Wikimedia-l September 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

107 participants
76 discussions

[Foundation-l] Differences between projects with common versus highly diverse cultural backgrounds (was Re: Pending Changes)
by Risker 30 Sep '10

30 Sep '10

On 29 September 2010 23:32, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented > > *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike > > en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped > > significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP > > have remained stable: > > > > > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm > > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm > > > > The stats on that page are pretty confusing, Andreas. Could > > you say > > here what the relative figures are? > > According to the tables, the number of en:WP editors with >100 edits/month > stood at 5,151 in April 2007, and was down to 3,868 in August 2010. > > de:WP had 1,027 in April 2007, and 1,075 in August 2010. > > You raise an interesting point, Andreas. I am not persuaded that pending changes/flagged revisions have anything to do with the editor retention rate at the de:WP. However, I think you may be right that the considerably more homogeneous editor population, as well as the commonality in cultural background, was instrumental in the ability of the project to jointly make such a cultural shift. Indeed, the number of de:WP editors with >100 edits/month has remained very stable since January 2006. (The number of en:WP editors was essentially the same in January 2006 as at present, but hit its peak in April 2007. Let's not cherry pick the data too much, okay?) As an aside for those interested in the historical perspective, the massive increase in the number of editors on en:WP coincides with a massive influx of vandalism, and over a thousand editors did almost nothing *but* revert or otherwise address vandalism. As better and more effective tools have been developed to address that problem - Huggle, Twinkle, Friendly, the edit filters, reverting bots, semi-protection, etc - the number of editors needed to manage vandalism has diminished dramatically. In other words, that 1300-editor difference may largely be accounted for because those whose only skill was vandal-fighting have moved on. That's not to say there is no vandalism on en:WP today; there's still plenty of it. Observing from afar, it has often struck me that when almost all members of an editorial community come from a common cultural background and geographic area, there is a synergy that isn't found on projects where the community is much more diverse. This is best illustrated in the large scale on German Wikipedia, and some other European projects, where the community is visibly more cohesive. In the smaller scale, certain projects with shared cultural/geographic background on English Wikipedia, such as Wikiproject Australia, are more accomplished at developing and meeting shared objectives. These groups, whether large projects or small pockets within a larger project, seem to operate in accordance with their local cultural norms; in other words, they don't have to find common cultural ground before they can move on to a discussion of a proposal. It's my belief that the common cultural background of the de:WP editorial community has been one of the keystones of its success in being able to implement large-scale and project-wide changes, flagged revisions being the most obvious. That common cultural background or focal geographic area simply does not exist for the English Wikipedia; we're probably one of the few projects where the same expression can be viewed as friendly, somewhat rude and downright offensive at the same time, depending on whether the reader is Australian, British or American (not to mention those who have learned English as a second language, which also makes up a significant part of our editorship). Each project also has its own culture, but I confess that most of my knowledge of the culture of other projects is anecdotal rather than observational, so I won't venture to try to compare them. When faced with dramatic increases in vandalism, en:WP created tools that are largely developed by individuals and utilized by other individuals (with the exception of semi-protection); de:WP developed a single unified community response. The remarkably high quality of the tools used on en:WP means that any new systemic tool has to meet a very high threshold for it to be considered acceptable for wide-scale use. Perhaps that is the key difference between these two community types: one places more emphasis on making cohesive group decisions, while the other more strongly encourages a range of solutions. I don't have any answers, just observations. Risker/Anne

4 5

[Foundation-l] Office Hours with Sue Gardner
by Deniz Gultekin 30 Sep '10

30 Sep '10

Hi all, A reminder that Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be having office hours today (September 30) at 23:00 UTC (16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at <http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Or, you can access Freenode by going tohttp://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning, which you can click to accept. Please feel free to forward (and translate) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. -- Deniz Gültekin Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge http://donate.wikimedia.org/

1 0

[Foundation-l] Pending Changes
by James Heilman 30 Sep '10

30 Sep '10

Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make everyone happy sometimes. I support PC for a number of reasons including. 1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our readership regarding Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these concerns. Thus there is a good chance that "pending changes" will not only increase our readership but the number of people who edit. No one wants to put in the work to create something good or excellent just to have it vandalized and left un-repaired. 2) Vandals like to see their work go "live". Pending changes stops this and will thus potentially decrease the entire volume of vandalism. Most vandals will not be willing to pit in the effort to get around these measures. 3) We will have a tool to allow the world to seamlessly contribute to a greater part of Wikipedia. Instead of semi protecting some pages ( and thus making it difficult for IPs to contribution ) we can use PC to make Wikipedia more open per our founding principles. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

