Mailing List Archive

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> There are three issues here:
> * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
> social networking because of the principles -- besides your (positive)
> point -- I have one more (negative): We are not able to choose anymore
> what do we like, we are in the critical position and we desperately
> need some fresh blood. Even it may be not so obvious at the field,
> leaving this discussion for the next year this time -- may be too
> late.
> * For those who really don't want to have social networking options,
> there should be an option "turn it off".
> * I think that I am not the only one who is using social networking
> sites just to be in touch with friends. And a lot of my friends are
> Wikimedians; and I am more interested in their Wikimedian activities
> than what did they do at Elven Blood :) However, I think that games at
> some future social networking for Wikimedia projects would be much
> better: there are a lot of possible educational games which may be
> very nice.
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I would like to see such social networking site. But, I am skeptical
> about making one another social networking site. I've got calls for
> some academic and free society social networking sites, but I don't
> see them as active. Maybe it may function in some areas, like Orkut
> functions well in Brazil (I saw one more in Russia and one more in
> India). But, none of them is near to even MySpace, not to talk about
> Facebook.
>
> At the other side, Wikipedia has the potential to gather significant
> community. We don't even need a notice at the site. We just need to
> make it and to tell that to the world. And we will be in this position
> for some time; at least until Wikipedia is at the top ten sites. Also,
> I am sure that free software community would treat Wikimedia social
> networking platform as their own.

If we pursue an idea of this kind, we could implement some kind of
"Wikicommunity" features in userspace.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicommunity

Possibly we could have some minimal standards of being an actual
contributor before the Wikicommunity feature is activated for a
particular user.

This would be a check on non-Wikimedians using us as their Myspace alternative.

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

>
> If we pursue an idea of this kind, we could implement some kind of
> "Wikicommunity" features in userspace.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicommunity
>
> Possibly we could have some minimal standards of being an actual
> contributor before the Wikicommunity feature is activated for a
> particular user.
>
> This would be a check on non-Wikimedians using us as their Myspace
> alternative.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos

This is a routine feature on MUDs where a point system results in levels
with different prerogatives. Obviously, as in a MUD, there are numerous
ways to game any such system. However, someone who has made 10,000 edits
might be permitted to have a personally oriented web page and access to
wikicommunity features.

Fred


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

2008/11/2 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> There are three issues here:
> * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
> social networking because of the principles -- besides your (positive)
> point -- I have one more (negative): We are not able to choose anymore
> what do we like, we are in the critical position and we desperately
> need some fresh blood. Even it may be not so obvious at the field,
> leaving this discussion for the next year this time -- may be too
> late.

Social networking features will not help you there. You can't move for
sites with social networking elements. People don't use them.

Lower participation is probably a mixture of a number of factors:

Wikipedia seems complete. It is now somewhat unusual to look up a
subject and find nothing.

Wikipedia looks complete for the most part. Red links are increasingly uncommon.

Anyone can edit hits a wall. Can anyone really add anything useful to
say [[Tank]] or even the better known sub articles such as
[[Challenger_2_tank]]? Most people are not going to see articles they
can add something to.

People don't communicate a vast amount for a number of reasons:

1)lack of need. You don't really need to communicate to find things to
do or edit.

2)People are tending to work on rather specialist articles so there
may be a slight lack of other people to talk to. Lots of people can
and will talk about the leopard 2 tank the [[Pz-61]] less so.

3)Information overload. There are still a lot of people trying to tell
you things. People tend to filter them out and after a while that
filter becomes a bit aggressive (talk page templates are one example
of this)
--
geni

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

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:07 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> Social networking features will not help you there. You can't move for
> sites with social networking elements. People don't use them.
>
> Lower participation is probably a mixture of a number of factors:
>
> Wikipedia seems complete. It is now somewhat unusual to look up a
> subject and find nothing.
>
> Wikipedia looks complete for the most part. Red links are increasingly uncommon.
>
> Anyone can edit hits a wall. Can anyone really add anything useful to
> say [[Tank]] or even the better known sub articles such as
> [[Challenger_2_tank]]? Most people are not going to see articles they
> can add something to.
>
> People don't communicate a vast amount for a number of reasons:
>
> 1)lack of need. You don't really need to communicate to find things to
> do or edit.
>
> 2)People are tending to work on rather specialist articles so there
> may be a slight lack of other people to talk to. Lots of people can
> and will talk about the leopard 2 tank the [[Pz-61]] less so.
>
> 3)Information overload. There are still a lot of people trying to tell
> you things. People tend to filter them out and after a while that
> filter becomes a bit aggressive (talk page templates are one example
> of this)

First, I would like to see social networking features on and then to
talk about its usefulness :) It is one thing to use social networking
elements if you have to click 10 times and write 30 characters inside
of very specific userbox; besides that you have to think would this
userbox be deleted in a couple of months... The other thing are social
networking options which would give to you close-to-Facebook interface
inside of your profile.

