Mailing List Archive

I mostly agree with Gregory that the creation of a social media framework
within Wikipedia would greatly increase the workload of some Wikipedians, in
a number of ways, while making only a very, very tenuous claim to the
increase of our productivity.

The fact that the "low hanging fruit" is all mostly picked is indeed a
systemic problem which naturally is reducing our stats, but I think the real
problem is the consequence of that, which is that the early pickers have
formed a significant core of experienced users, which is good in a sense,
but also bad in that it raises the bar for all new users. What we SHOULD be
talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and their
first created articles, &c.

David Moran



On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> What we SHOULD be
> talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
> walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and their
> first created articles, &c.

I agree.

And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is
what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million
articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached
"mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.

Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help
quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader
range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then
editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not
representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).

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

Hoi,
Only a few of our Wikipedias have a reasonable coverage of the subjects that
you expect in an encyclopaedia. As this is at the start of your argument, i
find that I have to disagree. I do however agree that improved usability
will improve quality. When you consider the Commons content, it is easy to
argue that improved language support will make it easier for people who
read/wite other languages to contribute and thereby remove some of the
existing bias.

When you observe the cooperation that happens through the skype channels of
"not the Wikipedia Weekly" to be called "Wikivoices" you will agree that it
is indeed greater cooperation that will become easier from implementing
social software. There is a need for social software because it can and does
provide tooling that enhances cooperation in creating quality content work.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > What we SHOULD be
> > talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
> > walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and
> their
> > first created articles, &c.
>
> I agree.
>
> And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is
> what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million
> articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached
> "mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.
>
> Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help
> quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader
> range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then
> editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not
> representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 3:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 do. If I don't have to leave wikipedia to find, chat with, and
trade stories with other wikipedians, I have much lighter frictional
costs of switching between chatting and finishing my last essay,
uploading images that I was just writing to a friend about, &c. There
are also network effects to sharing ideas stories and chat; This is
why usertalk pages were a vast improvement over either including
little notes in comments in the article text and using external IM
clients. We could do much more along those lines; "you have new
messages" was cool (and a cool color :) when it first came out, but
that's effectively the last innovation in on-wiki chat in the past 5
years.

> I don't see how having users do
> their social networking at wikiwhatever.org helps people develop educational
> content under a free license.

Socializing is a way of sharing goals and enthusiasm, collaborating, &c.

> Getting users to come to "our sites" in the
> first place can be helpful, and creating plugins for sites like Facebook
> would do that.

Also true.

SJ


> _______________________________________________
> 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 6:46 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> > I don't see how having users do
> > their social networking at wikiwhatever.org helps people develop
> educational
> > content under a free license.
>
> Socializing is a way of sharing goals and enthusiasm, collaborating, &c.


Except they don't do that. Socializing first and foremost produces socially
active
people. While I am sure there could be some benefits, I fail to see how
adding
social-networking features into Mediawiki could possibly make it more
productive.

Out of the box, it's a damn productive package, it just tends to not seem
that way
when people want to make it something it's not (hint: it's a wiki).

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

2008/11/3 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> What we SHOULD be
>> talking about is not social media, but more robust tutorials and
>> walkthroughs for new users as they go through their first edits, and their
>> first created articles, &c.
>
> I agree.
>
> And moreover, this is important because *quality* not *quantity* is
> what we should be most concerned about. With umpteen million
> articles in across many languages Wikipedia has already reached
> "mission accomplished" level from a pure quantity measure.
>
> Making it easier to contribute won't just help quantity, it will help
> quality by reducing some forms of bias, and bringing in a broader
> range of knowledge. If Wikipedia is only easy for techno-geeks then
> editors will be mostly techno-geeks, and their edits may not
> representative. (The [[Warp drive]] vs [[Ice pick]] effect).

Tutorials and walkthroughs are useful only after you have got that
first click. We need to get better at getting that first click.
Perhaps even just making the edit button bigger or a different colour.

