Mailing List Archive

Re: Analysis of lists statistics: community in decline [ In reply to ]
Hi,

Milos, thanks so much for this analysis and your opinions about it.

2008/10/31 Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org>:
> 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.

It's true, but Milos' initial thesis was that the reduction in mailing
list traffic reflected the reduction in new community members.

Does anyone feel that the community in general is more vibrant and
spirited than it was two years ago? Does anyone feel that there are
more new people coming through the ranks? And this activity dropoff is
actually an anomaly rather than a reflection of reality?

I don't.

Is wiki editing not the cool internet habit that it used to be? Is
Wikipedia too popular, too fossilised now? Why aren't we enrapturing
the college students that we were just a few years ago?

Is it a genuine concern or are we looking too locally? Does everything
still look cool on the 20 year scale?

> 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.

Yeah, blogs in particular weren't so significant two years ago
(although I probably have an inflated sense of their importance now as
I keep one, and as with Gerard I have often been guilty of writing to
it instead of a mailing list).

Shifting is not so bad in itself, but the responses have not shifted
with the initial conversations. It is my observation that WMF Board
and staff respond much less to blogs than they ever do to mailing
lists.

Here is a funny thing. Wiki editing is a time expensive habit. I have
not done serious intensive editing for quite a number of months now.
There is a direct correlation between my starting a fulltime job and
my decrease in editing. :)

But I am still on many (many) mailing lists and I still join many
more. Because Gmail is far better at allowing me to ignore things I'm
not interested in, than my wiki watchlist, and it comes to me rather
than me to it. In theory I could add my watchlist RSS feed to my feed
reader, but it is far far far too fine grained. I don't know how it
could strike the right balance. You know those services that send you
like a daily/weekly summary email of activity on their service? e.g.
Groups you're a member of had these new discussions/additions, x
people left you a message/invitation, x people added y new friends,
etc. Some kind of summary service like that for Wikimedia wikis would
be freaking awesome. It would be nice to have some more points between
uber-committed and not-involved. The only point in between I know is
to read blogs and mailing lists, so that is what I do.

Gosh, it would suck if Wikimedia slowly died in the arse because of a
lack of decent communication tools. That would be tragic, but that
does seem to be what we are missing. The right tool is like a bullet.
I don't even have an easy way to, say, contact all the Wikimedians in
my home city. Sure I can edit a city wikiproject page, and a meetup
page, but relying on the right people to be watching them is a bloody
long shot. And that's just people I would probably be familiar with.
Or I could somehow construct a list of users and then contact a bot
operator to leave them all a message?... ugh. What if I wanted to
reach a X-language speaking admin in two different projects? Probably
impossible. Too much effort in the face of very likely defeat to even
be worth trying.
Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.

Speaking for myself again. I suspect another reason for my own shift
from project editing to blogging & chapter work, aside from the
inherent value in those things, is that they give me some value that
mostly anonymous wiki editing does not. (I don't mean anonymous as in
editing-as-IP. I mean anonymous as in whoever looks at that page can't
easily tell who wrote it.)
I think we as a community as not very good at audibly appreciating one
another. I think we are bad at saying thankyou. It's not surprising;
wikis are about the success of the group rather than the individual
after all.
At a certain level of editing the inherent joy of it was reward
enough. But after tackling protracted disputes, unpopular or tedious
deletion requests, invisible patrolling etc etc out of a feeling of
admin's or oldtimer's duty, I found it hard to convince myself that I
was making any kind of difference. Burnout. Barnstars are good if used
sparingly but there is no consistent recognition. (I felt special on
receiving on once until I checked the giver's contribs and noticed he
bestowed the same one on a couple of dozen people in half an hour.)
So why the shift to blogging. The appreciation is not any better, but
it is a reputation-building tool in a way that a contributions page
with thousands of entries (without context or summary) is not. Or
maybe all that wiki editing created a reflexive desire to be The
Author. :)
As for chapter work, it stands for something in the Real World and is
not washed away next month. And people say thankyou more often when
you are face to face or even just when you have met them before and
they are thus more than a username. Also, chapter people made like
80-90% of the awesome people that I met at Wikimanias. They are very
inspiring for me.

