Mailing List Archive

Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline
At the page [1] you may see complete data for a number of lists (of
bigger projects). Below this email is my analysis of data.

In brief, you may read inside of the analysis:
* Almost all lists are in decrease.
* Decrease varies between rare significant, but not high decreases and
rare dead lists. In other words, the most of the lists are in
significant decrease: Some of them since 2005, more of since
2007-2008.

Positive and "positive" trends:
* Technical lists show the smallest amount of decrease.
* Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
*increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
during the next year or two.)

"Trivia":
* Russian Wikipedians don't use WMF based lists for their
communication. (Or they don't use mailing lists at all, which seems to
me less possible.)
* Portuguese list doesn't have extension "-l" in the name.

So, some numbers are analyzed. Unlike simple claims like "foundation-l
traffic decreased", we have now significant enough data: decrease is
systematic, not only at one list and in amount of emails, but on
almost all of [analyzed, bigger] lists and in amount of new and active
participants. This shows very well that our community and our
communities are not so alive like they had been in the past.

And to be more clear. If we take a look at traffic at this list for
Octobers 2006-2008, we may see that the approximation of decline is
20% for the first year and 50% for the second. If this trend
continues, we will have ~175 emails during the next October, ~50
during October 2010, ~10 during October 2011. According to the
statistics of other lists -- 10 emails during October means no emails
between June and September. This means that foundation-l will be in
2012 at the position where wikiquote-l is no (de facto dead list).

And some good news:
* We have enough time to change things.
* If content projects would become history, MediaWiki would be alive
for some more time.

The question is: Do we have ideas how to make things better?

[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Problems/List/Low_activity_on_mailing_lists

* * *

== Analysis: Data interpretation ==

=== General lists ===

* Communication on all general lists are decreasing. Technical lists
(wikitech-l and mediawiki-l) are significantly better than general
non-technical list foundation-l. Out of other particular cases,
technical lists stays the best.

=== Project lists ===

* commons-l has very high decrease in traffic, while decreases in
number of new and active participants are significant, while not so
high.
* textbook-l (Wikibooks list) is one of the rare examples which is not
in decreasing!
* wikimediameta-l increases, while it is a very young list, which
should take community part of discussion from foundation-l list.
However, increase on this list is not significant enough to cover (at
least, partially) decrease at foundation-l.
* wikinews-l: Similarly to foundation-l -- significant decrease.
* wikipedia-l: It shows very high decrease in all aspects. During the
first years it was used as the main list, including for Wikipedia in
English. Decrease 2002-2003 shows moving Wikipedia in English issues
to the language specific list -- wikien-l. Decrease 2005-2006 probably
shows moving general issues to foundation-l. However, 2006-2008
doesn't have any obvious reason and it follows the similar decrease on
the foundation-l list.
* wikiquote-l: While it was not a very active list ever, this list is
de facto dead from June 2008.
* wikisource-l: While it was not a very active list ever, it shows
''not'' significant decrease during 2008.
* wikispecies-l: This list was not significantly active ever and
conclusions about time line of its activity can't be made.
* wiktionary-l: The list was in decrease during 2006 and again between
mid-2007 and present (October 2008).

=== Per language Wikipedias ===

* wikide-l: In constant decrease since the first half of 2005.
* wikien-l: In decrease since the beginning of 2008.
* wikies-l: In increase from the second part of 2006 and during 2007,
but in decrease during 2008; the second part 2008 has less traffic
than the second part of 2006.
* wikifr-l: In constant decrease since the end of 2005.
* wikiit-l: In constant decrease since the beginning of 2007.
* wikija-l: The only analyzed Wikipedia list which shows increase of
traffic -- since the beginning of 2006.
* wikipl-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2005.
* wikipt: While it was never a very active list, it is almost dead (3
emails for October 2008, no emails between June and September).
* wikiru-l: Data shows that the community around Wikipedia in Russian
doesn't use wikiru-l as their mailing list.
* wikizh-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2006.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Good work Milos. I like the breadth and depth of your stats.

On the more general point though, I don't think this is mailing list
problem. As Wikipedia matures, the community at the largest scales
has been contracting. Hopefully we will stabilize at some reasonably
productive level, but in many ways the peak level of activity already
appears to be behind us.

