Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Aaron Halfaker]

Gerard, I think that the work on Commons and WikiData is freaking awesome.
 If I could clone myself I'd be digging into it immediately.  Right now,
I'm working on measurement Wikipedias and large cross-wiki analyses.  FWIW,
I think that the wikidata games are some of the most exciting things to
happen in Wikimedia wikis in a long time.

Rui, re. the survival graphs.  Those are proportions.  Multiply by 100 to
get percentages.  i.e. the line starts at about ~24% and declines to ~7%.
 I'd really like to revisit this work since we've standardized some of the
measures I was using and the new, standard definitions will result in some
differences.  See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor for the
updated definition.  I'll try to schedule some time to get an updated
figure for ptwiki that goes back before 2006.

-Aaron


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Rui Correia  wrote:

> Hi Aaron
>
> This is really a treasure trove of information. I am looking forward to
> savouring it in detail. Many thanks.
>
> One question for now on Point 5: the 3rd graph with values <1 - are those
> percentages? Is the decimal notation correct?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui
>
>
> 2014-05-30 1:52 GMT+02:00 Aaron Halfaker :
>
> > Hi Rui,
> >
> > You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help
> address.
> >  I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on
> the
> > nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production
> in
> > Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal
> work
> > on the subject.
> >
> > As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
> > substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
> > work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
> > work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of
> a
> > recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.
>  Also,
> > you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
> > about the speed of speedy deletions.
> >
> > A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way
> done
> > since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
> > undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
> > WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
> > open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
> > and how they can be best supported.
> >
> > While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement,
> production
> > and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
> > working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
> > key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
> > challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us
> toward
> > our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
> > studies.
> >
> > I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
> > and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
> > wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
> > wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.
> >
> > 1. Summary:
> > http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
> > 2. Full paper:
> >
> >
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf
> > 3.
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
> > 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
> > 5.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F
> > 6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
> > 7.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
> > 8.
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
> > 9.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results
> > 10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > From: Rui Correia 
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
> > > > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > > Reply-To: Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Rui Correia]

Hi Aaron

This is really a treasure trove of information. I am looking forward to
savouring it in detail. Many thanks.

One question for now on Point 5: the 3rd graph with values <1 - are those
percentages? Is the decimal notation correct?

Regards,

Rui


2014-05-30 1:52 GMT+02:00 Aaron Halfaker :

> Hi Rui,
>
> You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help address.
>  I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on the
> nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
> Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
> on the subject.
>
> As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
> substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
> work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
> work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of a
> recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.  Also,
> you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
> about the speed of speedy deletions.
>
> A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
> since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
> undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
> WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
> open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
> and how they can be best supported.
>
> While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
> and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
> working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
> key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
> challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
> our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
> studies.
>
> I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
> and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
> wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
> wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.
>
> 1. Summary:
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
> 2. Full paper:
>
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf
> 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
> 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
> 5.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F
> 6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
> 7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
> 8.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
> 9.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results
> 10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> >
> > > From: Rui Correia 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
> > > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > >
> > > Hi James
> > >
> > > Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
> > > average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
> > > months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all
> languages?
> > >
> > > New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
> > > developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy
> to
> > > create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages
> by
> > > new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing
> more
> > > disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find
> > that
> > > someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates
> it
> > > for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
> > > version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk
> > page.
> > > I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was
> wrong.
> > It
> > > should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can
> improve/
> > > fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and lea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi Aaron,

A point I often make is that both Commons and Wikidata provide activities
for new people to get their feet wet in our projects. With Wiki loves
monuments we gain an entry in the Guiness book of records. With the latest
Wikidata games we gain a LOT of new statements in Wikidata in a really
short period of time. There may be a similarity to the spelling errors that
were easily found in the English Wikipedia and they may gain us more
contributors.

