[Wiki-research-l] Research about how to measure the effectiveness of user blocks

[Sydney Poore]

The Community health initiative is starting a project to measure the
effectiveness of blocks. The first step is to discuss with the wikimedia
community ideas about how to do it. To that end, the Anti-Harassment Tools
team and Morten Warncke-Wang have created space to discuss research ideas
about user blocks.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Measuring_the_effectiveness_of_blocks

AHT is particularly interested to learn whether the new partial blocks
feature is successful as a ''tool or instrument''. Therefore, the first
part of this research will mainly focused on the short term gains in the
utility of partial blocks in order to understand whether it appears to be
working and if there appears to be a need for changes. These measurements
will provide us with insight quickly. Currently there is not much known
about how sitewide blocks affect users. This makes a comparison of the
effects of the new partial block feature to sitewide blocks difficult. To
provide all of us with some insight, the Anti-Harassment Tools team would
like to examine historical block data across wikimedia projects to
establish a baseline.

However, our list of measurements that we propose has a lot of longer term
ones, e.g. surveys. These are important and should be considered to be
implemented later, because they can provide all of us with insight that is
otherwise hidden.

Please on wiki to discuss these ideas and your ideas.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Measuring_the_effectiveness_of_blocks

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team and [[User:MWang (WMF)|Morten
Warncke-Wang]].

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP

[Sydney Poore]

Thank you, Pine.
Sydney






On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:30 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Done:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_on_ENWP_Discretionary_Sanctions
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:25 PM Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
> > From: Sydney Poore 
> > To: Pine W 
> > Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Bcc:
> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:20:40 -0400
> > Subject: Re: Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP
> > Hello Pine,
> > You might want to record it in the IdeaLab to make sure that it
> considered
> > for future reference when people are discussing ideas for research.
> > Sydney
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello colleagues,
> >>
> >> There is currently a small amount of discussion happening on an ENWP
> >> arbitration page
> >> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions
> >
> >> regarding what ENWP calls "discretionary sanctions
> >> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions
> >"
> >> practices. Does anyone know of research regarding the effects, good and
> >> bad, of the Arbcom authorization of discretionary sanctions? If not,
> then I
> >> suggest that this be a topic of future research, particularly for
> >> researchers involved with WMF's work on community health.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sydney Poore
> > Trust and Safety Specialist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > Trust and Safety team;
> > Anti-harassment tools team
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sydney Poore
> > Trust and Safety Specialist
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > Trust and Safety team;
> > Anti-harassment tools team
> >
> ___
> 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

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP

[Sydney Poore]

From: Sydney Poore 
To: Pine W 
Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:20:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Research about discretionary sanctions on ENWP
Hello Pine,
You might want to record it in the IdeaLab to make sure that it considered
for future reference when people are discussing ideas for research.
Sydney


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:01 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello colleagues,
>
> There is currently a small amount of discussion happening on an ENWP
> arbitration page
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions>
> regarding what ENWP calls "discretionary sanctions
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions>"
> practices. Does anyone know of research regarding the effects, good and
> bad, of the Arbcom authorization of discretionary sanctions? If not, then I
> suggest that this be a topic of future research, particularly for
> researchers involved with WMF's work on community health.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>


-- 
Sydney Poore
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
Trust and Safety team;
Anti-harassment tools team


-- 
Sydney Poore
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
Trust and Safety team;
Anti-harassment tools team
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Sydney Poore]

From: Sydney Poore 
To: Pine W 
Cc: wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:25:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey
are published!
Hello Pine,

Thanks for asking. I always will take the opportunity when given the chance
to talk about the work that the Community health initiative, Trust &
Safety, Legal, Research, Anti-Harassment Tools teams are doing around
community health. :-)

The work on Community health done by these teams is reflected in the
Foundation's Annual Plan. Much of the work on community health is mentioned
in the Community health CDP.1

But because community health is a large topic, other teams across the
Foundation collaborate with these teams and also do work themselves
directly or indirectly addressing community health. The CE Insights survey
is a good example of that!  Also, recently there was an Inspire Campaign
about how to measure community health
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire> run by Community
Resources team. 2

Speaking more directly to your comments, the Community health initiative
has identified areas of focus that are related to the topics you mention.

