Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement

[MZMcBride]

Salvidrim wrote:
>This is the Wikimedia UK version:
>http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non_Disclosure_Agreement
>
>Also relevant may be this discussion:
>http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler/2012#Comparison_of_UK_NDA_with_W
>MF_NDA

Thanks for the links. :-)  I started an index page at
.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement

[Benoit Landry]

Hi,

This is the Wikimedia UK version: 
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non_Disclosure_Agreement


Also relevant may be this discussion: 
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler/2012#Comparison_of_UK_NDA_with_WMF_NDA


, Salvidrim

-Original Message- 
From: MZMcBride

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement

Hi.

As I understand it, many Wikimedia Foundation employees are required to
sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Is there a copy of the current
version of this non-disclosure agreement anywhere? I briefly checked
Meta-Wiki and wikimediafoundation.org, but didn't see anything off-hand.

(I did come across other interesting and somewhat related pages such as
, though.)

MZMcBride



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



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

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement

[MZMcBride]

Hi.

As I understand it, many Wikimedia Foundation employees are required to
sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Is there a copy of the current
version of this non-disclosure agreement anywhere? I briefly checked
Meta-Wiki and wikimediafoundation.org, but didn't see anything off-hand.

(I did come across other interesting and somewhat related pages such as
, though.)

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Tim Starling]

On 11/01/13 03:58, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> 
>>> The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in
>>> all projects, and almost in all language versions of them:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look
>> at the German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the
>> German and Spanish are totally stable, with no decline at all
>> discernible around 2007, while editor numbers for the French
>> Wikipedia are actually growing:
>> 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm 
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm
> 
> I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive
> to non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course,
> it's easier to see in a graph than in a table.

IIRC, there was a large reduction in traffic growth rate in
approximatly 2007, presumably due to market saturation. You'd expect a
similar market saturation effect in editor population. A decline can't
be explained away in that way.

> It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then
> oscillation/stagnation:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm

"Stagnation" is another way to say "stability", except that it also
implies rot. I don't think we can take it for granted that a wiki will
rot if it has a stable editor population.

If the English Wikipedia could achieve a stable editor population, I
would be very happy.

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

[Bence Damokos]

The correct link is vi.wikipedia.org

This vi.wikipedAI.org domain should be checked out by Legal at WMF,
though...

Best regards,
Bence


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Mono  wrote:

> On vi.wikipedai.org the non mainspaces are green - maybe just a tab like
> that?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jérémie Roquet 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > 2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni :
> > > I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
> > > past, but they appear to be regular now.
> >
> > On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
> > then we removed everything in 2009¹.
> >
> > > How effective was it? I don't know.
> >
> > That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
> > it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > ¹
> >
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB
> >
> > --
> > Jérémie
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

[Mono]

On vi.wikipedai.org the non mainspaces are green - maybe just a tab like
that?



On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jérémie Roquet  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> 2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni :
> > I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
> > past, but they appear to be regular now.
>
> On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
> then we removed everything in 2009¹.
>
> > How effective was it? I don't know.
>
> That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
> it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> ¹
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB
>
> --
> Jérémie
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia engineering December 2012 report

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in December 2012 is
now available.

Wiki version:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/December
Blog version:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/10/engineering-december-2012-report/

We're also proposing a shorter, simpler and translatable version of this
report that does not assume specialized technical knowledge:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/December/summary

Below is the full HTML text of the report, as previously requested.

As always, feedback is appreciated about the usefulness of the report and
its summary, and on how to improve them.




Major news in December include:

   - The launch of an alpha, opt-in version of the
VisualEditorto
the English Wikipedia, a project more
   complex than it
appears
   ;
   - A research
studyon
the use of the Article Feedback feature;
   - New metrics for the MediaWiki
community
   ;
   - The start of the Outreach Program for
Women
   ;
   - Continued work to improve the
workflowand
   
interfacefor
translators.

*Note: We're also proposing a shorter, simpler and translatable version of
this 
reportthat
does not assume specialized technical knowledge.
*
Personnel Work with us 

Are you looking to work for Wikimedia? We have a lot of hiring coming up,
and we really love talking to active community members about these roles.