-Robert Rohde


On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the page [1] you may see complete data for a number of lists (of
> bigger projects). Below this email is my analysis of data.
>
> In brief, you may read inside of the analysis:
> * Almost all lists are in decrease.
> * Decrease varies between rare significant, but not high decreases and
> rare dead lists. In other words, the most of the lists are in
> significant decrease: Some of them since 2005, more of since
> 2007-2008.
>
> Positive and "positive" trends:
> * Technical lists show the smallest amount of decrease.
> * Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
> *increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
> they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
> usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
> earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
> during the next year or two.)
>
> "Trivia":
> * Russian Wikipedians don't use WMF based lists for their
> communication. (Or they don't use mailing lists at all, which seems to
> me less possible.)
> * Portuguese list doesn't have extension "-l" in the name.
>
> So, some numbers are analyzed. Unlike simple claims like "foundation-l
> traffic decreased", we have now significant enough data: decrease is
> systematic, not only at one list and in amount of emails, but on
> almost all of [analyzed, bigger] lists and in amount of new and active
> participants. This shows very well that our community and our
> communities are not so alive like they had been in the past.
>
> And to be more clear. If we take a look at traffic at this list for
> Octobers 2006-2008, we may see that the approximation of decline is
> 20% for the first year and 50% for the second. If this trend
> continues, we will have ~175 emails during the next October, ~50
> during October 2010, ~10 during October 2011. According to the
> statistics of other lists -- 10 emails during October means no emails
> between June and September. This means that foundation-l will be in
> 2012 at the position where wikiquote-l is no (de facto dead list).
>
> And some good news:
> * We have enough time to change things.
> * If content projects would become history, MediaWiki would be alive
> for some more time.
>
> The question is: Do we have ideas how to make things better?
>
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Problems/List/Low_activity_on_mailing_lists
>
> * * *
>
> == Analysis: Data interpretation ==
>
> === General lists ===
>
> * Communication on all general lists are decreasing. Technical lists
> (wikitech-l and mediawiki-l) are significantly better than general
> non-technical list foundation-l. Out of other particular cases,
> technical lists stays the best.
>
> === Project lists ===
>
> * commons-l has very high decrease in traffic, while decreases in
> number of new and active participants are significant, while not so
> high.
> * textbook-l (Wikibooks list) is one of the rare examples which is not
> in decreasing!
> * wikimediameta-l increases, while it is a very young list, which
> should take community part of discussion from foundation-l list.
> However, increase on this list is not significant enough to cover (at
> least, partially) decrease at foundation-l.
> * wikinews-l: Similarly to foundation-l -- significant decrease.
> * wikipedia-l: It shows very high decrease in all aspects. During the
> first years it was used as the main list, including for Wikipedia in
> English. Decrease 2002-2003 shows moving Wikipedia in English issues
> to the language specific list -- wikien-l. Decrease 2005-2006 probably
> shows moving general issues to foundation-l. However, 2006-2008
> doesn't have any obvious reason and it follows the similar decrease on
> the foundation-l list.
> * wikiquote-l: While it was not a very active list ever, this list is
> de facto dead from June 2008.
> * wikisource-l: While it was not a very active list ever, it shows
> ''not'' significant decrease during 2008.
> * wikispecies-l: This list was not significantly active ever and
> conclusions about time line of its activity can't be made.
> * wiktionary-l: The list was in decrease during 2006 and again between
> mid-2007 and present (October 2008).
>
> === Per language Wikipedias ===
>
> * wikide-l: In constant decrease since the first half of 2005.
> * wikien-l: In decrease since the beginning of 2008.
> * wikies-l: In increase from the second part of 2006 and during 2007,
> but in decrease during 2008; the second part 2008 has less traffic
> than the second part of 2006.
> * wikifr-l: In constant decrease since the end of 2005.
> * wikiit-l: In constant decrease since the beginning of 2007.
> * wikija-l: The only analyzed Wikipedia list which shows increase of
> traffic -- since the beginning of 2006.
> * wikipl-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2005.
> * wikipt: While it was never a very active list, it is almost dead (3
> emails for October 2008, no emails between June and September).
> * wikiru-l: Data shows that the community around Wikipedia in Russian
> doesn't use wikiru-l as their mailing list.
> * wikizh-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2006.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
A very interesting analysis of the situation. It might now be
interesting to correlate this to other communication methods in
community use, to see if actual discussion has decreased or if it has
shifted to other channels.

Ian

On 10/30/08, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the page [1] you may see complete data for a number of lists (of
> bigger projects). Below this email is my analysis of data.
>
> In brief, you may read inside of the analysis:
> * Almost all lists are in decrease.
> * Decrease varies between rare significant, but not high decreases and
> rare dead lists. In other words, the most of the lists are in
> significant decrease: Some of them since 2005, more of since
> 2007-2008.
>
> Positive and "positive" trends:
> * Technical lists show the smallest amount of decrease.
> * Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
> *increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
> they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
> usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
> earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
> during the next year or two.)
>
> "Trivia":
> * Russian Wikipedians don't use WMF based lists for their
> communication. (Or they don't use mailing lists at all, which seems to
> me less possible.)
> * Portuguese list doesn't have extension "-l" in the name.
>
> So, some numbers are analyzed. Unlike simple claims like "foundation-l
> traffic decreased", we have now significant enough data: decrease is
> systematic, not only at one list and in amount of emails, but on
> almost all of [analyzed, bigger] lists and in amount of new and active
> participants. This shows very well that our community and our
> communities are not so alive like they had been in the past.
>
> And to be more clear. If we take a look at traffic at this list for
> Octobers 2006-2008, we may see that the approximation of decline is
> 20% for the first year and 50% for the second. If this trend
> continues, we will have ~175 emails during the next October, ~50
> during October 2010, ~10 during October 2011. According to the
> statistics of other lists -- 10 emails during October means no emails
> between June and September. This means that foundation-l will be in
> 2012 at the position where wikiquote-l is no (de facto dead list).
>
> And some good news:
> * We have enough time to change things.
> * If content projects would become history, MediaWiki would be alive
> for some more time.
>
> The question is: Do we have ideas how to make things better?
>
> [1] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Problems/List/Low_activity_on_mailing_lists
>
> * * *
>
> == Analysis: Data interpretation ==
>
> === General lists ===
>
> * Communication on all general lists are decreasing. Technical lists
> (wikitech-l and mediawiki-l) are significantly better than general
> non-technical list foundation-l. Out of other particular cases,
> technical lists stays the best.
>
> === Project lists ===
>
> * commons-l has very high decrease in traffic, while decreases in
> number of new and active participants are significant, while not so
> high.
> * textbook-l (Wikibooks list) is one of the rare examples which is not
> in decreasing!
> * wikimediameta-l increases, while it is a very young list, which
> should take community part of discussion from foundation-l list.
> However, increase on this list is not significant enough to cover (at
> least, partially) decrease at foundation-l.
> * wikinews-l: Similarly to foundation-l -- significant decrease.
> * wikipedia-l: It shows very high decrease in all aspects. During the
> first years it was used as the main list, including for Wikipedia in
> English. Decrease 2002-2003 shows moving Wikipedia in English issues
> to the language specific list -- wikien-l. Decrease 2005-2006 probably
> shows moving general issues to foundation-l. However, 2006-2008
> doesn't have any obvious reason and it follows the similar decrease on
> the foundation-l list.
> * wikiquote-l: While it was not a very active list ever, this list is
> de facto dead from June 2008.
> * wikisource-l: While it was not a very active list ever, it shows
> ''not'' significant decrease during 2008.
> * wikispecies-l: This list was not significantly active ever and
> conclusions about time line of its activity can't be made.
> * wiktionary-l: The list was in decrease during 2006 and again between
> mid-2007 and present (October 2008).
>
> === Per language Wikipedias ===
>
> * wikide-l: In constant decrease since the first half of 2005.
> * wikien-l: In decrease since the beginning of 2008.
> * wikies-l: In increase from the second part of 2006 and during 2007,
> but in decrease during 2008; the second part 2008 has less traffic
> than the second part of 2006.
> * wikifr-l: In constant decrease since the end of 2005.
> * wikiit-l: In constant decrease since the beginning of 2007.
> * wikija-l: The only analyzed Wikipedia list which shows increase of
> traffic -- since the beginning of 2006.
> * wikipl-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2005.
> * wikipt: While it was never a very active list, it is almost dead (3
> emails for October 2008, no emails between June and September).
> * wikiru-l: Data shows that the community around Wikipedia in Russian
> doesn't use wikiru-l as their mailing list.
> * wikizh-l: In constant decrease since the second half of 2006.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
> "Trivia":
> * Russian Wikipedians don't use WMF based lists for their
> communication. (Or they don't use mailing lists at all, which seems to
> me less possible.)

