Wikimedia-l December 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

132 participants
80 discussions

[Foundation-l] Teasing
by Marc Riddell 07 Dec '08

07 Dec '08

Folks, Here's an interesting take on interpersonal communication: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/magazine/07teasing-t.html?pagewanted=1&tnt email1=y&emc=tnt Marc Riddell

1 0

[Foundation-l] Site notice suggestion needed.
by Rand Montoya 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

Hey All- If you have the time and energy, take a look at this site notice here: http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/Donate/Notice8a/en I'm looking for a few different/better ideas of what text should go on the left side (in place of the 250 million visitors/11 million articles). Right now there is strictly a data/numerical piece, but it can better. If you have an idea, please send to me at rand(a)wikimedia.org. Thanks. -Rand -- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: rand(a)wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495 Cell: 510.685.7030 “At some future time, I hope to have something witty, intelligent, or funny in this space.”

17 29

[Foundation-l] Announcement: Naoko Komura
by Erik Moeller 06 Dec '08

06 Dec '08

I'm pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation is hiring Naoko Komura as Program Manager for the Stanton Foundation Usability Project. She will begin work on January 2, 2009, and her employment contract with us will end on April 1, 2010. Naoko has worked for us in the past three months as a contractor shepherding two important projects: the reader/contributor survey, which was successfully launched and received tens of thousands of responses, and the Wikimania 2008 postmortem analysis. She's also project managed the fundraiser translation work, the development of the Stanton Foundation grant proposal, and another grant proposal we're actively working on. Naoko has worked as a Senior Program Manger and Project Manager for Yahoo! Mail, Postini, and Cygnus Solutions. She has an MA in International Development Policy from Stanford University and an MS in Economics from Kobe University in Japan. She's a native speaker of Japanese. I'm very pleased that Naoko has agreed to lead this important initiative. Please join me in welcoming her! -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

4 3

[Foundation-l] Stanton Foundation $890K Usability Grant
by Erik Moeller 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

As per Michael's earlier e-mail: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikipedia_to_become_more… We're very grateful to the Stanton Foundation for this important investment in Wikipedia's user-friendliness. We're aware of the UNICEF research as well and we'll survey the existing improvements as part of this project. A few points beyond the press release: '''When will this project begin, and when will it finish?''' The project will begin in January 2009. It will wrap up April 2010. '''What is its overall scope?''' The project scope will include the following: * user testing designed to identify the most common barriers to entry for first-time writers, and * a series of improvements to the MediaWiki interface, including improvements to issues identified through user testing and a focus on hiding complex elements of the user interface from people who don't use them. (Specifically, we'll focus on complex syntax like templates, references, tables, etc.) '''What does the Wikimedia Foundation consider to be wrong with the editing interface right now?''' When it was first developed, MediaWiki was considered reasonably user-friendly. At that time, software wasn't as flexible and user-focused as it is today. It's logical that by today's standards, MediaWiki may not seem to be as streamlined or user-friendly as other software. We have never systematically examined the editing interface to examine what kinds of challenges new contributors face, but we do know of certain common problems. For example, many people have difficulty creating new articles, uploading images, and editing templates, footnotes, and tables. We hope to make improvements in those areas. '''Who are the new contributors you are hoping to attract?''' We are hoping to attract new contributors who are just as smart and knowledgeable as the people who have always written for Wikipedia and its sister projects, but who -to date- have been unable or reluctant to participate because of the barriers posed by the interface. There are countless individuals who read Wikipedia and would be great writers/editors, but are daunted by complex wiki syntax. They may not even realize that they can edit Wikipedia. They are the people we are targeting with this project. '''What is the nature of the interface improvements that will be made in this project?''' In phase 1 (until late summer 2009), we will focus on reducing or eliminating common, simple barriers to entry. A possible example would be, "making the edit button more visible." These will be identified through systematic user testing, but also by surveying existing research. In phase 2 (until early 2010), we will shift our attention to identifying complex pieces of "wiki code" (the formatting language used to write Wikipedia articles) and making them less visible to first-time contributors and/or helping them achieve the respective functionality (such as adding tables) more easily. '''When can we expect to see the first changes to the Wikipedia interface?''' We hope to demonstrate a first series of improvements by mid-2009, with production deployment following shortly thereafter. '''How can the Wikimedia volunteer community be involved in this project?''' The project will be open and participatory throughout. Every major report will be publicly shared, and all code will be developed through our existing, public version control system. Volunteer developers and testers will be encouraged to contribute throughout the process. '''Are the positions created for this project just temporary?''' We will allocate at least two existing, budgeted developer positions to this project, and additional hires will be employed for the duration of the grant. '''Why don't these funds count towards your overall fundraising goals?''' The majority of the funding for this project will go towards costs not included in our 2008-09 budget. While we anticipate that the project will offset some of our operating costs, we also want to retain flexibility to reallocate funding inside the project budget as required. '''Are you going to localize these changes in all the languages of Wikipedia and the other projects?''' All code will be ready for internationalization. '''Are you going to be looking at the entire editing/contribution process or just the software?''' This project focuses on technical solutions, but the user testing will aim to capture problems experienced throughout the editing process. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2 1