Are these the kind of subjects you study or is it truly Wikipedia only.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 30 May 2014 01:52, Aaron Halfaker  wrote:

> Hi Rui,
>
> You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help address.
>  I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on the
> nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
> Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
> on the subject.
>
> As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
> substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
> work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
> work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of a
> recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.  Also,
> you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
> about the speed of speedy deletions.
>
> A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
> since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
> undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
> WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
> open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
> and how they can be best supported.
>
> While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
> and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
> working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
> key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
> challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
> our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
> studies.
>
> I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
> and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
> wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
> wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.
>
> 1. Summary:
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
> 2. Full paper:
>
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf
> 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
> 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
> 5.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F
> 6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
> 7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
> 8.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
> 9.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results
> 10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> >
> > > From: Rui Correia 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
> > > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > >
> > > Hi James
> > >
> > > Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
> > > average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
> > > months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all
> languages?
> > >
> > > New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
> > > developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy
> to
> > > create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages
> by
> > > new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing
> more
> > > disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find
> > that
> > > someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates
> it
> > > for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
> > > version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Aaron Halfaker]

Hi Rui,

You raised a lot of questions that I think I might be able to help address.
 I'm a research scientist working for the WMF.  My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia.  See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised.  See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5].  See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns.  Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena.  The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not.  See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10].  There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l.  FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/
2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor
5.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F
6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions
8.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout
9.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results
10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron



>
> > From: Rui Correia 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
> > Date: May 29, 2014 at 5:07:45 AM PDT
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >
> > Hi James
> >
> > Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
> > average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
> > months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?
> >
> > New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
> > developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
> > create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
> > new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
> > disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find
> that
> > someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates it
> > for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
> > version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk
> page.
> > I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was wrong.
> It
> > should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can improve/
> > fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
> > WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
> > policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the
> new
> > editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit
> > summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
> > whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a
> blank
> > edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select an
> > applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
> > page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
> > splitting the field.
> >
> > No amount of ink about how w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Rui Correia]

Hi James

Do we have any figures on retention of new editors? How long does the
average new editor stay? What percentage of new editors stays on for 6
months; one year; two years? Do we have these figures for all languages?

New editors should be allowed space to grow. Wikipedia is so rich in
developing all kinds of scripts, templates etc, that it would be easy to
create something to inform others that someone is a new editor. Pages by
new editors should be left alone for a day or two. There is nothing more
disheartening than getting all excited about contributing only to find that
someone comes along and either deletes your first attempt or nominates it
for deletion. I've have seen this happen WITHIN MINUTES of the seminal
version being posted, followed up by 'warnings' on the editor's talk page.
I've seen edits reverted because the formatting of the source was wrong. It
should be a basic pillar that before reverting, we see if we can improve/
fix the problem. Undoing a newcomer's work and leaving something like
WP:MOS as an edit summary is not helpful - if you are going to cite a WP
policy, then do so by pointing directly to the specific page where the new
editor can read about it. I know it is time-consuming to fill in edit
summaries, especially if one is doing a series of identical edits to a
whole lot of pages. But we can use technology to speed this up - on a blank
edit summary, a prompt will suggest earlier text and you can select an
applicable one. On an edit summary with a reference to the section of the
page this does not work - so we need to find a way around this, like
splitting the field.

No amount of ink about how welcoming WP is to new editors, IT IS NOT. For
reference, this section has some interesting facts,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Contributors.

We are also losing established editors, mostly because of edit warring.
There are blocks coalescing around all kinds of themes and issues and these
defend their turf.

Pages that contain controversial details should display a specific notice -
not difficult to do, given the array of templates already in use. Some
pages are the result of a compromise reached after acrimonious debate. An
editor - old or new - who was not involved in discussions will not know
this and might make an edit that detonates the powder keg and starts the
war all over again. It would be so easy to display a notice on the EDIT
PAGE saying something like "Hi, if you were planning to edit .[ x
detail] ... please read (link) the discussion and resolution on this. I am
pretty convinced it would work far better than having thousands of pages
locked ([semi-]protected). Some pages just require a simple message on the
EDIT PAGE such as (example) "In the English Wikipedia we use the spelling
*Braganza* and not *Bragança* when referring to the House of Braganza.
Please do not change this.".  There are 1,300 pages where Braganza is
mentioned, imagine how many headaches we could spare ourselves.