Second, you are missing the point. You are not the first person in
this discussion who is arguing that there are a lot of different
reasons, even the systematic answer is very obvious. At the other
side, I don't say that a number of different tendencies don't have
their position in the whole situation. Systematic answer: there are
some problems inside of our functioning (possibly, lack of the idea
what we are doing, except that we are doing "a great thing") -> people
don't like to participate as they liked it before -> less contributors
[even almost the same number of readers] -> less activity -> less
readers -> less contributors...

* Lower level of activity is not just related to the English
Wikipedia, it is related to [almost] all projects -- even they have
just ~30.000 articles.
* We missed the whole generation of Internet users. People from
academic expertises in humanities are now much better educated in
computers than they were in 2003.
* However, even English Wikipedia has very low quality articles in,
for example, linguistics. (I am trying to use English Wikipedia as a
starting point and something like 50-50 are chances for me to find a
useful set of articles in linguistics; even I am very well introduced
how to find relevant data on Wikipedia.)

So, even you detected the right problems, even the answer is so
complex that we have to deal with one by one thing (but I don't think
that the answer is *so* complex), we have to deal with them.
Otherwise, we will go down (as we *are* going down; we are just to
high to realize that the end of falling is ultimately a body which
generates gravity).

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

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever the reasons are (global culture which is not able to believe
> that there is a really open community somewhere in the world; or
> idiosyncratic culture of Wikipedia), we are in the position that we
> have to try to work to transform users to contributors.


Why? Maximizing the number of contributors is certainly not the goal. What
if you take the declines as a given? How can the foundation best achieve
its goals then?


> And social networking platform is one very valid option.


I'm not sure how Wikia does it, but something tied in to single user login
would probably be useful. Of course, for myself personally I wouldn't be
interested in a social networking platform that isn't based on real world
identities.

Given Brianna's comments about losing interest in article writing in favor
of blogging and chapter work, due to its better distribution of egoboo, I
think the foundation also has to worry about Knol and projects like it
speeding along the contributor decline. This is especially true if the
relicensing plans threaten to take away what little attribution and egoboo
the project still offers.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:18 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> on 11/2/08 1:40 PM, Milos Rancic at millosh@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> * If the point is that a part of the community doesn't want to have
>>> social networking because of the principles...
>>
>> A sidebar: When The Apple Computer organization was created, a conscious
>> decision was made by its creators to establish a company culture that was,
>> by existing corporate standards, considered informal. This encouraged
>> creativity, reduced stress and produced a culture of tolerance and,
>> ultimately, a great product. Their mission was to create the best damn
>> computer a creative mind in a creative culture could produce. "Socializing"
>> among its employees was not only encouraged, but the ability to socialize
>> was almost a prerequisite for being a part of the team.
>
> I think we already have a very social environment, but this
> socialising is "focused". We chat about topics that interest us all
> the time on the wikis, usually with people who are also similarly
> interested enthusiasts and often with people who are surprisingly well
> informed. But, we are always doing it in a way that is also
> "productive".
>
> For example, we dont endlessly tolerate trolling and idle speculation
> on Wikipedia, because it isnt productive. It isnt strictly forbidden,
> but if it is done on pages that others frequent, it will be viewed as
> an interruption, because there is more valuable discussions going on,
> and the rest of us want to focus on those, and we want to "clear the
> air" so that more valuable contributions are attracted.
>
> There is so much to learn and participate in on the wikis, that if
> someone is primarily socialising, they havent caught the "wiki bug".
> These are the people who would be fired from Apple because they didnt
> fit in.

I'm more-or-less satisfied with our online discussions of specific
topics, i.e. specific articles on Wikipedia.

I think the greatest benefit of social networking will be putting
people into contact with other Wikimedians in their cities, therefore
facilitating more real-life contacts in "productive" meetups, and the
more mature and humanized social environments and structures that can
hopefully foster.

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

Hi,

What do people think of the idea of asking the "social networking"
type *communication* extensions to be enabled on meta?

I was thinking about this, and talking to Gerard, and he pointed out
that unless it was integrated into MediaWiki most people wouldn't use
it, and I think he is probably right.