For example, early this fiscal year, a main focus is "Contributors and
administrators are equipped with tools to make timely, informed decisions
when harassment occurs." This builds on the work Antti-Harassment tools
team began last year on the User Interaction Timeline tool and changes to
Special:Block that add the ability for admins to do Partial blocks instead
of site wide blocks.

There is an on going discussion
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Per-user_page,_namespace,_and_upload_blocking>with
the community about how to design the new functionality into the tool.
Currently this is a discussion about the best method to log partial blocks
and the third set of designs are available for community feedback.3  Within
the next week a discussion is going to start on Meta about how to measure
the effectiveness of blocks. This will involve be both a long term and
short term research projects with potentially many opportunities for
collaboration. Look for upcoming announcements for more information.

Another focus early this year is working with the community to develop a
Community Health Metrics kit that will allow communities to measure
quantitative data and satisfaction levels over time, and identify areas for
improvement. There is a consultation starting today
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit>.4 Joe
Sutherland is the lead on the project and will be making the announcements.

We welcome comments and questions here, on wiki, and by private email about
the work that is underway or in planning.

Warm regards,
Sydney

1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Annual_plan_FY18-19
2 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
3
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Per-user_page,_namespace,_and_upload_blocking
4 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit




On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:25 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Edward, I'm surprised that this thread only appears in my email under
> Research-l, but I can see in the WMF mail archives that you sent the email
> to other lists also. I wonder if that happened because you used bcc. Maybe
> there is a bug in Gmail. On the topic of diversity research, thanks for the
> link to the team reports. I'll put those on my list of things that would be
> good to browse.
>
> Regarding the topic of harassment that the person with the email
> "80hnhtv4agou" raised, I think that it's good to ask what more could and
> should be done. My view is that WMF shouldn't be directly intervening in
> community activities, but WMF support for community self-governance is
> welcome with actions such as developing better moderation tools and
> providing financial support to affiliates and community members who want to
> develop evidence-based training modules. Sydney Poore is on the
> Anti-Harrassment Tools team and I'm pinging her here to invite her to add
> any comments that she has.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 5:45 PM Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your note Pine. I believe I have already shared this on
>> Wikimedia-l; I haven't shared to Announce, so I can do that.
>>
>> "Diversity" is multifaceted. I think that some areas offer some hope (e.g.
>> program organizers & affiliate organizers have higher proportion of women
>> and geographic representation), others I am not uncertain whether we put a
>> lot of attention (Education & Age), and in others we are seeing little
>> progress (gende

[Wiki-research-l] Inspire Campaign on Measuring Community Health starts today!

[Sydney Poore]

Hello Wikimedians,

I'm happy to announce the launch of the Inspire Campaign on Measuring
Community Health.[1] The goal of this campaign is to gather your ideas on
approaches to measure or evaluate the experience and quality of
participating and interacting with others in Wikimedia projects.

So what is community health? Healthy projects promote high quality content
creation, respectful collaboration, efficient workflows, and effective
conflict resolution. Tasks and experiences that result in patterns of
editor frustration, poor editor retention, harassment, broken workflows,
and unresolved conflicts are unhealthy for a project.

As a movement, Wikimedians have always measured aspects of their
communities. Data points, such as editor activity levels, are regularly
collected. While these metrics provide some useful indications about the
health of a project, they do not give major insights into challenges and
specific areas needing improvement or what areas have been successful.

We want to hear from you what specific areas on your Wikimedia project
should be evaluated or measured, and how it should be done. Share your
ideas, contribute to other people’s submissions, and get involved in the
new Inspire Campaign. After the campaign, grants and other paths are
available to support the formal development of these measures and
evaluation techniques.[2]

Warm regards,
Sydney

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Develop--

Sydney Poore

Sydney Poore
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
Trust and Safety team;
Anti-harassment tools team
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] August 31 Final day to submit program sessions at WikiConference North America

[Sydney Poore]

Hello everyone,

Tomorrow, August 31st, is the final day to submit proposals for program
sessions for WikiConference North America on October 8-10 in San Diego.