   - Software Engineer - Visual
Editor
   - Software Engineer - Editor
Engagement
   - Software Engineer
(Partners)
   - Software Engineer
(Apps)
   - Software Developer General
(Mobile)
   - Git and Gerrit software development
(Contract)
   - Release Manager 
   - Software Engineer -
Multimedia
   - Software Engineer
(Search)
   - Product Manager
(Mobile)
   - Director of User
Experience
   - Visual Designer 
   - Operations Engineer
   - Operations Engineer/Database
Administrator
   - Site Reliability
Engineer

 Announcements

   - Matthew Flaschen joined the Wikimedia Features
engineeringteam
as Features Engineer (
   
announcement
   ).
   - Mike Wang joined the Operations team as part time Labs Ops Engineer
   (consultant)
(announcement
   ).

 Technical Operations

*Production Site
Switchover
*
The Technical Operations team continued to work on completing the
outstanding migration tasks, and to ready our Ashburn infrastructure for
the big switchover day, i.e., the complete transition from the Tampa
datacenter to the one in Ashburn, on the week of January 22, 2013.In the
past few months, we've transitioned services from the Tampa datacenter to
the one in Ashburn, which now serves most of our traffic (about 90%).
However, application (MediaWiki), memcached and database systems are all
still running exclusively out of Tampa. We have been working to upgrade the
technologies and set up those systems at Ashburn, and we plan to perform
the switchover of those services from Tampa to Ashburn in the coming weeks.
This will provide us some assurance of a hot standby datacenter, should we
encounter an irrecoverable and lengthy outage in one of the main
datacenters.

*Site Infrastructure*
Becaus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
>
> > Open these two pages:
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
> >
> > Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts.
> Focus
> > on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.
> >
> > Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
> > trend.
>
> They don't.
>


Are you willing to concede that they look *markedly* different from the
English ones, and don't show a clear downward trend starting in 2007, as
the English ones do? :))

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
> Open these two pages:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
>
> Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts. 
Focus

> on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.
>
> Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
> trend.

They don't.

Errata corrige:

Federico Leva (Nemo), 10/01/2013 17:58:

"New editors" is not reliable because one edit is enough, number of
edits or (new) articles have too much bot noise, database size/words is
often useful but even more often not available for WikiStats performance
limitations.


Ten edits, naturally, not one. One should also take into account when 
the "birth date" as new contributor is defined to be.[1]


Still on external factors, it's also fun to play with 
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/ , "State of the Internet Data 
Visualization" per country.
For instance, several countries seem to have stagnated for years (since 
the beginning of the reports) as regards broadband adoption; Japan has a 
mysterious drop in 2011 which seems to have an identical drop in active 
ja.wiki editors, recovered at the same time in early 2012; Russia has an 
explosion which one could think caused TheSeptemberThatNeverEnded that 
we're still seeing; France has a big peak in the first half of 2012.

But again, this is just playing, we still know so little.

Actually, I don't even know if WMF is still focussing on (en.wiki) 
editor retention or rather on editor recruitment: does someone know?


Nemo

[1] I've added a note about it in the very useful new page on 
definitions: 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:34:46 +0530, Yann Forget wrote:

Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann



Welcome to the club. I retired from Russian Wikipedia about two years 
ago.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

[Wikimedia-l] REMINDER: WMF Metrics/Activities Meeting Begins in 30 Minutes

[Praveena Maharaj]

REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Praveena Maharaj 
Date: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Subject: *** DATE CHANGE *** Invitation to WMF December 2012 Metrics and
Activities Meeting: Thursday, Jan. 10, 19:00 UTC
To: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Dear all,

The next WMF metrics and activities will take place on Thursday,
January 10, 2013 at 7:00 PM UTC (11 AM PST). Please note that on this
occasion we are holding this meeting on the second Thursday of
January, but we will resume holding the meetings on the first Thursday
of each month thereafter.

The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office* *on irc.freenode.net and the
meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube stream.

The current structure of the meeting is:
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytics* Review of financials* Welcoming
recent hires* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on
highest priority initiatives* Update and Q&A with the Executive
Director, if available
Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
for further information about how to participate.

We'll post IRC logs and the video recording publicly after the meeting.

Thank you,

Praveena

-- 
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development
+1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689
www.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:59:28 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, 
though

it is not the most popular social medium.