Some editors seem to derive pleasure from the constant reverting/
protecting - you soon get to know who the 'group' is and can read on their
talk pages comments and jokes about a "here we go again" scenario. It is as
if they actually lie in wait for the next unwary editor to come along and
make a change.

At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of pages that do not meet
20% of the quality criteria and nobody does anything to remedy them. Yet,
do something like move the page, change the infobox and immediately the
'owners' come out of the woodwork to revert.

Someone cited Ukranian in this thread and I would like to pick up on that.
There is a tendency at the higher levels to equate Wikipedia with the
English Wikipedia and all else are something else. This includes the level
of involvement by the Foundation etc in the non-English Wikipedias, often
with the justification (excuse?) that each is independent. And of course
each language WP will use this independence to its advantage when
convenient, as a reason why this or that is being done differently. In the
same breath, content that is specifically marked as referring to the En-WP
is then regurgitated as if it reflects the whole WP, as here, in the
Portuguese WP:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiabilidade_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Avalia.C3.A7.C3.B5es

Independence is well and good, but not when for example the Portuguese WP
votes/ debates/ discusses/ relaxing sourcing policies. If WP is to be
judged on its reliability then on a number of key elements it must be held
to one standard with criteria that apply across the board. We can't have
different standards on reliability of sources, notibality, etc.

To shrug it off as an issue of the Portuguese WP is to bury our heads in
the sand, to shirk responsibility, because such issues are symptomatic of
the problems facing the WP as a whole and contributing to the reasons that
make editors pack up and go.

Also from Portuguese WP, it is embarassing that since 2009 there have bee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Jon Davies]

We hardly ever say 'Thank You'


On 29 May 2014 11:10, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> James is right in that we could do better in growing the number of people
> contributing to our projects. So what is it that makes people back?
> Typically it is that they find the information they look for. Typically it
> is that their contribution is valued and does not take too much effort.
>
> When you look at our efforts they typically require a "big intellect". That
> excludes many people because it is often more that you are expected to
> conform to particular expectations than being brainy. We are focused on our
> existing largest community, we cater for what is important to them and
> consequently we do not consider those that are not obvious targets for that
> largest community.
>
> When we do venture out, for instance in "Wiki loves monuments" we do really
> well; we make the Guiness book of records. It is however not the WMF that
> learns the lessons; it is left for the communities, the chapters. The same
> is for the GLAM participation, it is not even the WMF that provides the
> infra structure, it is the chapters and they are "blamed" for having an
> agenda that does not align with the technical aspirations of MediaWiki et
> al development. The GLAM cooperation is another area where we as a movement
> shine.
>
> When you want opportunities where we expand on things outside of core
> en.wp, have a look at the games developed by Magnus [1]. People find them
> highly entertaining and they do serve a need. In the "Reasonator" people
> can get information about data in Wikidata even when there are no "labels"
> in their language because it provides language fall back. However,
> Reasonator is served from Labs and it is not consistently available to our
> users. Its "up time" is not consistent with what is needed for an end-user
> experience and consequently its growth is stunted at the current level.
>
> We do not know what people are looking for and fail to find. We do not know
> that for any language and consequently we cannot ask things like: "do you
> know the name of what you are looking for in another language". This could
> add labels to Wikidata and help in finding results for other people using
> WD-Search support in a Wikipedia.
>
> Really when we want to engage more people, we should not only cater for
> what our most visible and most loud community is looking for. We should
> consider opportunities outside that community. When the en.wp may benefit
> as well, it should be a fringe benefit !!
>
> So yes, lets grow our community and the most growth is where we have
> achieved the least.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#
>
>
> On 29 May 2014 10:06, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Lila Tretikov wrote:
> > >...
> > > Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> > > is the strategy that helps answer this question.
> >
> > On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
> > only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
> > and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:
> >
> >
> >
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation
> >
> > That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
> > focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
> > people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
> > on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
> > would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
> > contributing editor preferences on these issues.
> >
> > But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
> > one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
> > things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
> > confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.
> >
> > >... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> > > to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> > > When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> > > hypothesis that it would yield results.
> >
> > I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
> > these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
> > very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
> > contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
> > really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
> > to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
> > the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
> > few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
> > trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
> > can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?
> >
> > 1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com
> >
> > 2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rig