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Submissions

There are already some proposal that would be of interest to the people on
this mailing list. But we welcome more submissions.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight

WikiConference North America https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Main_Page

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] WikiConference North America 2016

[Sydney Poore]

WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA

WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology. Keynote speakers are scheduled
to include Katherine Maher, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation,
and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program Officer of OCLC Research. The last
day of the conference will feature programming coinciding with Indigenous
Peoples' Day.

Registration for the conference is now open.  You can register at
https://wikiconference.org.

Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects.  Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.

This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks.  If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Volunteers.

We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions.  If you are interested in
participating in the peer-reviewed academic track, see our call for
academic submissions at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Call_for_Academic_Presentations.

- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers
___
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 cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Sydney Poore]

Hello Dariusz and everyone else,

I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way to discuss the gender
gap in the wikimedia movement.

While more information is always useful and at times necessary in order to
measure change properly, if the previous data seems to still match the day
to day observations pretty well then discounting the previous data as wrong
just because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.

Since I've had the opportunity to observe the gender of wikimedia
affiliated groups (both official and informal) from around the world, I can
say with confidence  that the wikimedia movement is still dominated by
males. Both on and off line, except for diversity related events, I'm often
the only women participating in discussions and rarely does the ratio
exceed 3 in 10.

To have my observation better documented would be great :-) I hope that
more wikimedia organizations document the gender mix of content creators
who are affiliated with their organization so that better research can be
done.

I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF Inspire Gender Gap grant
campaign and see if they can find an opportunity to work on better data
collection during this high profile campaign.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93_Gender_gap_campaign

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> hi there,
>
> thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about
> Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in their
> paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from perfect. As
> far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> publication coming up?
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>
>> hi all,
>> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in quantitative
>> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, and
>> also
>> changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>
>> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>> languages,
>> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which language
>> version (community) the data were created in/from.
>> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
>> from
>> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
>> gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>
>> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of Wikipedia
>> readers" question that this thread started with,
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> koltzenb...@w4w.net
>>
>> -- Original Message ---
>> From:Jeremy Foote 
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>> > and is at
>> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>> >
>> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Jeremy
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hoi,
>> > > What year are we living ?
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >  GerardM
>> > >
>> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>> paradigm),
>> > >> well...
>> > >>
>> > >> I&#x

Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)

[Sydney Poore]

I think feminists, especially those who take an interest in STEM, will pass
this article around.

Sydney
On Dec 12, 2014 5:35 PM, "Andrew Lih"  wrote:

> It's a good piece, but honestly I think only the dedicated tech reader
> will make it through the entire story. There's a lot of jargon and insider
> intrigue such that I could imagine most people never making past the
> typewriter barf of "BLP, AGF, NOR" :)
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> While I agree that the article is overly negative (likely because of the
>> individual experience), I think it still points to an important problem. I
>> don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of image. Maybe
>> naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because the community
>> is not ideal.
>>
>> pundit
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kerry Raymond 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  There’s a saying that everyone likes to eat sausages but nobody likes
>>> to know how they are made.  It is not good to have negative publicity like
>>> that during the annual donation campaign (irrespective of the motivations
>>> of the journalist and/or the rights/wrongs of the issue being reported,
>>> neither of which I intend to debate here). As a donation-funded
>>> organisation, public perception matters a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>
>>> *From:* Jonathan Morgan [mailto:jmor...@wikimedia.org]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 13 December 2014 6:43 AM
>>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> *Cc:* Kerry Raymond
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community
>>> behaviour (Aaron gets a quote)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed
>>> description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other,
>>> this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully
>>> pulpit to grind it in public.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>> nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1000th addition to the inconsequential rant genre.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jonathan T. Morgan
>>>
>>> Community Research Lead
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
>>>
>>> jmor...@wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __
>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>
>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>
>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>
>> Recenzje
>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>> Pacific Standard:
>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>> The Wikipedian:
>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia focus of research (was Research discussion: Visions for Wikipedia)

[Sydney Poore]

I wish it was true that we have reached a level of maturity and need fewer
people, But unfortunately, even the the largest language Wikipedia,
Wikipedia English, still needs much improvement.