The increase in tech also doesn't surprise me (aside from MediaWiki's
own development momentum). Building useful tools that can stand for a
long time is definitely better for the ego than, as I say, anonymous
changes washed away next month. And much less pesky (wiki-)politics,
hm? (Although then there are bug reports and feature requests...)


Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
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 ]
Hi Brianna,

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gosh, it would suck if Wikimedia slowly died in the arse because of a
> lack of decent communication tools. That would be tragic, but that
> does seem to be what we are missing. The right tool is like a bullet.
> I don't even have an easy way to, say, contact all the Wikimedians in
> my home city. Sure I can edit a city wikiproject page, and a meetup
> page, but relying on the right people to be watching them is a bloody
> long shot. And that's just people I would probably be familiar with.
> Or I could somehow construct a list of users and then contact a bot
> operator to leave them all a message?... ugh. What if I wanted to
> reach a X-language speaking admin in two different projects? Probably
> impossible. Too much effort in the face of very likely defeat to even
> be worth trying.
> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.

We've actually been using some tools like this for not-yet-official
Wikimedia New York City on the English Wikipedia.

Here's a fantastic tool for contacting local folks by IP address
called "Geonotice":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice

It's currently not operational, but we have plans to revive it soon.

We've also been putting messages on talk pages by bot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrownBot

thanks to Cbrown's help.

These may seem like awkward or unusual channels for communication, but
I think we really have to be creative in building broad communities
for local chapter work.

Thanks,
Pharos

_______________________________________________
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 Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.

I've done some a little research on this issue, and this appears to be
the most promising option:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgg_(software)

It's open source, relatively popular, and is used in academic communities.

Thanks,
Pharos

> Brianna
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.
>
> I've done some a little research on this issue, and this appears to be
> the most promising option:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgg_(software)
>
> It's open source, relatively popular, and is used in academic communities.

I think that it should be solved differently. Wikia already has some
kind of extended profile which includes some basic social networking
abilities.

It is expensive (in the sense of contributors' attention) to run two
different models. Even keeping blogs at Planet Wikimedia (officially)
and at Open Wiki Blog Planet (unofficially), as well as at some other
places (unofficially in different languages; I know, at least, for
French version) -- is expensive.

At the other hand, MediaWiki is able to be extended in that direction
(which Wikia used extension shows). Also, contributors would be able
to ask for new features more dynamically, as well as it would be a
significant development path for MediaWiki itself.

In other words, I would like to see a very rudimentary extension (like
Wikia's) with solved inter-project issues for the beginning. When we
have that, we would be able to think about improvements.

_______________________________________________
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 Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
>> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.
>>
>> I've done some a little research on this issue, and this appears to be
>> the most promising option:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgg_(software)
>>
>> It's open source, relatively popular, and is used in academic communities.
>
> I think that it should be solved differently. Wikia already has some
> kind of extended profile which includes some basic social networking
> abilities.
>
> It is expensive (in the sense of contributors' attention) to run two
> different models. Even keeping blogs at Planet Wikimedia (officially)
> and at Open Wiki Blog Planet (unofficially), as well as at some other
> places (unofficially in different languages; I know, at least, for
> French version) -- is expensive.
>
> At the other hand, MediaWiki is able to be extended in that direction
> (which Wikia used extension shows). Also, contributors would be able
> to ask for new features more dynamically, as well as it would be a
> significant development path for MediaWiki itself.
>
> In other words, I would like to see a very rudimentary extension (like
> Wikia's) with solved inter-project issues for the beginning. When we
> have that, we would be able to think about improvements.

Personally, I'd like to see more social interaction/networking tools
built into Mediawiki. However, after seeing the incredible pushback
on enwiki surrounding things like Esperanza [1] and to a lesser degree
Userboxes [2], I am somewhat skeptical about whether the community
would actually embrace social networking tools.

There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
people don't see it that way.