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

James is right in that we could do better in growing the number of people
contributing to our projects. So what is it that makes people back?
Typically it is that they find the information they look for. Typically it
is that their contribution is valued and does not take too much effort.

When you look at our efforts they typically require a "big intellect". That
excludes many people because it is often more that you are expected to
conform to particular expectations than being brainy. We are focused on our
existing largest community, we cater for what is important to them and
consequently we do not consider those that are not obvious targets for that
largest community.

When we do venture out, for instance in "Wiki loves monuments" we do really
well; we make the Guiness book of records. It is however not the WMF that
learns the lessons; it is left for the communities, the chapters. The same
is for the GLAM participation, it is not even the WMF that provides the
infra structure, it is the chapters and they are "blamed" for having an
agenda that does not align with the technical aspirations of MediaWiki et
al development. The GLAM cooperation is another area where we as a movement
shine.

When you want opportunities where we expand on things outside of core
en.wp, have a look at the games developed by Magnus [1]. People find them
highly entertaining and they do serve a need. In the "Reasonator" people
can get information about data in Wikidata even when there are no "labels"
in their language because it provides language fall back. However,
Reasonator is served from Labs and it is not consistently available to our
users. Its "up time" is not consistent with what is needed for an end-user
experience and consequently its growth is stunted at the current level.

We do not know what people are looking for and fail to find. We do not know
that for any language and consequently we cannot ask things like: "do you
know the name of what you are looking for in another language". This could
add labels to Wikidata and help in finding results for other people using
WD-Search support in a Wikipedia.

Really when we want to engage more people, we should not only cater for
what our most visible and most loud community is looking for. We should
consider opportunities outside that community. When the en.wp may benefit
as well, it should be a fringe benefit !!

So yes, lets grow our community and the most growth is where we have
achieved the least.
Thanks,
 GerardM




[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#


On 29 May 2014 10:06, James Salsman  wrote:

> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >...
> > Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> > is the strategy that helps answer this question.
>
> On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
> only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
> and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:
>
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation
>
> That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
> focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
> people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
> on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
> would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
> contributing editor preferences on these issues.
>
> But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
> one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
> things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
> confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.
>
> >... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> > to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> > When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> > hypothesis that it would yield results.
>
> I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
> these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
> very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
> contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
> really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
> to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
> the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
> few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
> trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
> can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?
>
> 1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com
>
> 2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the
> Child and its protocols without reservation
>
> 3. Increase infrastructure spending
>
> 4. Increase education spending
>
> 5. Public school class size reduction
>
> 6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms
>
> 7. More steeply progressive tax

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Lila Tretikov]