They do not use any mailing lists at all as far as I know. At least I am
not aware of existence of any mailing lists for ru.wp

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> * wikiit-l: In constant decrease since the beginning of 2007.
>
As regards wikiit-l, a major reason for the decrease is that most of the
traffic has been absorbed by the Italian chapter mailing list + we created a
ml for sysops. I'm not sure about the trend of these lists, I'll have a look
and will report soon.

Thanks for the insight, it's really a good work.
Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Ian's and Yaroslav's comments are related:

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Ian A. Holton <poeloq@gmail.com> wrote:
> A very interesting analysis of the situation. It might now be
> interesting to correlate this to other communication methods in
> community use, to see if actual discussion has decreased or if it has
> shifted to other channels.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>> "Trivia":
>> * Russian Wikipedians don't use WMF based lists for their
>> communication. (Or they don't use mailing lists at all, which seems to
>> me less possible.)
>
> They do not use any mailing lists at all as far as I know. At least I am
> not aware of existence of any mailing lists for ru.wp

First, as you (Yaroslav) is active here, I would like to know what
Russian Wikipedians are using for communication. Just wiki? Some other
ways of communication? Wikipedia in Russian is not a small project, as
well as it is growing -- which demands some level of systematic
coordination. I think that the answer on this question may be very
significant at least in understanding some part of lists traffic
decrease.

Also, Japanese Wikipedians (anyone reading this?) may give to us a
relevant answer. At least during the last decades, whenever I was
getting informations about technology development, Japan was at the
top. From computers usage, via mobile phone usage, up to very
distinctive high-tech culture. If the general trends are toward
decreasing of email communications, then, for sure, wikija-l would
show more decrease than other lists. However, their activity is
increasing! Also, Japanese Wikipedia is one of the biggest for a long
time, so it can't be explained with less activity in the past and
increasing of activity in the present (like the Russian case is). Are
they one step forward (culturally), so we may expect similar
development in the future? Or it is because of some specific reason?
In both cases, this answer may be very significant!

At last, if email-like communication is moved to social networks, like
Facebook is, then we have to go there, too. (Or, as I was talking in
the past: to make a social networking site from Wikimedia projects.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good work Milos. I like the breadth and depth of your stats.
>
> On the more general point though, I don't think this is mailing list
> problem. As Wikipedia matures, the community at the largest scales
> has been contracting. Hopefully we will stabilize at some reasonably
> productive level, but in many ways the peak level of activity already
> appears to be behind us.

Yes, it is not a mailing list problem. Mailing lists activities just
show other trends.

At the other side, I think that Wikimedian community and culture are
too precious for the world to be left far below its peak.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com> wrote:
> As regards wikiit-l, a major reason for the decrease is that most of the
> traffic has been absorbed by the Italian chapter mailing list + we created a
> ml for sysops. I'm not sure about the trend of these lists, I'll have a look
> and will report soon.

Yes, it may be a possible reason for decrease. For example, Serbian
Wikimedians were never really using any other list out of the internal
one. However, like in correlation between wikipedia-l - wikien-l -
foundation-l - metawikimedia-l -- it may be just a wrong impression.
For example, wikipedia-l in its peak in October 2002 had more emails
than all four lists have together now.

I'll prepare software to be used by others in the next couple of days,
so you would be able to analyze your private lists.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
>> They do not use any mailing lists at all as far as I know. At least I am
>> not aware of existence of any mailing lists for ru.wp
>
> First, as you (Yaroslav) is active here, I would like to know what
> Russian Wikipedians are using for communication. Just wiki? Some other
> ways of communication? Wikipedia in Russian is not a small project, as
> well as it is growing -- which demands some level of systematic
> coordination. I think that the answer on this question may be very
> significant at least in understanding some part of lists traffic
> decrease.
>

The main channel of communication is wiki: basically, the village pump
which is structured as a number of pages, for instance for instance,
general, news, rules, technical issues and such. So far it worked.
Important issues are branched out as separate rfc's.

Some of the Wikipedians (not me) are full-time present on irc channel.

A creation of a mailing list for sysops only was recently proposed but was
eventually rejected.

There is of course personal communication, and there are even some
Wikipedians (not me again) who insist that most of the issues should be
discussed privately.

The Russian chapter is in the creation stage and does not have its own
communication channel as far as I know.

I am not aware of any other signifgicant communication channels (I
recollect there is a collective blog which is half-dead and there is a
decision of arbitration committee that this blog is not a part of the
community), may be there are some more I do not know of, but it is
unlikely. There are information channels of course, for instance, similar
to wikizine. but they do not involve any discussions and are not
widespread (at least now).

Some of the prominent ru.wp editors are subscribed to this list, I assume
they will correct me if they have a different perspective.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
The chinese community doesn't use the mailing list. They mostly use
village pump or skype.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> * wikiit-l: In constant decrease since the beginning of 2007.
>>
> As regards wikiit-l, a major reason for the decrease is that most of the
> traffic has been absorbed by the Italian chapter mailing list + we created a
> ml for sysops. I'm not sure about the trend of these lists, I'll have a look
> and will report soon.
>
> Thanks for the insight, it's really a good work.
> Cruccone

To second this point...

The french wp list is still a little bit alive. Not much. 39 emails in
october (which is quite high compared to previous months).