-Robert Rohde

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes

_______________________________________________
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 Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
>>> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.
>>>
>>> I've done some a little research on this issue, and this appears to be
>>> the most promising option:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgg_(software)
>>>
>>> It's open source, relatively popular, and is used in academic communities.
>>
>> I think that it should be solved differently. Wikia already has some
>> kind of extended profile which includes some basic social networking
>> abilities.
>>
>> It is expensive (in the sense of contributors' attention) to run two
>> different models. Even keeping blogs at Planet Wikimedia (officially)
>> and at Open Wiki Blog Planet (unofficially), as well as at some other
>> places (unofficially in different languages; I know, at least, for
>> French version) -- is expensive.
>>
>> At the other hand, MediaWiki is able to be extended in that direction
>> (which Wikia used extension shows). Also, contributors would be able
>> to ask for new features more dynamically, as well as it would be a
>> significant development path for MediaWiki itself.
>>
>> In other words, I would like to see a very rudimentary extension (like
>> Wikia's) with solved inter-project issues for the beginning. When we
>> have that, we would be able to think about improvements.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see more social interaction/networking tools
> built into Mediawiki. However, after seeing the incredible pushback
> on enwiki surrounding things like Esperanza [1] and to a lesser degree
> Userboxes [2], I am somewhat skeptical about whether the community
> would actually embrace social networking tools.
>
> There are many who seem to feel that using Wikipedia for socializing
> and fun is contrary to our mission, especially if it attracts people
> who aren't contributors to the encyclopedia. Personally, I think
> that's nonsense, and the community benefits from increased cohesion
> when there is fun and socializing to be had, but I realize that many
> people don't see it that way.

We should keep in mind that there is a much broader community out
there beyond Wikimedians, who are interested in cooperative efforts in
promoting priojects.

Personally, we've had great success working with the 2 Students For
Free Culture chapters in New York City, who have supported Wikimedia
projects as ardently as any Wikimedians.

On a level of real-life organization, there should be no sharp line
between people with Wikimedia user accounts and those without. The
basic skills in organizing real-life events and projects are
orthogonal to particular technical skills or specializations.

What we really need is a social networking site for the whole Free
Culture/Open Source community, so that we can build a thousand
coalitions in a thousand different cities.

In researching this idea, I happened upon this proposal last year from
the Free Software Foundation for a "Planet Libre":

http://www.libervis.com/article/july_2007_letter_to_free_software_foundation_associate_members

That particular initiative appears to have foundered over recent
months. I suggest we should revive it, and in cooperation with Free
Software Foundation, develop a "Planet Libre" social networking site
based on Elgg.

Thanks,
Pharos

> _______________________________________________
> 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 ]
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Does anyone feel that the community in general is more vibrant and
> spirited than it was two years ago? Does anyone feel that there are
> more new people coming through the ranks? And this activity dropoff is
> actually an anomaly rather than a reflection of reality?
>
> I don't.
>
> Is wiki editing not the cool internet habit that it used to be? Is
> Wikipedia too popular, too fossilised now? Why aren't we enrapturing
> the college students that we were just a few years ago?

Well, perhaps not a cool internet habit, but I think only to the extent
that it's no longer some underground thing that people are still trying
to work out the usefulness of. I think if anything it's due to Wikipedia
being hugely successful, having gotten over its growing pains to be more
or less a thing that people accept. Some reasonable parameters for how
to go about the projects have already been worked out to a great enough
extent that they're useful and can be accepted as givens (e.g.
verifiability, an increase in referencing, etc.), and so a large number
of Wikipedia editors these days just edit Wikipedia, but don't
participate in meta-discussions *about* Wikipedia. That is, we're done
with the early phase of discussing how to go about building an
encyclopedia, and are now mostly focusing on actually building an
encyclopedia. =]

There are still plenty of communities and meta-discussions, but they
tend to be more decentralized--- I participate in discussions all the
time about various content areas on the English Wikipedia, often
organized around Wikiprojects. These tend to focus on more specific
versions of general issues like verifiability, e.g. the role of ancient
sources versus modern scholarship in referencing articles about
classical antiquity (general consensus: citing Herodotus directly is not
best practice).