Thanks Anders for the advice -- I will look into those. Maintaining freedom
of speech is especially close to my heart.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> Thanks for this update.
>
> Ii is refreshing to see both your will to act in accordance with our
> tradition of transparency and also to see your open curious approach to
> your new assignment (and your will to start up strategy work).
>
> I get two reflections when I read through your mail.
>
> Do not forget to learn of the real wikimedia world behind the SF office
> and the English community. With your background familiar with russian
> language, why not visit:
> *our Ukraine chapter where they have a fascinating story of their efforts
> with the Ukraine language and culture and being a key actor in the build up
> of an Ukrainian identity, which effect we have seen this year in the news
> daily (and where one member even had to our sorrow to pay with his life
> defending the rights on free knowledge for all on Euromajdan)
> *our Russian chapter where they have been extremely successful in keeping
> its independence (and existence) away from the autocratic authorizes and
> even winning respect from top key persons in their political hierarchy. And
> they have been most successful in our movement in fighting off some of the
> most awful POV attacks we have seen (in their case mostly from fascist)
>
> Also do not forget to look into but what we are NOT doing in our
> swdevelopment, but ought to. We are seeing many commercial companies
> looking into how to make money from the content of Wikipedia by introducing
> new type of readers interfaces put on top of Wikipedia. There are
> Californain companies looking into developing a Q&A type of interface, and
> Google are for the moment nice to us, but what if they became less nice and
> steered away search hit away from Wikipedia?
>
> Good luck in your job, and hope to meet you in some part of the strategic
> work that now soon seems to get started
>
> Anders
> (being the most active contributer on Swedish Wikipedia & member of FDC
> until July 1)
>
>
> Lila Tretikov skrev 2014-05-28 01:53:
>
>> Hello Wikimedians,
>>
>> I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
>> immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
>> leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
>> this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
>> probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
>> know
>> a little more about who I am.
>>
>>   I believe the most precious commodity in life is time. I seek challenges
>> worthy of it. I do not work for a job, I work for impact and I chose this
>> role above all others because I believe this is a critical moment for the
>> future of our movement.
>>
>> I also believe no one person can be good at everything, myself included,
>> so
>> I build great teams of people with complementary strengths. This means
>> that
>> I believe that best decisions come informed by a range of views, and that
>> I
>> respect a wide plurality of opinions. It also means that I choose to
>> surround myself with people who are strong, which often requires
>> negotiating conflicts.
>>
>> How have I spent my first three weeks at the WMF:
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Reading and watching: wikis, lists, talk pages, annual plans, reports,
>> videos, emails and videos
>> -
>>
>> Dozens of 1:1s with staff, board, and community members
>> -
>>
>> Attending the Zurich hackathon
>>
>> -
>>
>> Participating in the recent Board meeting
>> -
>>
>> Progress with ongoing decisions, such as the Terms of Use discussion
>> -
>>
>> Deep-dive into product roadmap and data analytics
>> -
>>
>> Four days of deep-dive and knowledge transfer with Sue
>> -
>>
>> IRC office hours, writing my first blog, and engaging on my talk page
>> -
>>
>> Training to be an even more effective communicator for the media
>> -
>>
>> Review of on-going product initiatives: mobile, Flow, and VE
>> -
>>
>> Recruiting
>>
>>
>> What I found to be challenging:
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> The extensive documentation, which provides plenty of context, but
>> makes
>> it hard to find distilled essences of historical decisions quickly.
>> -
>>
>> The complexity of the community, roles, differences in points of view
>> and perspectives.
>>
>>
>> What is coming:
>>
>> -
>>
>> A deep-dive into a few selected projects that are already in the
>> works,
>> to understand where they are currently, what the expected outcomes
>> are, and
>> how we measure success;
>> -
>>
>> A retreat with the c-level leadership to align our work, and identify
>> and address immediate Foundation priorities; and
>> -
>>
>> Starting the process for our next strategic planning exercise, which
>> will be different from last tim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[James Salsman]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>...
> Allocation should follow strategic priorities and it
> is the strategy that helps answer this question.

On this point, it should be enormously helpful to point out that the
only strategic goal which the Foundation has ever failed to achieve,
and has consistently failed to achieve, is this one:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Increase_participation

That specific strategic priority of increasing participation is the
focus of the sixteen proposed additional strategic goals below. Some
people have substantial objections to some of them, but I'm not clear
on the details. Nobody has suggested any reason that Foundation goals
would not benefit from at least an attempt at alignment to volunteer
contributing editor preferences on these issues.

But what have I forgotten? What have I left out? If I could only get
one suggestion for every two people who take issue with specific
things already on the list, I would feel a lot more comfortable and
confident that there isn't anything being forgotten.