However, the french chapter lists are overall very active. We have three
of them.

One is private, but anyone can join it (it is meant to avoid public
archives of our discussions). I can count 23 emails in october.
This one is hosted by WMF.


The membership one is private and restricted to members. It is quite
nicely active. 87 emails in october
This one is hosted by the French chapter, so does not enter into your
stats. I did not check, but I think numbers are quite stable or rising.

The last one is the board one. Its members are current board members,
plus previous still active board members. Say a dozen people. 207 emails
in october.
This one is hosted by the French chapter, so does not enter into your
stats. I did not check, but I am sure numbers are rising.


This suggests three things to me.


First, when you argue that only a couple of chapters are active and
doing things, you actually miss all the discussions happening on
chapters hosted lists. The overal wikimedia mouvement is not limited to
lists hosted by WMF, nor to wikis hosted by WMF btw (the French Chapter
wiki is very active). So, I guess your figures are slightly biaised
because you lack some information to make it truely complete. There has
obviously been a transfer of discussions from public WMF lists to
chapter lists.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just a fact. Transfer. And a
consequence of it is balkanization.


Second, your stats include only emails sent on public lists hosted by
WMF. For having been a long time on the board, I know for a fact a lot
of activity goes on on private lists (such as the board list). This
activity might balance part of the decrease of activity of public lists.
What we used to discuss here, on public lists, moved there.


However, I completely agree (without any need to check figures) that
most internal lists are in decrease as well (that's the case of the
comcom list and of internal list quite obviously).
And I share your concern on this.



The original move to the private lists (both WMF and chapter related) is
due to the increase of public interest for any of our discussions. A lot
of what used to be freely discussed publicly moved to private lists to
avoid being published within hours in the press. Probably an escape from
trolls as well :-)

However, the public and internal lists suffers three damages.

First damage: because of leaks, everything slightly confidential or even
controversial is no more discussed. Neither on public, nor on private
lists. Consequence: decrease of list volume

Second damage: the staff of WMF grew larger and does not discuss much on
lists. So, many topics which used to be discussed on lists are now
discussed in office. Consequence: decrease of list volume

Third damage: internal lists are quite cabalistic :-)
Just consider internal-l and see how many new members joined in 2006 ?
in 2007 ? in 2008 ? I think by and large, most people who joined in 2008
are staff members. Or previous members who were at risk of being removed
because they stopped being staff or board members.
Proposition of new names is looked with serious suspicion. New blood is
now extremely rare, and does not replace those who become inactive.
Consequence: decrease of list volume



Last, I agree with Michael. High discussion does not necessarily mean
"lot's done". And lot's can be done without much discussion.
The main problem as I see it is not decrease of emails sent on lists (I
am slightly happy with this :-)), but decrease of communication between
members or groups. We are growing. We are so numerous we can not discuss
things easily on lists anymore. To scale, we need to break down in
smaller groups. But we need to work on making sure communication between
groups is still happening. I am not convinced lists do that best.


Ant





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Ting Chen wrote:
> The chinese community doesn't use the mailing list. They mostly use
> village pump or skype.
>
> Ting
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

To be more specific, we have various chat rooms on Skype, for example
one or two for general talks (not Wikipedia specific), one or two for
Wikipedia talks, one for Wikinews talks, one for Wikipedia
administrators, one for Bureaucrats. These are which I know of. There
are also other base on similar interests of individual users.

Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
> However, the public and internal lists suffers three damages.
>
> First damage: because of leaks, everything slightly confidential or even
> controversial is no more discussed. Neither on public, nor on private
> lists. Consequence: decrease of list volume
>
> Second damage: the staff of WMF grew larger and does not discuss much on
> lists. So, many topics which used to be discussed on lists are now
> discussed in office. Consequence: decrease of list volume
>
> Third damage: internal lists are quite cabalistic :-)
> Just consider internal-l and see how many new members joined in 2006 ?
> in 2007 ? in 2008 ? I think by and large, most people who joined in 2008
> are staff members. Or previous members who were at risk of being removed
> because they stopped being staff or board members.
> Proposition of new names is looked with serious suspicion. New blood is
> now extremely rare, and does not replace those who become inactive.
> Consequence: decrease of list volume
>

I do not really understand your third reason, but may be it is not that
important. But the first two seem to me to touch a very important issue -
what should be actually the content of the mailing lists. I do not think
it is a good idea to discuss confidential issues in any public
communication channel, including mailing lists (but also including other
channels like blogs or whatever). On the other hand, in the example of the
board members discussing more things in the office - well, if these things
are not intended for non-members, they should not be discussed in public
anyway, and whether the Board members or staff choose to discuss it in the
office, by phone, in the closed mailing list or secure intrernet forum is
entirely their business. On the other hand, if they start discussing in
private things which should be discussed by the community, I do not find
this a good idea. I realize of course that certain (in fact, most of)
initiatives can be only prepared as a part of private communication, since
the signal to noise ration of any public cnahhel is too low, and public
discussion may be not so efficient at the brainstorming phase. But these
initiatives should be discussed in public after they get prepared, and I
am afraid this is what now slowly retreats from the mailing lists.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>>> They do not use any mailing lists at all as far as I know. At least I am
>>> not aware of existence of any mailing lists for ru.wp
>>
>> First, as you (Yaroslav) is active here, I would like to know what
>> Russian Wikipedians are using for communication. Just wiki? Some other
>> ways of communication? Wikipedia in Russian is not a small project, as
>> well as it is growing -- which demands some level of systematic
>> coordination. I think that the answer on this question may be very
>> significant at least in understanding some part of lists traffic
>> decrease.
>>
>
> The main channel of communication is wiki: basically, the village pump
> which is structured as a number of pages, for instance for instance,
> general, news, rules, technical issues and such. So far it worked.
> Important issues are branched out as separate rfc's.
>
> Some of the Wikipedians (not me) are full-time present on irc channel.
>
> A creation of a mailing list for sysops only was recently proposed but was
> eventually rejected.
>
> There is of course personal communication, and there are even some
> Wikipedians (not me again) who insist that most of the issues should be
> discussed privately.
>
> The Russian chapter is in the creation stage and does not have its own
> communication channel as far as I know.
>
> I am not aware of any other signifgicant communication channels (I
> recollect there is a collective blog which is half-dead and there is a
> decision of arbitration committee that this blog is not a part of the
> community), may be there are some more I do not know of, but it is
> unlikely. There are information channels of course, for instance, similar
> to wikizine. but they do not involve any discussions and are not
> widespread (at least now).
>
> Some of the prominent ru.wp editors are subscribed to this list, I assume
> they will correct me if they have a different perspective.