I guess I don't see all this as a bad thing. I know a fairly large
number of people who don't consider themselves Wikipedians who
nonetheless do good work on Wikipedia. In fact I'd say they continue to
edit Wikipedia only *because* they can just edit articles in peace-- if
they had to know what an Arbitration Committee was, needed to be aware
of what a Board of Directors did, or deal with a million acronymed
policy pages, they would probably not bother. But fortunately if you're
working in some area like medieval history, it doesn't come up that
often-- you really don't need to know about any policy or meta-activity
except "write a neutral and referenced article that accurately
summarizes scholarly consensus on the subject".

> Speaking for myself again. I suspect another reason for my own shift
> from project editing to blogging & chapter work, aside from the
> inherent value in those things, is that they give me some value that
> mostly anonymous wiki editing does not. (I don't mean anonymous as in
> editing-as-IP. I mean anonymous as in whoever looks at that page can't
> easily tell who wrote it.)

I've gone the opposite direction, which is interesting. :) I
participated in a lot of meta discussions early on partly because it was
a smallish group where I knew everyone that seemed to be doing something
unique and useful, and partly because it felt like I could actually
influence its direction. These days I don't see that much scope for that
in meta-type activity, at least when it comes to the things I care
about--- it feels like I would put in a lot of time for no particular
outcome.

Writing articles, meanwhile, has a pretty tangible outcome, especially
as Wikipedia has become the first-line go-to source for information: If
I write the Wikipedia article on a subject, this influences how a pretty
large number of people will get their first introduction to that
subject. In some cases it influences whether that information will be
available easily on the internet at all. In academia anyway, I also get
a bit of credit for it; it depends on who you're talking to, but many
people are impressed by "I wrote the Wikipedia articles on [x, y, z],
check them out"; you can even consider it something like "service to the
community" in a CV sense.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
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 ]
2008/11/3 Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com>:
> Here's a fantastic tool for contacting local folks by IP address
> called "Geonotice":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice
>
> It's currently not operational, but we have plans to revive it soon.

Oh yeah... that is useful (well it was when it was operational). But I
am not sure it would scale very happily if every meetup used it. And
it only works for location-related notifications. And it doesn't work
cross-project. But, still useful.

> We've also been putting messages on talk pages by bot:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrownBot
>
> thanks to Cbrown's help.
>
> These may seem like awkward or unusual channels for communication, but
> I think we really have to be creative in building broad communities
> for local chapter work.

But how many wikiproject/meetup organisers would know that? It's not
an *insurmountable* task but we sure don't make it easy or obvious.

As with Milos and Robert I think it would work best if communication
tools were built directly into MediaWiki, for best uptake and
effectiveness. But gosh, I'm sure not counting on that happening
within my wiki lifespan. We don't even have a central watchlist. We
don't even have global prefs. The functionality wishlist is so long
that if we are waiting for that to be fulfilled we are definitely
doomed. That is part of why tools built on top of MW (toolserver
tools, javascript gadgets etc) are so important.

Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
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 ]
2008/11/3 Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Brianna Laugher
> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it too much to say we need our own Facebook? If only Ning was open source.
>
> I've done some a little research on this issue, and this appears to be
> the most promising option:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgg_(software)
>
> It's open source, relatively popular, and is used in academic communities.

Looks neat. I also note <http://openacademic.org/> which is apparently
trying to achieve some integration of Elgg, Moodle, Drupal and
MediaWiki. MediaWiki-related posts:
<http://openacademic.org/taxonomy/term/4>. I think they are just
talking about using OpenID + Special:Export/Special:Import to share
data, which to my mind is not particularly integrated, but I guess
it's something.

Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
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 ]
> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>> Does anyone feel that the community in general is more vibrant and
>> spirited than it was two years ago? Does anyone feel that there are
>> more new people coming through the ranks? And this activity dropoff is
>> actually an anomaly rather than a reflection of reality?
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> Is wiki editing not the cool internet habit that it used to be? Is
>> Wikipedia too popular, too fossilised now? Why aren't we enrapturing
>> the college students that we were just a few years ago?
>
> Well, perhaps not a cool internet habit, but I think only to the extent
> that it's no longer some underground thing that people are still trying
> to work out the usefulness of. I think if anything it's due to Wikipedia
> being hugely successful, having gotten over its growing pains to be more
> or less a thing that people accept. Some reasonable parameters for how
> to go about the projects have already been worked out to a great enough
> extent that they're useful and can be accepted as givens (e.g.
> verifiability, an increase in referencing, etc.), and so a large number
> of Wikipedia editors these days just edit Wikipedia, but don't
> participate in meta-discussions *about* Wikipedia. That is, we're done
> with the early phase of discussing how to go about building an
> encyclopedia, and are now mostly focusing on actually building an
> encyclopedia. =]
>