Meta makes the most sense, since it is already supposed to be used for
coordination, and maybe if it has some extra functionality that will
even encourage people to use it more.

Thoughts?

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

> Hi,
>
> What do people think of the idea of asking the "social networking"
> type *communication* extensions to be enabled on meta?
>
> I was thinking about this, and talking to Gerard, and he pointed out
> that unless it was integrated into MediaWiki most people wouldn't use
> it, and I think he is probably right.
>
> Meta makes the most sense, since it is already supposed to be used for
> coordination, and maybe if it has some extra functionality that will
> even encourage people to use it more.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brianna
>

Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
(we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

2008/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What do people think of the idea of asking the "social networking"
>> type *communication* extensions to be enabled on meta?
>>
>> I was thinking about this, and talking to Gerard, and he pointed out
>> that unless it was integrated into MediaWiki most people wouldn't use
>> it, and I think he is probably right.
>>
>> Meta makes the most sense, since it is already supposed to be used for
>> coordination, and maybe if it has some extra functionality that will
>> even encourage people to use it more.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Brianna
>>
>
> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.

I think that is a false argument. If people don't want to write
articles, they won't write articles, regardless of whether or not you
take away their toys. Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
volunteers. I also think such people are far less likely to make it to
meta, compared to a large Wikipedia project. If you know about meta, I
would say odds are extremely good that you are a Wikimedian.

And it does depend if you consider them "toys" or "communication
tools". If you don't want to use them in a "frivolous" way (or at all)
then fine, don't. None of your time will be wasted.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do people think of the idea of asking the "social networking"
> type *communication* extensions to be enabled on meta?
>
> I was thinking about this, and talking to Gerard, and he pointed out
> that unless it was integrated into MediaWiki most people wouldn't use
> it, and I think he is probably right.
>
> Meta makes the most sense, since it is already supposed to be used for
> coordination, and maybe if it has some extra functionality that will
> even encourage people to use it more.
>
> Thoughts?

I agree with Gerard about the point related to MW integration.
User-friendly interface means that user is the center of their world.
And it is not because of some egocentrism, but because of usability:
Just do those 30 things at the project, then 20 more at Toolserver,
install this and that... -- this the best way how to alienate user. We
have a great idea and it [still] keeps users with us, however we are
not building an encyclopedia for aliens or historians from the future,
but because of the present users -- at the first place.

Second, I think that Meta is good for testing; as well as Metians are
[I think] the most interested in this. However (!): this will be just
our toy until it starts to function for all projects.

And one more heresy :) As someone who has @wikimedia.org email
redirect, I found useful @wikiPedia.org alias just for joining
Wikipedia network at Facebook. Otherwise, I used @wikimedia.org
address just a couple of times because of formal reasons. I want to
say that for a lot of people it would be really cool to have email
accounts (or, at least, redirects) @wikiPedia.org. If it would be
integrated with the social networking abilities of MediaWiki.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think that is a false argument. If people don't want to write
> articles, they won't write articles, regardless of whether or not you
> take away their toys.

Huh? If you give people reasons to hang around, burdening our systems
(and I'm not talking about the servers, I'm referring to things like
dispute resolution, copyright vetting, and the human workload of
monitoring RC), without doing anything even arguably related to the
mission then some will. I don't see how there can be much question
over that.

> Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
> volunteers.

Yet there are plenty of organizations which rely extensively on
volunteer labor and yet manage to preserve a professional and focused
working environment.

This often repeated claim that volunteers can't be directed false by
definition. "A volunteer is someone who works for free for a
community or for the benefit of natural environment primarily because
they choose to do so." If someone is unwilling to stick to the
mission because they'd rather be picking their nose then they probably
are not volunteers. Just because we're very poor at organizing
volunteers (we make up for it with volume),and we have a lot of
non-volunteers doesn't mean that volunteers can't be organized.

Regardless, this discussion isn't about directing volunteers, it's
about adding facilities which are external to the mission. "Our
workers can smuggle in beer and drink on the job anyway, and we can't
really stop them. Lets provide a keg." Unless you hope to argue that
"social networking" would be a useful organization tool, but if so
you're using the wrong word ("social networking" is a tainted word;
linkedin doesn't describe themselves that way for example), and the
wrong arguments (that some people would enjoy using isn't a good
argument).

I think Pharos is generally on the ball with respect to the genuinely
useful uses: If the tools are generally on-topic then it's possible
for it to be productive.