Hm. At the first sight, I haven't found anything interesting. But, I
took a look to statistics (stats.wikimedia.org) and I realized that
one of the possible answers is laying in ru.wp community.

First, I didn't see anything special; just different communication
channels. But, it may be the part of the answer, too. Using wiki as a
communication channel is more productive.

Then I went to stats (statistics are from May 2008) and compared the
data for the next Wikipedias:
- (English and German are not so relevant because statistics are old.)
- I took French and Italian as "the ordinary cases" -- as their lists
show decline.
- Russian and Japanese are "not so ordinary cases".
- I took Serbian, too, to compare data with my knowledge.

So, before I started, I had supposed the next:
- French [1] and Italian [2] should show signs of stagnation and
decline (according to the data from the lists).
- Serbian [3] should show signs of stagnation and decline (according
to my knowledge: it is in the similar situation as other "ordinary
cases").
- Russian [4] should show signs of stagnation: it started to raise,
but it should be around the peak. So, if not decline, stagnation is
expected.
- Japanese [5] should show signs of low raising (according to the data
from the list).

I was just partially right:
- I was right for French, Italian and Serbian Wikipedias.
- Russian doesn't show signs of stagnation, but signs of linear raise
(not exponential, like it was during the first years of Wikipedia, of
course).
- Japanese is in stronger decline than French, Italian and Serbian.

Before the particular analysis, just to explain what which behavior
means to us in the case of new users:
- Linear growth: (a) in the sense of project growth: exponential
growth (n^m); (b) in the sense of long term sustainability: linear
growth.
- Stagnation: (a) in the sense of project growth: linear growth (n*m);
(b) in the sense of long term sustainability: stagnation (which is
just fine at the position where Wikimedia is globally now).
- Decreasing: (a) in the sense of project growth: logarithmic growth
(n*1/m); (b) in the sense of long term sustainability: decline.

Here is the explanation of importance of charts:
- Contributors: This is not the best chart to look in. Number of
contributors can't fall and it is reasonable to expect some raise
every month -- if it is not about really small projects nor very big
problems at some project. Also, changes are not so visible (analysis
by just looking into it assumes measuring of curve angle).
- New Wikipedians: This is a very good and visible indicator. Linear
raising of the number assumes exponential growth; stagnation in
numbers assumes linear growth (the best possible development for us in
this situation), while decreasing number of Wikipedians means problems
for us.
- Active and very active Wikipedians: They are connected to the new
Wikipedians. If the number of NW (per month) raises, the number of AW
raises, if number of NW stagnates, number of AW stagnates; if number
of NW decreases, number of AW will decrease. The connection is simple:
some Wikipedians are leaving; if there is a number of others to
replace them, the number will stagnate; if there are more new
Wikipedians, the number will decrease; if there are more than enough
newcomers, number of active Wikipedians raises.
- Edits per month. This indicator has one more important value than
just signaling the number of active and very active contributors. A
lot of house keeping tasks may be done automatically, so this number
has to be in more or less constant correlation with the number of
articles.
- Other charts are relatively straight-forward. One more created
article means growing of database size and growing of number of
articles; and similar.

So, conclusion related to analyzed Wikipedias (and according to the
data up to May 2008) is:
- There are problems with French, Italian and Serbian Wikipedias. If
such trends continues, we would loose sustainability there.
- Japanese Wikipedia has serious problems; even data from the list
(from January to May) shows different situation. Again, it should be
good to hear, this time because the opposite reason, what is going on
there.
- Russian Wikipedia (up to May 2008, of course) is going fine (linear
growth at the project level, stagnation at the long term
sustainability). Why is it so -- it should be analyzed.

The only reasons which I may detect is a very strong ArbCom. If ArbCom
is able to say "that something is not a part of the community", then,
AFAIK, it is stronger than (still strong) en.wp ArbCom.

[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
[2] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaIT.htm
[3] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaSR.htm
[4] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaRU.htm
[5] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaJA.htm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
The problem we have is well measuring the community and the activities. I am
looking forward that the UNU-MERIT survey will be a huge step to knowing
"us" better.

Activity on malinglists and Wikimedia Statistics can only give hints, but
not tell us about the quality of mails and edits. This is again trying to
read something from Statistics that cannot be read from them.

A decrease of the total number of edits in a WP language edition can mean,
for example, a decrease of vandalism. Or: WP rules have been discussed
largely, now Wikipedians do less discussions. Or: Wikipedians have learned
to do more within one single edit when writing an article etc. Or: The
Poplar Bluff syndrome (bot generated geographical stubs / pseudo articles)
with its aftermath has settled.

A "New Wikipedian" can be simply a vandal, having made 5 edits in a month
(en.WP will not ban him so fast). Maybe the potential vandals have lost the
fun, or are all blocked, that's why we have less new Wikipedians etc.
It is also natural that people create less articles or edit less because
many articles already exist and are well written.

It may be true that "there is a stagnation or decline", but I cannot see
substantial evidence for ... well, what is it exactly we mean that shows
"stagnation" or "decline"?