For example,  the readership base of our health related articles is much
larger that the number of editors working on them. We don't have enough
people to improve the health related articles to make them useful, then
keep them up to date, and watch them for the inclusion of errors or poor
quality edits. Much of this work needs to be done by real people not bots
or gadgets.

We do our best to watch the articles with the highest readership, like the
Ebola. A great article highlighting one success
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/wikipedia-is-emerging-as-trusted-internet-source-for-information-on-ebola-.html


But there are many other important medical articles that are read thousands
of times a day and are start class articles or have outdated content. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages

We are out recruiting new editors to help.. We are hopeful that connecting
with health organizations with a common interest in disseminating health
information will draw in enough  people to make a noticeable change.

It would be helpful to avoid giving a mixed message and not tell the world
that we are mature and need less people. :-)

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Nicolas Jullien <
nicolas.jull...@telecom-bretagne.eu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> to follow up on that troll, I invite you to (re-)discover the work by
> Marwell and Oliver
> "The Critical Mass in Collective Action" (1993)
> http://books.google.fr/books/about/The_Critical_Mass_in_
> Collective_Action.html?id=14nA7_k05NsC&redir_esc=y
>
> which points that fact that after some times, project are "mature" and
> need less people to participate. Maybe Wikipedia has entered in adulthood
> (which is, sometime, boring)
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le 28/10/2014 16:14, Pierre-Carl Langlais a écrit :
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I cannot resist the temptation to troll a bit on this thread:
>> *"we need 10K or even 100K new active editors": would it not result in
>> even higher levels of bureaucracy?  Internet technologies have certainly
>> allowed to keeps large community running with fuzzy rules. Yet, I'm not
>> so sure it has completely relieved us of bureaucracy: there's probably
>> still a maximal ratio of participants/fuzziness. With about 30,000
>> active contributors during the past month, the English Wikipedia is by
>> far one of the largest autonomous web community. By experience (I do not
>> have any statistics at hand, sorry), I know that smaller communities
>> like the Italian Wikipedia, Wikidata or OpenStreetMap (all around
>> 2,000-5,000 contributors) manage to avoid the same level of bureaucracy
>> sophistication. A lot of agreements can be done on a case per case
>> basis, while with 10 times more contributors regular rules become
>> necessary to avoid repeating the same discussions constantly. If you
>> want to keep a community of 130,000 users consistent, I guess you would
>> have to set up some kind of kafkaïan nightmare that would make the
>> current english wikipedia looks like a libertarian paradise…
>> *"English Wikipedia is suffering from a lack of adaptive flexibility". I
>> would rather point a lack of communication between the community and the
>> WMF. I have made some wiki archeology to document my last paper
>> <http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=NEG_021_0021> on Wikipedia
>> politics, and what strikes me in the 2001-2007 period is the high level
>> of interaction between programmers and contributors. A lot of important
>> features (like footnotes) were first suggested by users who do not have
>> any kind of programming knowledge. We clearly need to reestablish this
>> link (perhaps launching a wishlist would be a first step…).
>> *Is Wikipedia decline an exception? It seems to me that all communities
>> tends to attain a maxima, after which they slowly regress and stagnate.
>> The growth of OpenStreetMap has for instance slowed down
>> <http://scoms.hypotheses.org/241> after 2012. This is not because these
>> communities cease to be cool (a case could be made that OpenStreetMap is
>> way cooler than Wikipedia), but mainly, because having free time (in
>> addition of motivation and ability to contribute on the web) is still a
>> rare resource. Beginning a demanding job, having a child: all these
>> current events of life strongly limits the level of implication within
>> the