> I also think such people are far less likely to make it to
> meta, compared to a large Wikipedia project. If you know about meta, I
> would say odds are extremely good that you are a Wikimedian.

OKAY. Then this is the pattern we've used in the past: Relegating
things to meta where they will cause no harm or effect.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>:
>> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
>> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.
>
> I think that is a false argument. If people don't want to write
> articles, they won't write articles, regardless of whether or not you
> take away their toys. Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
> volunteers. I also think such people are far less likely to make it to
> meta, compared to a large Wikipedia project. If you know about meta, I
> would say odds are extremely good that you are a Wikimedian.
>
> And it does depend if you consider them "toys" or "communication
> tools". If you don't want to use them in a "frivolous" way (or at all)
> then fine, don't. None of your time will be wasted.

I agree with Brianna. Besides that, it may open a lot of space for
making really good applications for reading and contributing to
Wikipedia. For example, MW/WM may open its API for external (free
software) applications (at which point we are near to the question of
using AGPL instead of GPL; but, please open other thread if you
[plural] want to discuss about that :) ), or an easier way how to
program and upload something which would be useful.

For example, Wikipedia would be the most useful place for keeping
bibliographies and personal scientific work. Such feature would gather
around Wikipedia a lot of scientists.

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

2008/11/3 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>:

> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.

You could say the same for meta in general, I suppose :-)

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

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

> 2008/11/3 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>:
>
>> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
>> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.
>
> You could say the same for meta in general, I suppose :-)
>
Well, I guess meta pretends to exist for coordination and not for social
networking.

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Brianna Laugher
> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/11/4 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>:
>>> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
>>> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.

Do we want them to be using it, on WMF servers?

We have well ordered websites because we judge content and associated
pages by their utility to the mission. Pages that dont further the
mission are discarded.

"Social networking" invokes a much lower bar, as freedom of expression
is expected, and so any "content" that doesnt break the law is usually
permissible. We have avoided these issues by having very high code of
user conduct, and a large part of that is due to contributors being
expected to not indulge in personal expression if that doesnt fit
within the project scope.

>> I think that is a false argument. If people don't want to write
>> articles, they won't write articles, regardless of whether or not you
>> take away their toys. Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
>> volunteers. I also think such people are far less likely to make it to
>> meta, compared to a large Wikipedia project. If you know about meta, I
>> would say odds are extremely good that you are a Wikimedian.

Volunteers react to stimulus. Some people find the project work to be
stimulating enough, and dont want their project environment becoming
cluttered with people who no longer find the project stimulating.

>> And it does depend if you consider them "toys" or "communication
>> tools". If you don't want to use them in a "frivolous" way (or at all)
>> then fine, don't. None of your time will be wasted.
>
> I agree with Brianna. Besides that, it may open a lot of space for
> making really good applications for reading and contributing to
> Wikipedia. For example, MW/WM may open its API for external (free
> software) applications (at which point we are near to the question of
> using AGPL instead of GPL; but, please open other thread if you
> [plural] want to discuss about that :) ), or an easier way how to
> program and upload something which would be useful.

The APIs are already open; arnt they?

If someone built a beta of a cool app that Wikipedians would use often
as part of their reading/contributing activities, I doubt WMF would
actively prevent it from pulling down the content it needs.

Facebook apps are already possible.

> For example, Wikipedia would be the most useful place for keeping
> bibliographies and personal scientific work. Such feature would gather
> around Wikipedia a lot of scientists.

It is very strange that you would think of "Wikipedia" as the host of
those things. The "Wikisource" and "Author" namespaces of Wikisource
are devoted to bibliographies, and Wikiversity is intended to host
personal and collaborative scientific work (OR).

There is an abundance of unfinished initiatives littered around the
wikis, which would encourage new participants if only someone puts
some energy into them, especially on the smaller projects. Wikipedia
has been the major source of new contributors for a long time, but
that will wane because not every man and his dog can, or wants to,
write about the remaining redlinks. That said, there are enormous
gaps in the major Wikipedia projects, and the smaller Wikipedias are a
long way from being usable.

We do need a continual stream of new contributors, but it is incorrect
to assume that we need more or less in order to be successful. WMF is
already successful, and if the projects continue at the current rate,
they will be continue to be successful. I dont think we should panic
if/when the bigger projects slow down and contributions start to
decline. A good percentage of those people are probably moving to
other projects or languages.

--
John Vandenberg

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Social networking" invokes a much lower bar, as freedom of expression
> is expected, and so any "content" that doesnt break the law is usually
> permissible. We have avoided these issues by having very high code of
> user conduct, and a large part of that is due to contributors being
> expected to not indulge in personal expression if that doesnt fit
> within the project scope.

