2011/2/27 :
> The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
> that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
> effort here.
>
> With Wikipedia, I can contribute a word here, a sentence there, parse some
> grammar over there, fix a bad phrasing
On 27 February 2011 20:37, wrote:
> So what we should have created it not Wikibooks with which to start, but
> Wiki...How or WikiChapter or something small, that a person could actually
> accomplish.
Arguably we could have started wikihow.com ... which is CC by-nc-sa,
rather than an actually
In a message dated 2/27/2011 12:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> The scope was supposedly textbooks - how-to books.
>
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
On 26 February 2011 16:32, wrote:
> I will go one step further.
> What is Wikibooks at all?
> The scope, content, purpose were really poorly defined.
> "Something to large for Wikipedia" doesn't really cut it in my mind.
> When our Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe can be 25 screen pages long,
In a message dated 2/26/2011 6:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
> that will keep people lured in?
>
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poor
>
> From: Andrew Gray
>
> I was surprised to see the pagecount figures on en.wikibooks! Is this
> no new pages being created, or is it page creation being approximately
> equal to the rate of deleting old pages?
>
>
The full period graph has an anomaly where pages went from almost 39,000 to
just u
On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
[via MZM]
> "Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
> mission actually is. I see it as about content creation. Wikimedia's focus
> should primarily be creating the best free content it can. Others seem far
> more i
On 26 February 2011 16:43, Pronoein wrote:
> What bothers me is that you talk about in terms of us and them as if
> they were aliens. It's good to ask about the ideals of a community, but
> it's even best when you share their ideals.
The ideal is tuna too in this context.
I don't mean to set u
Le 26/02/2011 11:11, David Gerard a écrit :
> Volunteers are not employees, and can't be
> expected to just shut up and work. It really, really deeply doesn't
> work like that.
I don't follow you. Are you answering to something or somebody in
particular? Was there a disagreement about that? Did an
On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
> MZMcbride, and this is a relevant portion:
> "Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
> mission actually is. I see it as about content cre
From: Andrew Gray
>
> The absolute number of "active" community members on enwp peaked in
> early 2007 and has been in a slow decline more or less steadily since
> then; it's currently about two thirds what it was.
>
>
I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
MZMc
In a message dated 2/25/2011 9:56:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
> To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
> people don't do what they know to do, but choose to become teachers. Maybe
>
> there are people who know how to edit Wikipedia
In a message dated 2/25/2011 3:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> At the moment, we need admins who press buttons more than we need to
> welcome new users. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
> We need to find ways of reducing the amount of work needed, or
> radica
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Renata St wrote:
>...
> Then one day I stumbled upon Distributed Proofreaders (
> http://www.pgdp.net/c/) and proofread a few pages. I couple days later I
> received *three* *personalized* welcoming messages & evaluations "this is
> what you got right, this is what
On 25 February 2011 03:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
> English Wikipedia is now sufficiently well known and culturally
> important, that 'we' no longer need to care about new contributors.
> Even if only 1% of new contributors work their way past the rejections
> and through our maze of rules, we wi
>>> Should we have a special "welcoming" staff instead of random
>>> people or bots inserting {{welcome}}?
>>
>> To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not?
>
> On English Wikipedia there is a
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
"It
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, wrote:
>..
> This is certainly part of the problem. I would point also to the
> overwhelming amount of policies (and their corresponding abbreviations,
> WP:NOT etc. etc.) and procedures as being practically impossible to cope
> with for newbies.
>
> Question is,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Friday 25 February 2011 13:18:36 dex2...@pc.dk написа:
>> clean-up? Should we have a special "welcoming" staff instead of random
>> people or bots inserting {{welcome}}?
>
> To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not?
On
Here's a recent email I received from Answers.com after editing an
answer there. Talk about friendly! Compared to this, we make the IRS
look friendly.
Hey Kaldari,
Someone's been busy lately! Don't think your contributions go
unnoticed... your tireless efforts are helping thousands of ind
Дана Friday 25 February 2011 13:18:36 dex2...@pc.dk написа:
> clean-up? Should we have a special "welcoming" staff instead of random
> people or bots inserting {{welcome}}?