[Foundation-l] Handholding for new articles (Was: Re: 80% of our projects are failing)
by George Herbert 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > The software has been tested but not all extensions are considered ready for > WMF production. I am establishing contacts with, among others, people at > UNICEF to make sure that we identify the outstanding issues carefully and > fix them efficiently. Given that the CreatePage extension requires changes > to the skin, it may make sense to consider using a superset of monobook (I > do not know how feasible this is). > > Given that the software is already being localised at Betawiki, we do not > need to restrict ourselves to English. I understand that UNICEF uses some of > their software in Swahili :) I would love to consider Swahili for this ... > Kennisnet is interested in this functionality, that would make Dutch an > option. It needs to be clear that it is not only Wikipedia projects that > will benefit. > > The benefits from a more useable interface have little to do with a "simple" > approach. Newbies are not able to contribute. Our need for more contributors > and content is most dire in our smallest projects. Personally I am not that > interested in using "simple" as a test environment. From my perspective, it > should be there for all the projects that want it. Obviously, when this > extension is localised first, it will be more effective. > > When we are to test this in a Wikimedia Wiki, we need to get involvement > from Brion. It would help a lot when the WMF actively takes part in this > collaboration and make usability a priority. > Thanks, > GerardM Thinking about this... (and catching up in thread...) There are two levels of failure with new pages on enwiki now. Level one is technical - UNICEF study pointed that out, your extensions are approaching that problem. Level two is more conceptual. Does a person who wants to create a page understand all that a "well done" page in Wikipedia should have? Can they explain what the idea is, and why it should have a page? Do they understand references and think about how to provide some? To be really useful, a toolset that structures a "create page" button response should address some or all of these questions. Have the output be not just a page, but a series of pages, which provide short inputs and do some useful things with them. Perhaps, for example: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to collect useful general information about all topics and make it freely available. But there are lots of things which don't belong in encyclopedias. Are you sure that the topic / article you want to create is really an encyclopedia article? Is it a word definition instead (link to Wictionary), or an image of some sort (link to commons), or (fill in some more). If your idea for an article is really an encyclopedia entry, click 'Yes' below to continue." "Can you explain what this page / article will be about? What's the topic? Where did you learn about it? Please fill in the text box below with your idea of what this new article is about. This will be posted on the article's talk page to explain the purpose of the article." "Wikipedia relies on outside references to verify information people post here. Can you provide the titles of some books or magazine articles, website URLs, or other sources which confirm what you are saying in the new article, in the text box below?" "Wikipedia would like to have articles about all important and useful topics, but some topics (normal people, most small businesses, etc) just aren't important enough. Is your article something which people in other states or countries will find interesting and useful? Wikipedia has some policies on what we recommend as being notable enough for articles (link to policies). If you think this article idea is notable enough, please click 'Yes' below to continue." "Wikipedia likes to have links from article to article. Are there other existing articles which you think this new article should connect to? List them below if you know of any." "Wikipedia article start with a short introduction, then more details. Can you summarize what this article is about in one to three sentences, to start the article's introduction? Think about it and then fill in the introduction below if you can. Then click on 'Continue'." "Ok, now let's create the actual article contents.... " (filled in template article, with introduction section inserted, and slightly textually processed references and see also sections). And the final step drops the article rationale entry into the talk page as well, on article creation. Does this process make sense? -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