We also need to get better at highly our different ways of attracting
that first click. Luring people onto talk pages or the like. A system
which went "you have view 100 pages why not try editing one" would be
too annoying to allow for live use but perhaps some smarter way to
target those likely to edit.

--
geni

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

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

YES. This is why we license everything under a commercially friendly license.

> The point is to keep users at our site, not at some other site.

I hope not. If someone wants to blog on a Tuesday, and not create any
articles, we do not need to fret that they have deserted us!

The Internet isnt us vs them. If anything, it is us empowering other
websites with free content that they can use.

>> 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...

Wikipedia might be the most useful, but it has the *least potential*,
because most of the time, we find that the knowledge we can readily
dump into it ... is already there! (at least in en.wp)

> 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).

The other projects have enormous potential, but it doesnt help when
the vast majority of our community are fixated on English Wikipedia.
Casual readers would probably have more "fun" over at Wikiversity or
Wikibooks, and _should_ be encouraged to go there.

One of the vital principles of why a wiki works is that we promote
*collaborative* pages. A *personal* references page is fine, but it
becomes much more useful when others assist in the development of it.
We learn from each other. If someone wants the page to be unmodified,
it can be in the users namespace, and it will probably be left alone.

>> 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.)

I am not seeing this, and repeating it doesnt help. I am seeing a
migration of active and very active users to other projects. I'd like
to see stats about Commons, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikisource, etc.
I would kill to see an update to the stats website, which is currently
very stale, using _May_ data.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/

I don't see any reason for alarm in the data that we do have.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaCOMMONS.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaINCUBATOR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaSOURCES.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics

--
John Vandenberg

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

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see any reason for alarm in the data that we do have.

According to statistics which you gave (btw, thanks for pointing to
them, I didn't know where to find them):

> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaCOMMONS.htm

Commons is in a constant and significant decrease since May 2007.

> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaINCUBATOR.htm

In not so strong decrease since January 2008 (but we don't have data
after May 2008)

> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaSOURCES.htm

Old Wikisource is not so big project and it is not possible to make
precise conclusions.

> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm

All Wiktionaries together stay well, this is true.

> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics

It seems that all Wikisources together had begun decrease at the
beginning of 2008. However, according to the second link, it seem that
they stays well. (BTW, I would like to see a short explanation of the
significance of ProofreadPage extension and pages which used them.)

BTW, again, number articles *will* raise except there are big
problems. One new page per month means that there is one article more
and somewhat bigger database. I explained in one of the previous
emails [1] why some data are more relevant than others. (If you have
objections to this approach, please let me know what are the errors of
the method.)

And, again, I would be really happy to see that I am wrong. I didn't
spend significant time in analysis just because I like to spread
defeatism; but to point to the problem.

[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 Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, we are making business to Facebook.
>
> YES. This is why we license everything under a commercially friendly license.
>
>> The point is to keep users at our site, not at some other site.
>
> I hope not. If someone wants to blog on a Tuesday, and not create any
> articles, we do not need to fret that they have deserted us!
>
> The Internet isnt us vs them. If anything, it is us empowering other
> websites with free content that they can use.

I didn't say that Internet is us vs. them, I said that we are building
others' businesses instead of using our advantages to work on our
goals.

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

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see any reason for alarm in the data that we do have.
>
> According to statistics which you gave (btw, thanks for pointing to
> them, I didn't know where to find them):
>
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaCOMMONS.htm
>
> Commons is in a constant and significant decrease since May 2007.

Most people have "found" Commons by now. "Binaries" continues to climb.

>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaINCUBATOR.htm
>
> In not so strong decrease since January 2008 (but we don't have data
> after May 2008)

Edits per month continues to climb.

Incubator fluctuates as projects migrate, and groups of people will
arrive and leave together; as a result we would need to understand how
this affect those stats in order to make good deductions from them.

>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaSOURCES.htm
>
> Old Wikisource is not so big project and it is not possible to make
> precise conclusions.