Thanks for the information! The en.wiki articles are not super-clear
about it.
Are its competitors less able to (allegedly) convert the web
population in a mass of dumbs, or of otherwise draining all their
mental energies? :p

Nemo



In my view, the main competitor, Vkontakte 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vkontakte) is even better in conversion of 
their audience into a mass of dumbs. I do not have an account there 
though, (not that I use my facebook too much).


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 18:09:
>
>  Here are the French charts:
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
>> Here are the English ones:
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
>>
>> Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
>> more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
>> French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend.
>>
>
> Sorry, I've no idea what you're looking at: I don't see any continuous
> upward trend, as I said in the previous message. Sure, if you compare the
> last month of each wiki with the month of en.wiki's highest peak you can
> prove whatever you want.
>

Open these two pages:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm

Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts. Focus
on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.

Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
trend. The ones for English show a peak in 2007, and then a consistent
downward trend. That is the difference I was pointing out.

If we are talking about the purely statistical side of things, then
statistically these projects do not conform to the same trend as the
English Wikipedia.


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
> quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
> there.
> Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
> surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
> the project.
>

I am quite sure the French and other Wikipedias have broadly similar social
problems to the English one (the German one certainly has a few), and I too
agree with Tim's earlier comments in that regard.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yann Forget]

Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.
Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
the project.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann

2013/1/4 Tim Starling :
> On 03/01/13 22:46, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>> Editor retention programmes have some data there. Check wp:wer on en.wiki.
>> how the data for the other projects match up I don't know.
>
> Yes, that page describes the problem in detail. But the suggestions
> they offer under "how you can help" are along the same lines as
> policies that have been in place on Wikipedia since 2002 or earlier.
> It's been tried, it didn't work.
>
> The problem is, some people want to feel powerful more than they want
> Wikipedia to grow. Or even if they want Wikipedia to grow on a
> cerebral level, exercising power over another user is immediately
> pleasurable, and they don't have sufficient impulse control to stop
> themselves from doing it.
>
> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>
> There is risk, because the editor population will probably be reduced
> in the short term, and it's hard to know if it will ever recover. I
> don't know if there is anyone with the power to save Wikipedia who
> also has the required courage.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 18:09:

Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm

Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend.


Sorry, I've no idea what you're looking at: I don't see any continuous 
upward trend, as I said in the previous message. Sure, if you compare 
the last month of each wiki with the month of en.wiki's highest peak you 
can prove whatever you want.


Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
>>>
>>>
>>> This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
>>> Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>
>>
>
> No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, though
> it is not the most popular social medium.

Thanks for the information! The en.wiki articles are not super-clear 
about it.
Are its competitors less able to (allegedly) convert the web population 
in a mass of dumbs, or of otherwise draining all their mental energies? :p


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
>month, as that is where the decline in the English Wikipedia has been most
>pronounced, from 4804 in March 2007 to 3137 in November 2012. It's when
>core editors leave in droves that you start to worry.

You would have to analyse those edits qualitatively though in order to
tell whether this decline is something to worry about. For example, if
authors no longer have to fix certain problems because bots are taking
care of them now, then fewer edits are nothing to worry about.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here are the French charts:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> Here are the English ones:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
>

I've fixed the link to the English charts: I accidentally gave the French
link twice in my earlier mail. My apologies for the inconvenience.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:


David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:


This has often made people wonder if the causes are external 
(Facebook?

Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).

Nemo





No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, though 
it is not the most popular social medium.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>>
>>  The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all
>>> projects,
>>> and almost in all language versions of them: [...]
>>>
>>
>> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
>> German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
>> are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
>> editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:
>>
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaFR.htm
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaDE.htm
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesWikipediaES.htm
>>
>
> I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive to
> non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course, it's easier to
> see in a graph than in a table.
> I don't see French growing: except an outlier in November 2012 for active
> editors, which is not reflected in the very active editors count, in the
> last few months it's at the same level as in January-March 2008, 4800-5000
> active editors.
> It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then
> oscillation/stagnation: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**
> TablesWikipediaIT.htm
> Anecdotally in WMIT, we've been repeating "it.wiki has 500 very active
> editors" for a while, and we've stopped updating this figure a long time
> ago. :-)
>
> Of course I'm only playing the stats dilettante here.
>



Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm

Compare the third and fourth charts (for editors making more than 5 and
more than 100 edits per month respectively). The height of the bars in the
French charts is still rising. It's a continuous upward trend. In the
English charts, it has been falling since 2007.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Andreas/Nemo
>
> Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
> projects?
>


I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
month, as that is where the decline in the English Wikipedia has been most
pronounced, from 4804 in March 2007 to 3137 in November 2012. It's when
core editors leave in droves that you start to worry.