>... On a more operational scale, resources tend go
> to where the users are or where the opportunity is.
> When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
> hypothesis that it would yield results.

I agree with measuring what is likely to work best, but for some of
these proposals, including some of the lowest hanging fruit, that is
very hard. So again, I recommend depending on the wisdom of
contributing editors. To that end, an editor survey is something which
really needs to be done to prep for this. I trust the Board and Staff
to be able to veto things which are unworkable and reach through to
the opportunities in an agile fashion. What I don't understand are the
few who suggest that the Foundation should not be more active on
trying to improve the lot in life of potential volunteer editors. How
can that possibly be part of a strategy to increase participation?

1. Labor rights, e.g., linking to fixmyjob.com

2. Support the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child and its protocols without reservation

3. Increase infrastructure spending

4. Increase education spending

5. Public school class size reduction

6. College subsidy with income-based repayment terms

7. More steeply progressive taxation

8. Negative interest on excess reserves

9. Telecommuting

10. Workweek length reduction

11. Single-payer health care

12. Renewable power purchase

13. Increased data center hardware power efficiency

14. Increased security against eavesdropping

15. Metropolitan broadband

16. Oppose monopolization of software, communications, publishing, and
finance industries

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Anders Wennersten]

Thanks for this update.

Ii is refreshing to see both your will to act in accordance with our 
tradition of transparency and also to see your open curious approach to 
your new assignment (and your will to start up strategy work).


I get two reflections when I read through your mail.

Do not forget to learn of the real wikimedia world behind the SF office 
and the English community. With your background familiar with russian 
language, why not visit:
*our Ukraine chapter where they have a fascinating story of their 
efforts with the Ukraine language and culture and being a key actor in 
the build up of an Ukrainian identity, which effect we have seen this 
year in the news daily (and where one member even had to our sorrow to 
pay with his life defending the rights on free knowledge for all on 
Euromajdan)
*our Russian chapter where they have been extremely successful in 
keeping its independence (and existence) away from the autocratic 
authorizes and even winning respect from top key persons in their 
political hierarchy. And they have been most successful in our movement 
in fighting off some of the most awful POV attacks we have seen (in 
their case mostly from fascist)


Also do not forget to look into but what we are NOT doing in our 
swdevelopment, but ought to. We are seeing many commercial companies 
looking into how to make money from the content of Wikipedia by 
introducing new type of readers interfaces put on top of Wikipedia. 
There are Californain companies looking into developing a Q&A type of 
interface, and Google are for the moment nice to us, but what if they 
became less nice and steered away search hit away from Wikipedia?


Good luck in your job, and hope to meet you in some part of the 
strategic work that now soon seems to get started


Anders
(being the most active contributer on Swedish Wikipedia & member of FDC 
until July 1)



Lila Tretikov skrev 2014-05-28 01:53:

Hello Wikimedians,

I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to know
a little more about who I am.

  I believe the most precious commodity in life is time. I seek challenges
worthy of it. I do not work for a job, I work for impact and I chose this
role above all others because I believe this is a critical moment for the
future of our movement.

I also believe no one person can be good at everything, myself included, so
I build great teams of people with complementary strengths. This means that
I believe that best decisions come informed by a range of views, and that I
respect a wide plurality of opinions. It also means that I choose to
surround myself with people who are strong, which often requires
negotiating conflicts.

How have I spent my first three weeks at the WMF:


-

Reading and watching: wikis, lists, talk pages, annual plans, reports,
videos, emails and videos
-

Dozens of 1:1s with staff, board, and community members
-

Attending the Zurich hackathon
-

Participating in the recent Board meeting
-

Progress with ongoing decisions, such as the Terms of Use discussion
-

Deep-dive into product roadmap and data analytics
-

Four days of deep-dive and knowledge transfer with Sue
-

IRC office hours, writing my first blog, and engaging on my talk page
-

Training to be an even more effective communicator for the media
-

Review of on-going product initiatives: mobile, Flow, and VE
-

Recruiting


What I found to be challenging:


-

The extensive documentation, which provides plenty of context, but makes
it hard to find distilled essences of historical decisions quickly.
-

The complexity of the community, roles, differences in points of view
and perspectives.