6 7

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
by Joan Goma 29 Sep '10

29 Sep '10

Think big Milos. Wikimedia Germany is even better organized than Kosovo. Let Kosovo alone and put Germany in Serbia. Now seriously: Who do you think can succeed better promoting the projects in Kosovo, Wikimedia Serbia, Wikimedia Kosovo, or both? We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor Kosovo independence. > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:09:02 +0200 > From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 > Press Release > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTimP3K4t04rruWsDikMbzoK=Az5DY3Ryy2vE7ohF(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:06, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:14, Gerard Meijssen > > <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the > set up > >> of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving > them > >> a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction > means > >> that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York > >> have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as > strong if > >> not stronger. > > > > In fact, they are better organized than Wikimedia Serbia, which is > > partially my fault. > > And, in fact, they are the reason why I want Kosovo in Serbia ;) Their > organization is strong and their potentials are stronger. > >

9 13

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] LocalWiki project needs your support
by phoebe ayers 28 Sep '10

28 Sep '10

This is spammy and OT -- but still may be of interest to people on this list. I can vouch for the awesomeness of the localwiki project, which is trying to make local and city wikis (like the amazing Davis Wiki, which serves my hometown) for the world. Free, local, open and nonprofit -- and they're raising money, and need to raise a bunch more in the next week to get their kickstarter grant funded. If this project is successful, they will help grow an essential part of the free content/collaborative landscape that Wikimedia by and large doesn't serve at all. -- phoebe ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Ivanov <mivanov(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:57 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] LocalWiki project needs your support To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Hi folks, my name is Mike Ivanov, I am one of the co-founders of the Davis Wiki, currently the largest local community wiki in the world, where nearly every local resident uses the wiki and 1 in 7 contribute content. LocalWiki (http://localwiki.org) is our new non-profit project to create the next generation of wiki software designed specifically for local communities and promote the use of community wikis as a new kind of collaborative, community-owned local media. We want to apply the lessons we learned building the Davis Wiki to help as many communities as possible create the same kind of useful, engaging local resource. The technical costs of this project are covered by a grant from the Knight Foundation, but in order to reach more communities and have more of an impact, we are raising an additional $25,000 for community outreach and education. If you support this project, please make a pledge on our Kickstarter page at http://kck.st/a5vx43 and help us spread the word. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, so your donation is tax-deductible. Nearly 300 people have already donated over $17,000 as of today, and we only have 5 days left in this all-or-nothing pledge drive. We cannot do this without your support. You can read more about LocalWiki at http://www.localwiki.org (@localwiki on Twitter) or about the Knight Foundation grant at http://www.newschallenge.org/winner/2010/local-wiki and I would be happy to answer any questions or comments. Thank you, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
by Joan Goma 28 Sep '10

28 Sep '10

> > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:46:19 +0100 > From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > > > Yes, what I wrote doesn't really make sense, does it? What I meant was > that separate chapters is probably best for the WM movement, not > counting the negative impact of being seen to take sides in the > dispute. If you do count that negative impact, then it is much less > clear. People more familiar with the dispute than I am can try and > estimate the extent of the harm taking sides would do. > This is right if the impact of being seen as taking one side is bigger than that of being seen as taking the other. But as in fact we are not taking sides perhaps we cold find the way for being seen just as we are: people looking for the best for the projects.

1 0

[Foundation-l] Office hours with Sue Gardner
by Philippe Beaudette 28 Sep '10

28 Sep '10

Hi all, Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be having office hours this Thursday (September 30) at 23:00 UTC (16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at <http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning, which you can click to accept. Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. ____________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation philippe(a)wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
by Joan Goma 28 Sep '10

28 Sep '10

> Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:40:30 +0100 > From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=mFCOFCDcD8bNH5CrLruM5Ai5h7u3sCQV9Vemd(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma <jrgoma(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor > > Kosovo independence. > > Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is > probably best for the WM movement, since the Serbian chapter > presumably can't operate effective runs the risk of appearing to > promote Kosovan independance. I would love it if we could stay out of > the dispute entirely, but it isn't easy to do. > It seems to me that doing the best for the WM movement only appears to promote the best for the WM movement. Doing the worst for the WM movement is what not only appear but is a clear proof of political bias. I only can agree in preferring an imaginative solution to stay out of the dispute.

2 1

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 39 – 27 September 2010
by Wikipedia Signpost 27 Sep '10

27 Sep '10

1 0

[Foundation-l] Page eliminators at ptwiki
by GoEthe.wiki 27 Sep '10

27 Sep '10

Hi. At ptwiki, we recently implemented a usergroup to help with the backlog of requests for speedy deletions, articles for deletion, and others (see http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Eliminadores). This was done to try to dismistify the admin role, and increase community participation in admin tasks, trying to counteract the significant decrease in the number of admins during the past two year (we currently have less than 40 admins). I invite you all to accompany this as I believe that the success or failure of this strategy will have valuable lessons for other projects. Best, GoEThe

4 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l September 2010