10 21

[Foundation-l] Fw: Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy
by Dovi Jacobs 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Responding to Jesse Plamondon-Willard's points: >The current draft still as a few issues: >* It allows wikis for languages that have no written form. This is not an "issue". The Wikimedia Foundation itself has in the past advertised meeting its goal of spreading knowledge by providing a platform for languages without fixed written forms (especially native-American languages) to express themselves and develop both their written forms and materials in them. So yes, the proposal is quite clear in allowing them. Since interface is a requirement, no such wiki will be created under the proposed policy until an acceptable written form has been agreed upon. > * It allows every type of language except fictional, including languages nobody uses for communication. For example, it allows wikis is extinct languages, so long as some people learn to write or speak it fluently. Even fictional languages are only excluded due to "substantial opposition in the community", with no rational explanation for the distinction between fluently-spoken artificial and fluently-spoken extinct languages. Classical languages are not "extinct" languages by any means. Yes, the policy clearly allows them because of the many educated people who can express themselves in them fluently and want to do so. This is not an "issue", but a matter on which the community (as reflected in the draft) clearly disagrees with the language committee. Is the Language Committee accountable to community will or not? If any disagreement is an "issue" and there is no accountability to community will, then perhaps both the role and the very existence of the language committee should be reconsidered. As far as fictional languages, you are correct that there is no rational explanation other than "community opposition." Exactly. I personally having nothing against fictional languages either, but *this* policy draft ultimately derives its legitimacy from community collaboration and compromise. It reflects community will. Does the current policy do that? > * The new requirements are vague and arbitrary, and essentially let the subcommittee decide requests based on personal preference. They exclude far less languages, but only because they're not concrete or measurable. Everything is completely measurable: How many participants are there who can express themselves fluently who are building the test project? Has the localization been completed? >The community draft is promising, but I don't think implementing it while these issues are unaddressed would be beneficial. All the issues *have* been addressed. Perhaps you disagree with *how* they have been addressed. It seems strange to me that, if you think things have not been addressed, that you are raising your issues here rather than at the proposal's talk page over the past several months. Thanks, Dovi

3 3

[Foundation-l] Fw: Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy
by Dovi Jacobs 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

The community was invited to collaborate on a new draft proposal for policy on the creation of wikis in new languages. Over the past several months quite a few people participated in the formulation of the new draft proposal, and there was extensive discussion of every aspect. Attention was paid to every phrase. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft On some things there were compromises: Regarding localization requirements, for instance, I personally oppose the translation of the interface as a prerequisite for the creation of a wiki, particularly when it means huge numbers of messages: currently nearly 500 for the first wiki in a language, and well over 3000 (!) messages for subsequent wikis. Nevertheless, I understand the arguments of others, and given the fact that this huge requirement exists in the current policy anyways it is really no loss even given my position. The rest of the draft, however, is a huge improvement in many ways. There are compromises in everything, and the current draft is a good compromise. In short, the draft is excellent. It is a good reflection of community opinion, and a strong example of community collaboration and compromise. Language committee members have participated in its formulation to a significant extent, along with the non-members who began the draft and did most of the work on it. Overall, its spirit is similar to the current policy, but with some significant differences in both style and content. This excellent proposal should be ratified and made policy. Beyond the policy itself, doing so would strengthen the Language Committee itself by showing clearly that it works in tandem with the community and addresses community concerns. Dovi

2 1

[Foundation-l] Fw: Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy
by Crazy Lover 04 Dec '08