What is coming:

-

A deep-dive into a few selected projects that are already in the works,
to understand where they are currently, what the expected outcomes are, and
how we measure success;
-

A retreat with the c-level leadership to align our work, and identify
and address immediate Foundation priorities; and
-

Starting the process for our next strategic planning exercise, which
will be different from last time, and focused on improving our ability to
react quickly and adjust as necessary to opportunities and challenges.


These are the things I’ve been working on -- but I know that there’s a lot
more that you as community members have to offer, and much more that I can
learn. Here’s just a few of the things I’m looking forward to from you:


-

Engaging with the strategic planning process;
-

Continuing to provide feedback and on beta features, products, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Lila Tretikov]

MZMcBride -- We are a little bit in the tricky situation because our
strategy has not been updated yet. Allocation should follow strategic
priorities and it is the strategy that helps answer this question. On a
more operational scale, resources tend go to where the users are or where
the opportunity is. When they go to opportunity, it is towards verifying
hypothesis that it would yield results.

I am thinking through this now and will post more thoughts as we begin
planning for the strategy update.

L


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
> >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
> >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
> >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
> >know a little more about who I am.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
>
> >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> >once!); [...]
>
> I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
> scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest Wikimedia
> Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
> need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
>
> As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia Foundation
> developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
> and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
> Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no direct
> attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
> become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the red-headed
> stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a goal
> to do better in this area.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Lila Tretikov]

Thank you, Risker -- we do have lots of work to do :)


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Risker  wrote:

> It is great to hear how you are working to learn about the vast Wikimedia
> community, its projects, its priorities and its challenges, Lila.
>
> I'm thinking there's something else that all of us should help you
> celebrate as well:  after only a few weeks on the job, being named to the
> Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/
>
> That's a great start.
>
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 28 May 2014 08:58, Anna Torres  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Great to hearing your experience. As being a new ED too (3 months now) I
> > can indentify myself with your experience: the first month is about
> > listening and getting to know :)
> >
> > All the best for what is to come! Hope to meeting you asap!
> >
> > Hugs from Argentina.
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-28 2:48 GMT-03:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury :
> >
> > > +1
> > > Thank you for this write-up. Happy to read..:)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lila Tretikov wrote:
> > > > >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> > > > >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably
> noticed,
> > my
> > > > >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions
> > --
> > > > >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that
> you
> > > are
> > > > >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and
> to
> > > > >know a little more about who I am.
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
> > > >
> > > > >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> > > > >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> > > > >once!); [...]
> > > >
> > > > I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources
> are
> > > > scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think
> we
> > > > need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
> > > >
> > > > As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia
> > > Foundation
> > > > developers and other staff specifically focused on the English
> > Wikipedia
> > > > and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such
> > as
> > > > Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no
> > > direct
> > > > attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects"
> > has
> > > > become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the
> > > red-headed
> > > > stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a
> > > goal
> > > > to do better in this area.
> > > >
> > > > MZMcBride
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive*
> > > Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia<
> > > http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive>
> > > Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia
> > > Foundation
> > > Social Media Interaction Expert | The Daily
> > > Prothom-Alo
> > > Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network
> > > 
> > > Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) <
> http://www.bdosn.org
> > >
> > > Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh 
> > > fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive  | Skype:
> > > nhasive
> > > | www.nhasive.com
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anna Torres Adell
> > Directora Ejecutiva
> > *A.C Wikimedia Argentina*
> >
> > *Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Risker]

It is great to hear how you are working to learn about the vast Wikimedia
community, its projects, its priorities and its challenges, Lila.

I'm thinking there's something else that all of us should help you
celebrate as well:  after only a few weeks on the job, being named to the
Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/

That's a great start.