To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
people don't do what they know to do, but choose to
- Original meddelelse -
> Fra: John Vandenberg
> Til: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Dato: Fre, 25. feb 2011 04:01
> Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An
> Essay)
>
>
> The systems are designed so that the cliche '1
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Renata St wrote:
>
> Then one day I stumbled upon Distributed Proofreaders (
> http://www.pgdp.net/c/) and proofread a few pages. I couple days later I
> received *three* *personalized* welcoming messages & evaluations "this is
> what you got right, this is what yo
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
>>> combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
>>
>> Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not sure you
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > Ban Twinkle? The tool seems to directly encourage problematic behaviour.
> >
> In my opinion, this would be suboptimal. The truth is, that tool made
> my life easier when I was admin-i
On 2/23/11 3:20 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> There was a "contribution campaign" following the most recent fundraiser.
> It would be cool to see data from that campaign.
Contrib is still going:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONTRIB
They've had a couple of rather successful outreach events
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:26 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
Great examples :-) Building on them for a moment:
> Just glancing at new articles now, I see (no sources):
>
> [[Quksace agjke]]: "quksace agjke is a term in ancient Chinese.
> quksace means quick and agjke means aggies. Back to 1902, students
To be clear about what I meant:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>> tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
>> combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
>
> Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not sur
David Gerard wrote:
> Ban Twinkle? The tool seems to directly encourage problematic behaviour.
>
In my opinion, this would be suboptimal. The truth is, that tool made
my life easier when I was admin-ing on a regular basis. But perhaps
cutting out particular problematic "features" wouldn't be a
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 16:04, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Which is to say that new article patrol is a task requiring more skill
> rather than less; it is not a quiet corner for people who are unable to
> edit productively and lack people skills.
>
>
Let's not be too quick to criticize recent-change pat
> To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
> were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
> first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
> wanders in front of the rifle sites. We need patrollers to be able to
> identify nuns and tourist
In a message dated 2/23/2011 11:16:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sgard...@wikimedia.org writes:
> To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
> were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
> first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
>
On 23 February 2011 19:15, Sue Gardner wrote:
> It also made me wonder if patrollers find themselves over time
> starting to dehumanize new people, as a kind of coping mechanism, or
> just because they feel beleagured. The experience, for me, felt a bit
> like a videogame. (And yeah, I am a pers
On 23 February 2011 10:07, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
>>> English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
>>> trying to make constructive edits
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
>> English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
>> trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
>> through their e
"You have just made your 100th edit: congratulations."
That would be good bot to run: encourage people!
Another idea: A simple message to make a compliment on people who make their
first 3 posts which are not reverted after a day. make it aimed at anonymous
contributors, and inviting them to regist
Hello SJ, and all the others,
I think SJ's mail has a lot of points. And I think the most important
thing is not to talk about this, but to change one's own attitude. Most
people who are talking here are also the most heavy contributors in our
projects, and as these, they have a heavy mindsetti
In a message dated 2/22/2011 10:16:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu writes:
> There's a shortage of core developers. There are quite a lot of PHP
> developers who have built some sort of MediaWiki extension, or
> otherwise hacked on it to make their own fork, however. We ha
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:42:25 -0500, aude wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Samuel Klein
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> >
>> > If you were going to do something more useful than welcoming users,
>> > you're talking about dealing with about 180,000 e
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:02:09 -0800, Erik Moeller
wrote:
> 2011/2/22 Michel Vuijlsteke :
> This is where it starts. Thousands of our users have their first
> interactions with a bot or with a user leaving a template. We're
> unlikely to alter our practice to completely abandon bots and talk
> page
Samuel Klein wrote:
> tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
> combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely.
Hmm, prove it. :-) You talk a good game and I'm not sure you're wrong, but
I haven't seen much to suggest that you're right.
There was a "contrib
tl;dr: we can attract thousands of new contributors with almost any
combination of skills and availability, if we ask nicely. what should
we ask for first?