04 Dec '08

----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Leigh Babbage <gladysthegroovymule(a)yahoo.co.uk> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; langcom-l(a)list.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:07:47 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy Some Wikimedia users (and I am certainly part of this group) thought it unfair that, whilst artificial languages such as Esperanto and Volupak were allowed by this policy to have Wikipedias, classical languages such as Latin and Ancient Greek were not, on the grounds that, since they have no native speakers, they do not serve a community and are therefore at odds with the foundation's mission statement. This seems like both a contradiction and a questionable interpretation of the foundation's mission statement. With this in mind, one of the requisites for eligibility in the current policy: “The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience. (Wikisource wikis are allowed in languages with no native speakers, although these should be on a wiki for the modern form of the language if possible.) If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language subcommittee).” Has been changed to this in the community draft: “The proposal has a sufficient worldwide number of people able to express themselves at a fluent level, in the written, spoken or signed form, to form a viable community and audience. If the proposal is for a language without native speakers, it will need to be demonstrated that it is well attested in written texts, and is in current use as a special, auxiliary, engineered, classical or learned language.” The community draft's requisite reflects the fact that a viable community and audience does not need native speakers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, for cultural purpose, the native condition is not determinant. More important is the language prestigious. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The community draft also specifies how much of the interface has to be translated before final approval for both first projects in a language and projects in languages that already have projects. By requiring the 500 most-used messages to be translated for a first project, the policy sets a goal that is tough but reasonable. Requiring too many messages to be translated before the creation of the project would be likely to tire-out a smaller community (which would, of course, grow once the project was actually created). Not requiring any would make it easier for languages without much real support to slip through the net (I think that this part of the process should be used not only to make sure that the language has an interface, but also as another part of the test to see whether a language is suitable for the project). By requiring 500 messages to be translated we can ensure that people are serious about the project and have enough motivation, that the language (if it is classical) is capable of expressing modern concepts and that potential editors are not *too* over-worked during what is (let's be honest) the most boring part of the process. It is more sensible to require a grater number of messages to be translated before the creation of another project in a language because a language that already has at least one Wikimedia project should have a bigger community. ______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, minimal localisation proves the ability of the languages expressing technical concepts it is unbelievable that langcom doesn't yet endorse the community draft. It's excellent. C.m..l.

1 0

[Foundation-l] What is a page in wikipedia?
by K.Siva Senthil 04 Dec '08

04 Dec '08

Hello, I was trying to find out what is the difference between an article and page in wiki's terminology? I found this article which talks about article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARTICLE However, there is not such descriptive article about what a page means in wikipedia. Can somebody please help me differentiate them? I suspect that both article and page mean same. They are used interchangeably. Is my understanding correct?

5 4

[Foundation-l] 80% of our projects are failing
by Gerard Meijssen 04 Dec '08

04 Dec '08

Hoi, Regularly I hear people say that Wikipedia is failing. When you then listen, there are all kinds of good reasons why Wikipedia is failing. Quality is low, issues with living persons, pov pushers a long litany of woes are all grounds to predict the imminent demise of Wikipedia. While all these issues may be grounds for concern, it is hardly indicative of failure. To me they are indicative of a wildly successful project coping with everything that is a consequence of success. I am of the opinion that most of our projects would love to have the same problems, the same issues, the same success as the few project that do well. For most of our projects a lack of content, a lack of community ensure that the project is irrelevant. No growth, no interest is more killing then all the woes that our big projects suffer from. At Wikimania 2008 a presentation was given by developers from UNICEF who had done proper usability studies. They found that 100% of their newbie testsubjects were not able to create a new article. This is serious. This explains why so many of our projects fail. We do not invite collaboration because people do not know how to. They do not know how to EVEN when they are explicitly invited to create a new article as they were in this research. At the Wikimedia Conference Nederland, Jan-Bart de Vreede indicated in his speech that Kennisnet is interested in implementing the UNICEF extensions. These extensions are now localisable in any language at Betawiki. At ExtensionTesting, all the extensions have been tested against stable releases. Bugs were identified and some bugs were fixed. As a consequence it is likely that some more MediaWiki installations will benefit from research. It seems obvious to people who deal with small projects that usability is one of the big issue when it comes to the moribunt status of our small projects. The question I put to you, what are we going to do to first agree that this is an issue and then to deal with this issue. Do we care that 80% of our projects are failing? Thanks, GerardM

33 88

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l December 2008