This would be, of course, at the separate place, as an extension of
user profiles. So, this wouldn't contaminate articles.

> The APIs are already open; arnt they?
>
> If someone built a beta of a cool app that Wikipedians would use often
> as part of their reading/contributing activities, I doubt WMF would
> actively prevent it from pulling down the content it needs.
>
> Facebook apps are already possible.

So, we are making business to Facebook. The point is to keep users at
our site, not at some other site.

> It is very strange that you would think of "Wikipedia" as the host of
> those things. The "Wikisource" and "Author" namespaces of Wikisource
> are devoted to bibliographies, and Wikiversity is intended to host
> personal and collaborative scientific work (OR).

Wikipedia is the most useful place all over Wikimedia projects; at
least for the majority of users. So, this was the starting point...
But, of course, such application would be able and should include
organization of work all over Wikimedia projects (as well as
organization of *personal* references; not bibliographies of
scientists).

> We do need a continual stream of new contributors, but it is incorrect
> to assume that we need more or less in order to be successful. WMF is
> already successful, and if the projects continue at the current rate,
> they will be continue to be successful. I dont think we should panic
> if/when the bigger projects slow down and contributions start to
> decline. A good percentage of those people are probably moving to
> other projects or languages.

Continual stream of new contributors is decreasing and number of
active and very active contributors is decreasing, too -- all over the
Wikimedia projects (with very small number of exceptions). (This is, i
think fourth or fifth time in the last couple of days that I am
repeating it; I became boring to myself.)

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Continual stream of new contributors is decreasing and number of
> active and very active contributors is decreasing,
[snip]

I've not seen any concrete evidence that supports this. Traffic in
meta areas doesn't always translate into real productive work.

I can't speak for project that I don't frequently use, but EnWP and
Commons haven't started imploding as far as I can tell.

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

Hoi,
The fact of the matter is that on many social networks there are special
interest groups of Wikimedians in one form or another. I have many friends
in several networks that are fellow wikimedians and it makes better sense to
have them in one environment, an environment that is shared by us all. Now
Facebook, Myspace Hyves Orcutt LinkedIn Plaxo are all environments where
Wikimedians share my network and are friends.. They do not know each other
because these networks do not connect.

When we just have something that "just works" for now, it would be great.
Yes, it needs to be a WMF network. Now once we start this, we can help build
our own social network and continue functionality like a "skype" .... I am
sure that people like Anthony, Gregory or Genie will love to ensure that
this is based all on relevant Open Source and Open Standards.. :)

I am sure that it will prove to be a distraction to some, but at the same
time it will create a pull for new people.. THAT would be a good thing..
When our software scales and works in countries like Nepal, Togo and Angola
as well, I am sure it will prove to be worth our while.
Thanks,
GerardM

NB The question is how to deal with licenses for the content that is part of
the social networking :) Now let this not stop us having social networking..
:)


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>wrote:

> > Hi,
> >
> > What do people think of the idea of asking the "social networking"
> > type *communication* extensions to be enabled on meta?
> >
> > I was thinking about this, and talking to Gerard, and he pointed out
> > that unless it was integrated into MediaWiki most people wouldn't use
> > it, and I think he is probably right.
> >
> > Meta makes the most sense, since it is already supposed to be used for
> > coordination, and maybe if it has some extra functionality that will
> > even encourage people to use it more.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Brianna
> >
>
> Do we actually WANT people use it? The argument goes that the more they
> (we) use it, the less they (we) have time for writing articles.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The APIs are already open; arnt they?
> >
> > If someone built a beta of a cool app that Wikipedians would use often
> > as part of their reading/contributing activities, I doubt WMF would
> > actively prevent it from pulling down the content it needs.
> >
> > Facebook apps are already possible.
>
> So, we are making business to Facebook. The point is to keep users at
> our site, not at some other site.
>

I thought the point was "to empower and engage people around the world to
collect and develop educational content under a free
license<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content>or in the public
domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not seen any concrete evidence that supports this. Traffic in
> meta areas doesn't always translate into real productive work.

In one of the emails I explained it through data from a couple of
projects; without en.wp, of course, because statistics are too old.
However, I don't think that behavior is significantly different than
in French and Italian cases (according to the list activity).

There are no statistics for Commons [for which I know], except for the
list, where communication decreases, too.