== Herring talk ==
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> The idea that we have finite human/community resources is interes
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>
>> You should try gaining the other perspective: thousands of edits each hour
>> from people all over the world,
>> a decent-sized percentage of which are purely malicious and
>
> These we should handle in automated fashi
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> > If you were going to do something more useful than welcoming users,
> > you're talking about dealing with about 180,000 edits per day and an
> > active user base of ... maybe 10,000
I would estimate that we could reach a few thousand new people a day
who are not editors, but would be glad to do something practical to
help wikipedia. That's my mental baseline for how much support we
could tap if we found a way to match each of those people to something
they wanted to do.
Whe
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 February 2011 21:38, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
> > +1 :-)
> > I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
> > English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
> > trying to make constructive edits. I wa
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> You should try gaining the other perspective: thousands of edits each hour
> from people all over the world,
> a decent-sized percentage of which are purely malicious and
These we should handle in automated fashion.
> another decent-sized per
Sue Gardner wrote:
> I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
> English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
> trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
> through their eyes --- what their early experiences felt like. Some
> ha
Renata, I really loved this message of yours, and the reminder of how
awesome PGDP is :-)
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Renata St wrote:
>> We could emphasize a more positive engagement intended to get the
>> message to these people about what an encyclopedia is, what Wikipedia
>> is, and w
> On 22 February 2011 12:02, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> IMO every single Wikimedia project would benefit from dedicated
>> community effort to 1) catalog the most widely used templates on talk
>> pages, 2) systematically improve them with an eye on the impact they
>> can have on whether people feel t
On 22 February 2011 21:38, Sue Gardner wrote:
> +1 :-)
> I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
> English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
> trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
> through their eyes --- what their
On 22 February 2011 12:02, Erik Moeller wrote:
> IMO every single Wikimedia project would benefit from dedicated
> community effort to 1) catalog the most widely used templates on talk
> pages, 2) systematically improve them with an eye on the impact they
> can have on whether people feel their wo
2011/2/22 Michel Vuijlsteke :
> One interaction I encountered recently is typical. Michiel Hendryckx, one of
> Belgium's best-known photographers, started uploading fairly
> high-resolution, good quality images to Wikipedia (well, Commons) on 3 July
> 2010. Stuff like this 1983 Chet Baker portrait:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Would it make sense to have a "be nice" session at Wikimania to share all
> kinds of experiences and best practices around this topic?
> Phoebe, you sound like the ultimate person to organize such a session (in
> case you did not yet propose such)
>
> Again: content over people. No personal interaction with the photographer,
> no message on the photographer's talk page after the deletion request was
> closed, nothing.
>
> Again, I'm sure the user in question meant really well again, but here too:
> content over people. Drive-by templating, s
On 22 February 2011 14:14, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> > We have to make a profound choice in the culture here:
> > 1) we continue with the whacking and scaring the newbies away (content
> > priority #1, people #2), or
> > 2) we embrace the newbies and we let some spam through (people priority
> The core of Wikipedia culture is battleground: fight vandals, nuke their
> articles, whack them and quick! Yes, it is important for the integrity
of
> the encyclopedia. Yes, spam was prophesied to be the end of Wikipedia.
But
> what will surely kill it is lack of participation. And we are killi
Would it make sense to have a "be nice" session at Wikimania to share all
kinds of experiences and best practices around this topic?
Phoebe, you sound like the ultimate person to organize such a session (in
case you did not yet propose such) :)
Lodewijk
2011/2/22 phoebe ayers
> On Mon, Feb 21,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Renata St wrote:
>>
>> This is to some degree a question of balance in approach.
>>
>> Every day, thousands of absolutely idiotic, non notable articles get
>> started that really have no point or hope. Every day, new page
>> patrollers find (most) of those, and th
>
> This is to some degree a question of balance in approach.
>
> Every day, thousands of absolutely idiotic, non notable articles get
> started that really have no point or hope. Every day, new page
> patrollers find (most) of those, and they go "kerpoof". It would
> largely be a waste of time t
59 matches
Mail list logo