We'll come back and look at this one in a year! ;-)

>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
>
> All Wiktionaries together stay well, this is true.
>
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
>> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics
>
> It seems that all Wikisources together had begun decrease at the
> beginning of 2008. However, according to the second link, it seem that
> they stays well.

The only stat going down is "new wikilibrarians". The number of
Contributors continues to climb. The RC feed is increasingly becoming
impossible to monitor; I'm not imagining things!.

> (BTW, I would like to see a short explanation of the
> significance of ProofreadPage extension and pages which used them.)

A "page" in those stats indicates a page that has an accompanying
image of the *original printed page* , which means that
1. anyone can transcribe the text (even without understanding the language)
2. the rest of the world can know with 100% certainty that our edition
is perfect, and has accurate bibliographic and provenance
information.

> BTW, again, number articles *will* raise except there are big
> problems. One new page per month means that there is one article more
> and somewhat bigger database. I explained in one of the previous
> emails [1] why some data are more relevant than others. (If you have
> objections to this approach, please let me know what are the errors of
> the method.)

Your focus on stats on "users" leads to bad results. All languages
have a finite number of people that understand them, and the graph of
new contributors is indicative of the gradual growth of the wiki into
that population. When a wiki is small, the population doesnt know
about it. When the wiki is large, the majority of the population
knows about it, and most will have already decided whether they wish
to participate or not. So, I dont put much weight on stats of new
contributors. Also, most newcomers dont get the "wiki" bug. They
deposit one or two pages, and then go away happy.

The number of active contributors is more important, but is still
indicative of the stage the wiki is at, in relation to public
awareness.

I understand that you were using stats about users to learn something
about the health of the "community", and can see some value in it,
however I much prefer to look at the content related stats : the
growth of the wiki. The content. And all indicators there are
looking OK on the projects.

I fail to see what is the problem when all of the indicators show the
content namespaces are growing, even if it is a linear growth. We
know that contributors often leave, but new people are filling their
places, or the old people are being more productive.

The more difficult aspect to measure is the quality. For example, the
German Wikisource stats look like they are having a hard time... their
stats fluctuate a lot.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaDE.htm

The reality is that they have been actively turning away contributors,
because they have decided that they will not accept any text that isnt
accompanied with page scans. Most people are not so dedicated that
they will go to such lengths. I think it is a bad decision, but the
result is that they have very good quality throughout their wiki, and
the project members are more proud of their work, because they are
working in a very orderly environment.

Quality attracts a different class of new contributor -- a rarer
breed, but more likely to make highly valuable edits. But quality is
_hard_, and enforcing quality results in less new contributors.

> And, again, I would be really happy to see that I am wrong. I didn't
> spend significant time in analysis just because I like to spread
> defeatism; but to point to the problem.

The most important problem is that the statistics are stale. If you
want to make big decisions, you need good data, and analyse it from
many angles.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Hoi,
This thread was split from one that deals about statistics and puts forward
the notion that we are in decline. This thread is about a need felt by
several people that social networking functionality centred around WMF
projects and communities.

The statistics that make sense in the first thread do not give a clue if
social networking will provide a benefit. The indicators that we have is
that many social networks have groups or causes that deal with WMF projects.
The current social networks are islands, they do not allow people to
interconnect between these networks and consequently the benefits for causes
like our own is not what it could be.

A case in point, pfctdayelise shares with me membership of several social
networks. Yesterday she told me about slideshare,net. It is a great
environment to share slides. It is exactly what is useful for the
presentations that I gave in the past. I have uploaded some presentations,
and I added them to the WikiMedia Group where only 6 members share their
presentations. Brianna did a great job on some of her presentations by
adding a sound file to the presentation. My point is that this is exactly
the kind of functionality that we ALL need, it is exactly the kind of
functionality that we should embrace.

