On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the
> actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less
> than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like
> engagement.
>
"Meta has 4600 and forum has less than 200", you say. 4600 what, though?
That number is the number of "Active users", meaning people who make
edits.
However, comparing the 4600 active users of Meta to the 200 active[1] users
is not comparing like with like: on Meta, edits are made on hundreds of
different topics, from requests for permissions through learning patterns,
global abuse investigations, to grant proposals and discussions. *And very
little discussion of Movement Strategy*. In other words, a very small
proportion (what proportion exactly, I don't have the means to ascertain)
of the 4600 active users of Meta are engaged in Movement Strategy, so the
number 4600 represents nothing relevant to this discussion. The Forum, on
the other hand, is dedicated to Movement Strategy discussion, so a large
number of the 200 active users are in fact discussing Movement Strategy.
(Personally I would like the Forum to be even more focused on Movement
Strategy and to discourage content-free "social" posts, but I am not
involved with the Forum's governance.)
In other words, I suggest that those of you determined to only discuss
Movement Strategy on Meta *do more of that*, to lead by example. It is
within your power to move the critical mass of active discussion of
Movement Strategy and the liveliest proposals and plans to Meta. Remember
that it is *as a response* to the difficulty[2] of gaining traction for
Movement Strategy conversations that the Forum was created.
Asaf
(personal opinion)
[1] I think discounting staff engaging on the Forum is a mistake. Staff is
also engaging on Meta, yet is included in the 4600 figure. I am guessing
more staff engage on the Forum, by design, but surely that engagement is a
good thing, as it is on Meta.
[2] that difficulty is certainly not solely due to the technology of Meta;
there were other factors dampening engagement about Movement Strategy, some
of them, I daresay, the fault of the Foundation. But Meta's shortcomings
as a venue *are* indicated in surveys as a major reason people aren't
engaging in conversation about Movement Strategy, so the Foundation acted
on that input. Again, you can demonstrate that that reason is *not* a
significant factor by creating and participating in lively Movement
Strategy discussions on Meta.
Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/SZPN2YYDXD4BU3LCTK33PYH57WFVXRLA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