Ziko van Dijk



2008/10/30 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>
> wrote:
> >>> They do not use any mailing lists at all as far as I know. At least I
> am
> >>> not aware of existence of any mailing lists for ru.wp
> >>
> >> First, as you (Yaroslav) is active here, I would like to know what
> >> Russian Wikipedians are using for communication. Just wiki? Some other
> >> ways of communication? Wikipedia in Russian is not a small project, as
> >> well as it is growing -- which demands some level of systematic
> >> coordination. I think that the answer on this question may be very
> >> significant at least in understanding some part of lists traffic
> >> decrease.
> >>
> >
> > The main channel of communication is wiki: basically, the village pump
> > which is structured as a number of pages, for instance for instance,
> > general, news, rules, technical issues and such. So far it worked.
> > Important issues are branched out as separate rfc's.
> >
> > Some of the Wikipedians (not me) are full-time present on irc channel.
> >
> > A creation of a mailing list for sysops only was recently proposed but
> was
> > eventually rejected.
> >
> > There is of course personal communication, and there are even some
> > Wikipedians (not me again) who insist that most of the issues should be
> > discussed privately.
> >
> > The Russian chapter is in the creation stage and does not have its own
> > communication channel as far as I know.
> >
> > I am not aware of any other signifgicant communication channels (I
> > recollect there is a collective blog which is half-dead and there is a
> > decision of arbitration committee that this blog is not a part of the
> > community), may be there are some more I do not know of, but it is
> > unlikely. There are information channels of course, for instance, similar
> > to wikizine. but they do not involve any discussions and are not
> > widespread (at least now).
> >
> > Some of the prominent ru.wp editors are subscribed to this list, I assume
> > they will correct me if they have a different perspective.
>
> Hm. At the first sight, I haven't found anything interesting. But, I
> took a look to statistics (stats.wikimedia.org) and I realized that
> one of the possible answers is laying in ru.wp community.
>
> First, I didn't see anything special; just different communication
> channels. But, it may be the part of the answer, too. Using wiki as a
> communication channel is more productive.
>
> Then I went to stats (statistics are from May 2008) and compared the
> data for the next Wikipedias:
> - (English and German are not so relevant because statistics are old.)
> - I took French and Italian as "the ordinary cases" -- as their lists
> show decline.
> - Russian and Japanese are "not so ordinary cases".
> - I took Serbian, too, to compare data with my knowledge.
>
> So, before I started, I had supposed the next:
> - French [1] and Italian [2] should show signs of stagnation and
> decline (according to the data from the lists).
> - Serbian [3] should show signs of stagnation and decline (according
> to my knowledge: it is in the similar situation as other "ordinary
> cases").
> - Russian [4] should show signs of stagnation: it started to raise,
> but it should be around the peak. So, if not decline, stagnation is
> expected.
> - Japanese [5] should show signs of low raising (according to the data
> from the list).
>
> I was just partially right:
> - I was right for French, Italian and Serbian Wikipedias.
> - Russian doesn't show signs of stagnation, but signs of linear raise
> (not exponential, like it was during the first years of Wikipedia, of
> course).
> - Japanese is in stronger decline than French, Italian and Serbian.
>
> Before the particular analysis, just to explain what which behavior
> means to us in the case of new users:
> - Linear growth: (a) in the sense of project growth: exponential
> growth (n^m); (b) in the sense of long term sustainability: linear
> growth.
> - Stagnation: (a) in the sense of project growth: linear growth (n*m);
> (b) in the sense of long term sustainability: stagnation (which is
> just fine at the position where Wikimedia is globally now).
> - Decreasing: (a) in the sense of project growth: logarithmic growth
> (n*1/m); (b) in the sense of long term sustainability: decline.
>
> Here is the explanation of importance of charts:
> - Contributors: This is not the best chart to look in. Number of
> contributors can't fall and it is reasonable to expect some raise
> every month -- if it is not about really small projects nor very big
> problems at some project. Also, changes are not so visible (analysis
> by just looking into it assumes measuring of curve angle).
> - New Wikipedians: This is a very good and visible indicator. Linear
> raising of the number assumes exponential growth; stagnation in
> numbers assumes linear growth (the best possible development for us in
> this situation), while decreasing number of Wikipedians means problems
> for us.
> - Active and very active Wikipedians: They are connected to the new
> Wikipedians. If the number of NW (per month) raises, the number of AW
> raises, if number of NW stagnates, number of AW stagnates; if number
> of NW decreases, number of AW will decrease. The connection is simple:
> some Wikipedians are leaving; if there is a number of others to
> replace them, the number will stagnate; if there are more new
> Wikipedians, the number will decrease; if there are more than enough
> newcomers, number of active Wikipedians raises.
> - Edits per month. This indicator has one more important value than
> just signaling the number of active and very active contributors. A
> lot of house keeping tasks may be done automatically, so this number
> has to be in more or less constant correlation with the number of
> articles.
> - Other charts are relatively straight-forward. One more created
> article means growing of database size and growing of number of
> articles; and similar.
>
> So, conclusion related to analyzed Wikipedias (and according to the
> data up to May 2008) is:
> - There are problems with French, Italian and Serbian Wikipedias. If
> such trends continues, we would loose sustainability there.
> - Japanese Wikipedia has serious problems; even data from the list
> (from January to May) shows different situation. Again, it should be
> good to hear, this time because the opposite reason, what is going on
> there.
> - Russian Wikipedia (up to May 2008, of course) is going fine (linear
> growth at the project level, stagnation at the long term
> sustainability). Why is it so -- it should be analyzed.
>
> The only reasons which I may detect is a very strong ArbCom. If ArbCom
> is able to say "that something is not a part of the community", then,
> AFAIK, it is stronger than (still strong) en.wp ArbCom.
>
> [1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
> [2] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaIT.htm
> [3] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaSR.htm
> [4] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaRU.htm
> [5] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaJA.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First, when you argue that only a couple of chapters are active and
> doing things, you actually miss all the discussions happening on
> chapters hosted lists. The overal wikimedia mouvement is not limited to
> lists hosted by WMF, nor to wikis hosted by WMF btw (the French Chapter
> wiki is very active). So, I guess your figures are slightly biaised
> because you lack some information to make it truely complete. There has
> obviously been a transfer of discussions from public WMF lists to
> chapter lists.
> I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just a fact. Transfer. And a
> consequence of it is balkanization.

There was some problem in communication :) (and related to the other
thread). I didn't say that just a couple of chapters are active, I
don't think that the only activity of chapters are related to PR and
gathering money. What I did say is something else: A lot of things may
be done without chapters, even a cooperation at high enough levels,
like cooperation with universities is. Chapters are needed for making
fulfilling some "real needs": a place for Wikimedians, funds,
infrastructure.