The statistics that have been considered are clearly irrelevant to me.
Thanks,
Gerard


http://www.slideshare.net/GerardMe
http://www.slideshare.net/group/wikimedia

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I don't see any reason for alarm in the data that we do have.
> >
> > According to statistics which you gave (btw, thanks for pointing to
> > them, I didn't know where to find them):
> >
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaCOMMONS.htm
> >
> > Commons is in a constant and significant decrease since May 2007.
>
> Most people have "found" Commons by now. "Binaries" continues to climb.
>
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaINCUBATOR.htm
> >
> > In not so strong decrease since January 2008 (but we don't have data
> > after May 2008)
>
> Edits per month continues to climb.
>
> Incubator fluctuates as projects migrate, and groups of people will
> arrive and leave together; as a result we would need to understand how
> this affect those stats in order to make good deductions from them.
>
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/ChartsWikipediaSOURCES.htm
> >
> > Old Wikisource is not so big project and it is not possible to make
> > precise conclusions.
>
> We'll come back and look at this one in a year! ;-)
>
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
> >
> > All Wiktionaries together stay well, this is true.
> >
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
> >> http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:ProofreadPage_Statistics
> >
> > It seems that all Wikisources together had begun decrease at the
> > beginning of 2008. However, according to the second link, it seem that
> > they stays well.
>
> The only stat going down is "new wikilibrarians". The number of
> Contributors continues to climb. The RC feed is increasingly becoming
> impossible to monitor; I'm not imagining things!.
>
> > (BTW, I would like to see a short explanation of the
> > significance of ProofreadPage extension and pages which used them.)
>
> A "page" in those stats indicates a page that has an accompanying
> image of the *original printed page* , which means that
> 1. anyone can transcribe the text (even without understanding the language)
> 2. the rest of the world can know with 100% certainty that our edition
> is perfect, and has accurate bibliographic and provenance
> information.
>
> > BTW, again, number articles *will* raise except there are big
> > problems. One new page per month means that there is one article more
> > and somewhat bigger database. I explained in one of the previous
> > emails [1] why some data are more relevant than others. (If you have
> > objections to this approach, please let me know what are the errors of
> > the method.)
>
> Your focus on stats on "users" leads to bad results. All languages
> have a finite number of people that understand them, and the graph of
> new contributors is indicative of the gradual growth of the wiki into
> that population. When a wiki is small, the population doesnt know
> about it. When the wiki is large, the majority of the population
> knows about it, and most will have already decided whether they wish
> to participate or not. So, I dont put much weight on stats of new
> contributors. Also, most newcomers dont get the "wiki" bug. They
> deposit one or two pages, and then go away happy.
>
> The number of active contributors is more important, but is still
> indicative of the stage the wiki is at, in relation to public
> awareness.
>
> I understand that you were using stats about users to learn something
> about the health of the "community", and can see some value in it,
> however I much prefer to look at the content related stats : the
> growth of the wiki. The content. And all indicators there are
> looking OK on the projects.
>
> I fail to see what is the problem when all of the indicators show the
> content namespaces are growing, even if it is a linear growth. We
> know that contributors often leave, but new people are filling their
> places, or the old people are being more productive.
>
> The more difficult aspect to measure is the quality. For example, the
> German Wikisource stats look like they are having a hard time... their
> stats fluctuate a lot.
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ChartsWikipediaDE.htm
>
> The reality is that they have been actively turning away contributors,
> because they have decided that they will not accept any text that isnt
> accompanied with page scans. Most people are not so dedicated that
> they will go to such lengths. I think it is a bad decision, but the
> result is that they have very good quality throughout their wiki, and
> the project members are more proud of their work, because they are
> working in a very orderly environment.
>
> Quality attracts a different class of new contributor -- a rarer
> breed, but more likely to make highly valuable edits. But quality is
> _hard_, and enforcing quality results in less new contributors.
>
> > And, again, I would be really happy to see that I am wrong. I didn't
> > spend significant time in analysis just because I like to spread
> > defeatism; but to point to the problem.
>
> The most important problem is that the statistics are stale. If you
> want to make big decisions, you need good data, and analyse it from
> many angles.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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.

Of course, we should continue to do things to encourage new
contributors and new contributions. Just as we should find way to
encourage more use and donation. This is always true. But to claim
that there is some impending great failure appears to be unsupported
by the data available thus far.

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