For comparison, the figures for March 2007 and November 2012 for the four
projects I mentioned are:

EN: 4804, 3137
FR: 676, 800
ES: 430, 486
DE: 1093, 1004

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:


The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
and almost in all language versions of them: [...]


Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm


I said "a turning point", i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive to 
non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course, it's easier 
to see in a graph than in a table.
I don't see French growing: except an outlier in November 2012 for 
active editors, which is not reflected in the very active editors count, 
in the last few months it's at the same level as in January-March 2008, 
4800-5000 active editors.
It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then 
oscillation/stagnation: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm
Anecdotally in WMIT, we've been repeating "it.wiki has 500 very active 
editors" for a while, and we've stopped updating this figure a long time 
ago. :-)


Of course I'm only playing the stats dilettante here.


Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.


You're using the "editor retention" term quite incorrectly by the way: 
those tables show only total active editors, old or new, not how many of 
the new editors are still active, nor how many "really new" editor we had.


Richard Symonds, 10/01/2013 17:37:
> Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
> projects?

I think I've replied already. :-)
"New editors" is not reliable because one edit is enough, number of 
edits or (new) articles have too much bot noise, database size/words is 
often useful but even more often not available for WikiStats performance 
limitations.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
>
> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
>


Rules may be strict, but in the things that matter they are ineffective.
For the past few days, the media have reported on the Bicholim Conflict
hoax – a "Good Article" on a war that never happened, and could never have
happened (one of the parties to it, the Maratha Empire, did not even exist
at the time).*

That hoax remained listed as a Good Article for more than five years. The
Good Article reviewing guideline says,

*Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and
sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the
sources; this ideal is not often attained.*
*
*
In the wake of the Bicholim conflict story, another contributor was blocked
the other day by George William Herbert, "upon review of outstanding claims
of fabrication of sources and quotes. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia
is not acceptable behavior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#False_references_and_BLP_misquotes:_block_user_as_hoaxer.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=531375810&oldid=531295145

That editor has written or co-written 95 Good Articles, and 7 Featured
Articles, mostly on entertainers like Madonna and Lady Gaga. That included
a Featured Article on Madonna, which was then demoted, with lots of
material removed, after sourcing concerns were raised about the editor's
work. Editors who looked into the concerns say the chap made up sources and
put words into Madonna's mouth, making her say things in Wikipedia which
she had never said, and still getting his articles approved for GA and FA.

The English Wikipedia needs a wake-up call. It offers a playground to
vandals and petty officials, has people arguing interminably about civility
and waffling about the need to assume good faith, while encyclopedic core
skills are lacking, even in what is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.

Andreas

*For a write-up and links, see
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/09/wikipedias-new-year-begins-with-a-hoax/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Richard Symonds]

Hi Andreas/Nemo

Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 10 January 2013 16:24, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)  >wrote:
>
> > David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
> >
> >  On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> >>
> >>  I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
> >>> edit,
> >>> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for
> an
> >>> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
> >>> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
> >>> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
> >> at all just an en:wp problem.
> >>
> >> How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
> >> the non-Wikipedias?
> >>
> >
> > The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all
> projects,
> > and almost in all language versions of them:
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> > *htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
> > htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> >
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> > *htm<
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm>
> > (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318<
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318>)
> > Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
> > language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception
> to
> > decline.
> > This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
> > Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
> >
> > Nemo
>
>
>
>
> Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
> German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
> are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
> editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm
>
> Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
>
> These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
> they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.
>
> I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
> Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.
>
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
>
>  On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>>
>>  I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
>>> edit,
>>> eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
>>> encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
>>> Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
>>> strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
>> at all just an en:wp problem.
>>
>> How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
>> the non-Wikipedias?
>>
>
> The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
> and almost in all language versions of them:
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> *htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
> htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
> *htm
> (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318)
> Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
> language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception to
> decline.
> This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
> Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
>
> Nemo




Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm

Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.

I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

[Jérémie Roquet]

Hi everyone,

2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni :
> I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
> past, but they appear to be regular now.

On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
then we removed everything in 2009¹.

> How effective was it? I don't know.

That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)

Best regards,

¹ 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB

-- 
Jérémie

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