4:30 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Piotr Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> Anonymous or low activity editors can contribute high quality content,
>> certainly, but quantity (and by extrapolation, most quality) comes from
>> registered ones.
>>
>> (Case in point: no GA or FA can be written by an anon, or a SPE; and most
>> of the primary contributors to those articles likely have many high quality
>> edits to a large number of other articles).
>>
>
> What is this based on?  I've seen a number of articles written by IP
> addresses that have been GA quality articles.  Anyone can nominate a GA.
> (I could have nominated them for instance.)  Rules may prohibit their
> nomination at FA, but rules at GA do not prohibit articles primarily
> written by IP addresses from being nominated.
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing 
> listWiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] War of 1812 and all that

[Piotr Konieczny]

Well, this is based on  my experience as GA author and reviewer. I have 
never seen an IP successfully nominate an article (I did see nominations 
once or twice, they failed quickly, as the articles were not up to GA 
level and IP never came back). And of course, I have yet to see an IP GA 
reviewer (that is not a troll or a useless if good faithed newbie). If 
you are aware of any successful GANs were the primary author was an IP, 
I'd like to look at them. I'd hypothesize that:
* they are a tiny percentage of the whole (if we have more than a 10 GAs 
written by anons in our pool of 15,000 or so, I'd be very surprised; if 
more than 100 I am willing to eat a hat, or more constructively, I'll 
write a DYK (if possible) on a subject of your choice :D);
* majority of anon-written GAs are old, have been already delisted, or 
would not pass a modern GA review (and if nominated for a current GA 
review, would fail, due to not meeting criteria and the primary author 
being unreachable to address the issues raised).


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's 
laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski

On 10/29/2012 4:30 PM, Laura Hale wrote:



On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Piotr Konieczny > wrote:


Anonymous or low activity editors can contribute high quality
content, certainly, but quantity (and by extrapolation, most
quality) comes from registered ones.

(Case in point: no GA or FA can be written by an anon, or a SPE;
and most of the primary contributors to those articles likely have
many high quality edits to a large number of other articles).


What is this based on?  I've seen a number of articles written by IP 
addresses that have been GA quality articles.  Anyone can nominate a 
GA.  (I could have nominated them for instance.)  Rules may prohibit 
their nomination at FA, but rules at GA do not prohibit articles 
primarily written by IP addresses from being nominated.


--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com 



___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] A wiki search engine

[emijrp]

Finally we decided a name and registered domains: LibreFind.

2012/10/27 Bastien Guerry 

> emijrp  writes:
>
> > Thanks. You propose nice names but most domains are registered by
> > domain parkers. : (
>
> Mhh... what about wikidigg.org ?
>
> It is not yet bought and matches the purpose quite well IMO.
>
> --
>  Bastien
>



-- 
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT  |
StatMediaWiki
| WikiEvidens  |
WikiPapers
| WikiTeam 
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l