While I am not sure that any chapter has a PR strategy (if it has, it
would be very good to share with other chapters), I think that just
two of chapters are able to fund some projects. If some other chapters
are able to fund some projects, they are not showing this. (And, yes,
I missed that WM FR has some infrastructure; which would make the
initial list of three chapters wider for one more. Which raises the
second question: Signals that some chapter has some infrastructure
should be sent. WM CH, WM DE and WM PL are sending such signals. For
the first time I heard now from you that WM FR hosts some lists; and
it is about Wikimedia Taiwan or Wikimedia Israel about whom I don't
have any clue. And, yes, again, I used too strong words in the first
email.)

And both of the issues (PR and funds) are very important. I explained
why PR is important in the first email of the other thread: we need
more contributors and we are not anymore a miracle. And for funds: I
am working in the company which took a lot of funds from EU (note, I
am living and working in non-EU country, which has less access to EU
funds than any EU country). Bureaucracy needed for that is small part
of time of one person (of course, educated in that issue). Any EU
chapter with staff has a possibility to take significant funds for
projects (significant = a good part of WMF budget). This would make
possible a lot of things: it is not related to the amount of money, it
is related to the fact that today any Wikimedia-related project
proposal which assumes money -- assumes asking limited WMF staff.

And for the end of this issue: I didn't blame anyone for inactivity or
whatever. All of us are doing the best which we are able to do in
relation to our free (and not so free) time. The problems are of such
type that we need to think how to make things differently, to be able
to function.

> However, the public and internal lists suffers three damages.
>
> First damage: because of leaks, everything slightly confidential or even
> controversial is no more discussed. Neither on public, nor on private
> lists. Consequence: decrease of list volume
>
> Second damage: the staff of WMF grew larger and does not discuss much on
> lists. So, many topics which used to be discussed on lists are now
> discussed in office. Consequence: decrease of list volume
>
> Third damage: internal lists are quite cabalistic :-)
> Just consider internal-l and see how many new members joined in 2006 ?
> in 2007 ? in 2008 ? I think by and large, most people who joined in 2008
> are staff members. Or previous members who were at risk of being removed
> because they stopped being staff or board members.
> Proposition of new names is looked with serious suspicion. New blood is
> now extremely rare, and does not replace those who become inactive.
> Consequence: decrease of list volume

I am trying to say that the most serious problem is significantly less
number of new participants. There are a number of reasons why it is
so: confidential issues shouldn't be discussed publicly, people feels
better if they are talking privately, WMF staff has its own
dynamics... If the product of those reasonable tendencies is good --
we have a system which works fine. If the product is not good -- we
have systematic problem. I think that we are much closer to the second
scenario than to the first. It doesn't mean, of course, that
confidential issues should be discussed publicly etc., but it means
that we need to think about it and try to solve it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The problem we have is well measuring the community and the activities. I am
> looking forward that the UNU-MERIT survey will be a huge step to knowing
> "us" better.
>
> Activity on malinglists and Wikimedia Statistics can only give hints, but
> not tell us about the quality of mails and edits. This is again trying to
> read something from Statistics that cannot be read from them.
>
> A decrease of the total number of edits in a WP language edition can mean,
> for example, a decrease of vandalism. Or: WP rules have been discussed
> largely, now Wikipedians do less discussions. Or: Wikipedians have learned
> to do more within one single edit when writing an article etc. Or: The
> Poplar Bluff syndrome (bot generated geographical stubs / pseudo articles)
> with its aftermath has settled.
>
> A "New Wikipedian" can be simply a vandal, having made 5 edits in a month
> (en.WP will not ban him so fast). Maybe the potential vandals have lost the
> fun, or are all blocked, that's why we have less new Wikipedians etc.
> It is also natural that people create less articles or edit less because
> many articles already exist and are well written.
>
> It may be true that "there is a stagnation or decline", but I cannot see
> substantial evidence for ... well, what is it exactly we mean that shows
> "stagnation" or "decline"?

So, you are saying that:
- Mailing lists have less traffic because we are more mature and we
learned the most important things about each other, which means that
we are talking now less, about more important things.
- New participants of Wikimedia projects are not interested in joining
the lists (note: lists, not just this one) because they are introduced
enough in Wikimedia projects by using other communication channels.
- Decrease of new Wikipedians are product of less vandals.
- Decrease of number of edits (from, let's say, Malay Wikipedia with
31,000+ articles to French with 720,000+ articles) is a product of the
fact that there is not a lot of things to be written anymore.

I would say that:
- We have some problem or set of problems (not necessarily in house)
which made us less attractive.
- Because of that, number of new Wikipedians is decreasing.
- Because of decreased number of new Wikipedians, we have less edits
and less active people on mailing lists.
- Because of less active people on mailing lists, we have smaller
amount of emails on the lists.

While I don't say that your explanation (or something similar) is not
possible, I think that my explanation is more possible.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
This is perhaps simplistic and applies mostly to this particular list, but
volume has been actively discouraged in various ways over the last year or
more by complaints and discussions on ways to decrease volume. Most often
cited reason for complaining about posts was the quality of posts made by
high volume posters - many who complained about that phenomena also
mentioned that they were unsubscribing, or no longer actively reading the
list as a result.

The point is that not all declines result from decreased interest or reflect
a general decline in participation. As others have pointed out, traffic
moves between lists - and more and more often, from public to private lists
and other private forms of communication. One other interesting tidbit,
though, is that conversation on IRC channels in English seems to have
declined significantly as well. No idea how you could find or parse
statistics for that.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Just as a thought: quantity of posts on the two private lists I
subscribe to are down. Both used to average 10+ posts a day. Both now
average half or less of that.

Quantity of posts to unblock-en-L is down significantly. It's down to
3 or 4 posts a day with some exceptions but rarely exceeding 10. I
remember some days in the past it was upwards of 20 or 30.