Sometimes I ask myself whether I am the only one on this list who still
edits articles on a regular basis. I thought everyone who actually writes
content there sees some very much clearly posed problems, like almost full
absence of full-size specialized articles (mostly in science, but also in
humanities). It is interesting of course that people go blogging instead
of writing the actual content, but I am afraid even if we completely solve
this point by integrating blogs / irc / whatever with Wikimedia, it is not
going to improve the above problems.

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 ]
Moving statistics issues in this thread...

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Commons is in a constant and significant decrease since May 2007.
> [snip]
>
> Milos, you are in error.
>
> See "Active authors" is holding steady just fine.
>
> Counting new users registrations is flawed because many registrations
> are just vandals or the confused public and they never edit. A
> decrease in new accounts can just mean that less people are confused.
> For some projects, like enwp, the majority of accounts created are of
> this type. I'm also not sure how SUL creations are getting counted, I
> suspect they aren't.
>
> The better metrics are usually the most direct ones. Active
> contributor counts haven't seen much change, for example, Uploads to
> commons continue at a nice clip.
>
> Obviously there will be some up and down activity: We should expect
> seasonal variation, just as is seen in traffic levels on major
> internet backbones. It's important to be mindful that the absence of
> explosive growth is not a decline. Nothing can grow explosively
> forever.

For the moment I really thought that I concluded that based on new authors :)

But, first of all, the field "new authors" is not about new
registrations, it is about "new active authors", which means that they
made more than 5 edits at the site. (As far as I am introduced, please
correct me if I am wrong.)

Do we have someone here who passed some basic course in statistics?
(As I think that there are someone), may that person draw the curve
based on Commons data [1] for:

* New authors
* Active authors
* Very active authors
* New articles per day
* Edits per month

I didn't tell that Commons is in significant decrease since August
2006 because it was just new authors-based. However, the number of new
authors per month for the period August 2006 -- May 2008 passed from
170 to 25 (btw, May 2008 is the second worst month at all, after the
second month of Commons existence). This is decrease for somewhat more
than 85%. But, to count just Mays: 2005: 157, 2006: 156, 2007: 113,
2008: 25. In percentages this is: -<1%, -17%, -77%. This is not
seasonal, this is about Mays.

Active authors and very active authors are in decrease, too. For the
last few years, the top for active authors was in May 2007 (688), the
bottom at December 2007 (472), while in May 2008 there were 537 active
authors. This is more than 20% decrease for one year. May 2006 was
better than May 2008 with 595 active contributors. So, we had raising
for 15% for one year and decreasing for more than 20% for another.

Very active users was on peak in April 2007 (34). So, here are similar
statistics for Mays: 2005: 25 (however, April, May and June 2005 were
not usual; something was happened then which attracted new
contributors and raised activity; surrounding months are giving that
conclusion), 2006: 21, 2007: 29, 2008: 21: so, -16%, +17%, -17%

It would be very dramatic if we lost 77% of very active contributors
for one year. But, loosing 17% of them for one year is a serious
issue.

Also, again, I didn't say that we are close to the bottom, I said that
we are in the middle of a serious crisis. We are too high to reach the
bottom quickly.

Note that decreasing the number of (very) active contributors is the
most conservative indicator. A person who is devoted to some project
-- is not willing to abandon it. However, it is natural that someone
changed their life, doesn't want to contribute at that place anymore
or so. To fill empty places we need much more new contributors. A lot
of new ones will finish their work on the project after the first or
the second month. Just small amount of them will stay at the project
for longer period of time. By loosing new contributors we are loosing
sustainability: "retired" contributors are not replaced with new ones.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All