Risker


On 28 May 2014 08:58, Anna Torres  wrote:

> +1
>
> Great to hearing your experience. As being a new ED too (3 months now) I
> can indentify myself with your experience: the first month is about
> listening and getting to know :)
>
> All the best for what is to come! Hope to meeting you asap!
>
> Hugs from Argentina.
>
>
> 2014-05-28 2:48 GMT-03:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury :
>
> > +1
> > Thank you for this write-up. Happy to read..:)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > Lila Tretikov wrote:
> > > >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> > > >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed,
> my
> > > >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions
> --
> > > >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you
> > are
> > > >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
> > > >know a little more about who I am.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
> > >
> > > >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> > > >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> > > >once!); [...]
> > >
> > > I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
> > > scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest
> > Wikimedia
> > > Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
> > > need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
> > >
> > > As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > > developers and other staff specifically focused on the English
> Wikipedia
> > > and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such
> as
> > > Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no
> > direct
> > > attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects"
> has
> > > become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the
> > red-headed
> > > stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a
> > goal
> > > to do better in this area.
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive*
> > Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia<
> > http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive>
> > Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > Social Media Interaction Expert | The Daily
> > Prothom-Alo
> > Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network
> > 
> > Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)  >
> > Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh 
> > fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive  | Skype:
> > nhasive
> > | www.nhasive.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Torres Adell
> Directora Ejecutiva
> *A.C Wikimedia Argentina*
>
> *Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Anna Torres]

+1

Great to hearing your experience. As being a new ED too (3 months now) I
can indentify myself with your experience: the first month is about
listening and getting to know :)

All the best for what is to come! Hope to meeting you asap!

Hugs from Argentina.


2014-05-28 2:48 GMT-03:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury :

> +1
> Thank you for this write-up. Happy to read..:)
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Lila Tretikov wrote:
> > >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> > >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
> > >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
> > >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you
> are
> > >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
> > >know a little more about who I am.
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
> >
> > >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> > >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> > >once!); [...]
> >
> > I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
> > scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
> > need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
> >
> > As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
> > and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
> > Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no
> direct
> > attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
> > become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the
> red-headed
> > stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a
> goal
> > to do better in this area.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive*
> Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia<
> http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive>
> Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia
> Foundation
> Social Media Interaction Expert | The Daily
> Prothom-Alo
> Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network
> 
> Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) 
> Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh 
> fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive  | Skype:
> nhasive
> | www.nhasive.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C Wikimedia Argentina*

*Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[Nurunnaby Chowdhury]

+1
Thank you for this write-up. Happy to read..:)



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Lila Tretikov wrote:
> >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
> >immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
> >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
> >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
> >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
> >know a little more about who I am.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)
>
> >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
> >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
> >once!); [...]
>
> I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
> scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest Wikimedia
> Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
> need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.
>
> As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia Foundation
> developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
> and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
> Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no direct
> attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
> become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the red-headed
> stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a goal
> to do better in this area.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive*
Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia
Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia
Foundation
Social Media Interaction Expert | The Daily
Prothom-Alo
Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network

Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) 
Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh 
fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive  | Skype: nhasive
| www.nhasive.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[MZMcBride]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia
>immersion -- this will also go on the blog.  As you probably noticed, my
>leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions --
>this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you are
>probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to
>know a little more about who I am.
>
> [...]

Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-)

>Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development
>(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at
>once!); [...]

I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are
scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest Wikimedia
Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we
need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources.

As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia Foundation
developers and other staff specifically focused on the English Wikipedia
and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such as
Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no direct
attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" has
become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the red-headed
stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a goal
to do better in this area.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.

[James Salsman]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>...
> a few of the things I’m looking forward to from you:
>...
> provide feedback and on ... projects and initiatives
> to help make them better, more useful, and lead to
> more successful outcomes

Samuel Klein wrote:
>... legal work is a significant part of our budget and
> work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped
> in with administration

How about partitioning the legal budget and publishing expenditures of
both time and money for each partition in case rich political
opponents try to stir up legal trouble in an attempt to drain
resources?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,