Interestingly enough, my posting level on this list is also quite a
bit down, though I still read every email, it's mainly due to the
topic matter of the past 2 months or so not being my cup of tea the
way it has been in prior months.

-Dan
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Nathan wrote:

> This is perhaps simplistic and applies mostly to this particular
> list, but
> volume has been actively discouraged in various ways over the last
> year or
> more by complaints and discussions on ways to decrease volume. Most
> often
> cited reason for complaining about posts was the quality of posts
> made by
> high volume posters - many who complained about that phenomena also
> mentioned that they were unsubscribing, or no longer actively
> reading the
> list as a result.
>
> The point is that not all declines result from decreased interest or
> reflect
> a general decline in participation. As others have pointed out,
> traffic
> moves between lists - and more and more often, from public to
> private lists
> and other private forms of communication. One other interesting
> tidbit,
> though, is that conversation on IRC channels in English seems to have
> declined significantly as well. No idea how you could find or parse
> statistics for that.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
>* Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
>*increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
>they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
>usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
>earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
>during the next year or two.)

I would suggest that textbook-l traffic is up because we have had several
announcements lately, such as getting the Collection extension enabled last
week. In fact, the most voluminous threads over the past 6 months have been
on the subject of PDF generation, with one exception (a licensing issue).
I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that additional information,
but I think the low level of traffic overall is probably relevant to an
accurate determination in that case.

-Mike


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM, <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>* Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
>>*increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
>>they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
>>usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
>>earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
>>during the next year or two.)
>
> I would suggest that textbook-l traffic is up because we have had several
> announcements lately, such as getting the Collection extension enabled last
> week. In fact, the most voluminous threads over the past 6 months have been
> on the subject of PDF generation, with one exception (a licensing issue).
> I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that additional information,
> but I think the low level of traffic overall is probably relevant to an
> accurate determination in that case.

Simply, you are working on specific goals. If this is the answer, it
is a very very simple one :)

So, maybe the question should be redefined to others: How many
specific goals do have other projects and supporting mailing lists?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM, <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>* Two [of analyzed] lists -- textbook-l and wikija-l -- show
>>>*increase* of traffic! It would be good to analyze why it is so. Maybe
>>>they have the answer to our problem: increasing of list traffic
>>>usually means that community is increasing. (Or they are just in the
>>>earlier phase, which means that they will show decrease of traffic
>>>during the next year or two.)
>>
>> I would suggest that textbook-l traffic is up because we have had several
>> announcements lately, such as getting the Collection extension enabled last
>> week. In fact, the most voluminous threads over the past 6 months have been
>> on the subject of PDF generation, with one exception (a licensing issue).
>> I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that additional information,
>> but I think the low level of traffic overall is probably relevant to an
>> accurate determination in that case.
>
> Simply, you are working on specific goals. If this is the answer, it
> is a very very simple one :)
>
> So, maybe the question should be redefined to others: How many
> specific goals do have other projects and supporting mailing lists?

Mike, thanks! As more as I am thinking, I am more sure that you gave
us the right answer. It is a simple one, but the right one. If we
don't know for reasons why it is so at other places, we learned what
the cure is.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nathan wrote:
> This is perhaps simplistic and applies mostly to this particular list, but
> volume has been actively discouraged in various ways over the last year or
> more by complaints and discussions on ways to decrease volume. Most often
> cited reason for complaining about posts was the quality of posts made by
> high volume posters - many who complained about that phenomena also
> mentioned that they were unsubscribing, or no longer actively reading the
> list as a result.

Indeed, volume alone isn't inherently a positive thing. A reduction in
volume may signal a loss of interest in participation, or a change in
signal-to-noise ratio, or a shift in participation to other forums, or a
combination of all of these things.

The common wisdom is that mailing lists in general have been falling out
of favor on the net for a while. Outside the wiki itself I see lots of
Wikimedia-related activity on blogs, chat, and microblogging services
like identi.ca, communication channels which some may find easier to
mentally filter than a high-traffic mailing list.

A danger with these sorts of shifts is fragmentation of the discourse --
it used to be that everybody who was anybody had their Serious
Discussions on wikipedia-l (later split into wikipedia-l, wikitech-l,
wikien-l, intlwiki-l, foundation-l, .....) Bloggy-chatty things at
least tend to link around among themselves, so perhaps splitting isn't
too dangerous there, but I don't have a good feel for how much *actual
productive planning* gets done on these channels.

Of course, many people seem to feel that *actual productive planning*
doesn't tend to happen on the lists anymore -- conversations just go
'round and 'round and never end.

Let's not forget this is a wiki world -- be bold! Actions speak louder
than posts... ;)

- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkJ+UEACgkQwRnhpk1wk470UwCfZnd+THrGItcOEzflLNiIZP/1
qOoAn1SiLdu2U1gWD6QDmu+O0IZ/Yw0k
=0h9P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> ...but I don't have a good feel for how much *actual
> productive planning* gets done on these channels.
>
> Of course, many people seem to feel that *actual productive planning*
> doesn't tend to happen on the lists anymore -- conversations just go
> 'round and 'round and never end.
>
> Let's not forget this is a wiki world -- be bold! Actions speak louder
> than posts... ;)
>
> - -- brion


I can't speak for all of the lists (I'm on a select few these days), but
I know for a fact wikitech-l is alive and kicking :)


-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
If the lists were diverged because volume was high and effective
communication was difficult, then it may make sense to recombine previously
diverged lists now that volume is decreasing. There is a communication trade
off in both high volume lists and a complex list hierarchy - we went to a
complex hierarchy seemingly to mitigate high volume, but with lower volume
we've retained the complex system. Simplifying it may bring people back
together. Something to consider, anyway.

Nathan

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> A danger with these sorts of shifts is fragmentation of the discourse --
> it used to be that everybody who was anybody had their Serious
> Discussions on wikipedia-l (later split into wikipedia-l, wikitech-l,
> wikien-l, intlwiki-l, foundation-l, .....) Bloggy-chatty things at
> least tend to link around among themselves, so perhaps splitting isn't
> too dangerous there, but I don't have a good feel for how much *actual
> productive planning* gets done on these channels.
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All