Besides that, the only case which doesn't support the relation between
mailing list activity and project activity is a negative one. Japanese
Wikipedians talk more at the list, but their activity at the project
was in decrease for the period January-May 2008.

> I can't speak for project that I don't frequently use, but EnWP and
> Commons haven't started imploding as far as I can tell.

The main reason for raising this question is exactly to prevent
imploding. (BTW, we already have one implosion: The third Wikiquote,
Polish, has less than 50 edits per day, the fourth, German, has
somewhat more than 50 edits per day.)

Also, I would be happy if someone [like you] checks more
systematically statistics. I have very rudimentary knowledge in
statistics (yes, I know that curves of development are not not
straight forward and that a couple of paths are possible), so someone
with better knowledge in that field should check it. (And I think that
the question is very important. I would be very happy to see that I am
wrong.)

[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-October/046831.html

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, we are making business to Facebook. The point is to keep users at
>> our site, not at some other site.
>
> I thought the point was "to empower and engage people around the world to
> collect and develop educational content under a free
> license<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content>or in the public
> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"

I don't see the connection between those two issues. You quoted WMF's
(and our) general goal, I was talking about how to work on it. Besides
all other things, one of the methods is to keep users at our sites
instead of building tools for commercial (and close source) platforms.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Brianna Laugher
> <brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cracking the whip doesn't mean much to
>> volunteers.
>
> Yet there are plenty of organizations which rely extensively on
> volunteer labor and yet manage to preserve a professional and focused
> working environment.

A number of universities have used tools like Elgg in fostering a
professional environment. I don't think there have been serious
problems along these lines in academic settings.

> Unless you hope to argue that
> "social networking" would be a useful organization tool, but if so
> you're using the wrong word ("social networking" is a tainted word;
> linkedin doesn't describe themselves that way for example), and the
> wrong arguments (that some people would enjoy using isn't a good
> argument).
>
> I think Pharos is generally on the ball with respect to the genuinely
> useful uses: If the tools are generally on-topic then it's possible
> for it to be productive.

I think we have to draw a reasonable line with the scope of tools.
Obviously there -are- certain things that would be inappropriate for a
Wikimedian networking tool (these things are probably obvious to
everyone).

Still, I don't think allowing say, local Wikimedians in Los Angeles to
go bowling together, and organizing that through such a tool would be
such an unproductive thing. It is social activities like this that
can lay the groundwork for future "productive" projects.

In this, I think we should try to follow the models for such tools as
used by university projects. Certainly we should be aiming for a
compromise that is someway between Facebook and our userpage policy
with respect to such tools.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So, we are making business to Facebook. The point is to keep users at
> >> our site, not at some other site.
> >
> > I thought the point was "to empower and engage people around the world to
> > collect and develop educational content under a free
> > license<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content>or in the public
> > domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"
>
> I don't see the connection between those two issues.


I don't either.


> You quoted WMF's
> (and our) general goal, I was talking about how to work on it. Besides
> all other things, one of the methods is to keep users at our sites
> instead of building tools for commercial (and close source) platforms.


Well, I disagree. I don't see how keeping users "at our sites" as long as
possible is a method to meet that mission. I don't see how having users do
their social networking at wikiwhatever.org helps people develop educational
content under a free license. Getting users to come to "our sites" in the
first place can be helpful, and creating plugins for sites like Facebook
would do that.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> Well, I disagree. I don't see how keeping users "at our sites" as long as
> possible is a method to meet that mission. I don't see how having users do
> their social networking at wikiwhatever.org helps people develop educational
> content under a free license. Getting users to come to "our sites" in the
> first place can be helpful, and creating plugins for sites like Facebook
> would do that.

* By making contacts with other experts from the same field by using
social networking possibilities of Wikimedia projects. While this is
alone a part of our goals, this would raise quality of their
involvement in Wikimedia projects.
* By keeping *their* knowledge (i.e. their personal work) inside of
their "Wikipedia advanced profiles" and sharing relevant references
with others. Conclusion is similar to the previous.
* By on site for a lot of time, like a lot of people are a lot of time
on FB and similar sites; which would enhance communication between
participants and work on new knowledge.
* By making a strong connection their scientific work (which don't
need to be free, or even public; which they would be able to keep
privately) with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, which would
produce their higher involvement in the projects.
* By having [creative] fun at Wikimedia sites, which would produce
their higher involvement in Wikimedia projects.
* (And, possibly, much more reasons which one HR manager may list here
better than I am able.)

While I don't have anything against making such project out of
Wikimedia, I don't see that any project of that type has such
potential.

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