New Wikipedia gender gap research has been posted to Meta.
This research was a collaborative effort of user:LauraHale, User:Hawkeye7, User:Pine, and others.
"...This analysis will focus on characteristics of female
participants on English Wikipedia. The analysis will look to see if
these participants are representative of the female English speaking
population. The analysis will also explore, through some existing
literature and in the conclusion, the question of whether these
potential differences could matter when planning strategy to target the
gender gap. …"
*Apologies for cross posting*
Hi everyone -
We are quickly approaching the launch of the 2011 Wikimedia annual
fundraiser. These past few months have been critical to ramp up our
operation in preparation of the year-end campaign.
Here is where we are at now: Starting Monday November 7, we would like to
launch the fundraiser to only logged-in users. Last year, we took down
banners for logged in users about a month into the fundraiser. This year,
we want to take the banners down even earlier for logged in users and
starting next week will allow us to do that.
We are asking every community member who is planning to donate, to make
their donation in this first week to help us test our donation forms in all
different countries and languages. We have put a lot of effort into
localizing our messages and forms. If you see any errors or ways we can
improve the setup in your country or language, please get in touch with us
on the the fundraising meta talk page  in the next week so we can make
these improvements before we put up banners for all users on Monday,
We will be sending out notices about the logged-in launch/test to mailing
lists and village pumps this week. Please help us spread the word!
Thanks for helping us get off to a strong start.
The Fundraising Team
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes<scire.facias(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
>> > Article Feedback Tool, which contains a "you know you can edit, right?"
>> > thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people
>> > who use it per day attempt to edit as a result of that inducement.
>> > Admittedly only 2 percent of them*succeed*, but it's not a lack of
>> > motivation, methinks.
> What's the definition of "succeed" there - they save an edit with a change?
> Is that 2% of the 17.4%, or 2% of those giving feedback?
> I wonder if there's a way to detect a failure to edit and ask what went wrong.
In a text driven interface it is a little difficult to float an
interactive window asking if a reader saw any errors and if they'd like
to fix them - yet that's the level most readers are on.
We must also remember that the wiki edit interface and markup can be a
little intimidating to a newbie, so opening an edit window and making no
changes may be more common than we think. Are there any stats on this?
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know
this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words
that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that
have a strong probability of sticking.
Anyone else got ideas based on their (admittedly anecdotal) experience?
[inspired by Oliver Keyes' blog post: http://quominus.org/archives/524 ]
"At the Wikimedia Conference in March, a German coalition proposed that
Wikipedia become the first digital World Heritage site. A petition was
drafted, declaring Wikipedia “a masterpiece of human creative genius.”
Unesco was not impressed (...) the truth is that Wikipedia doesn’t need the
World Heritage List. The World Heritage List needs Wikipedia."
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
estamos a fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*
Wikimedia proposes Wikipedia Zero
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I know that it is the flagship, however, it becomes a
self-fulfilling philosophy that nothing else exists at WMF when _WMF_ cannot even seem to
present the whole package.
Think if we expanded our visions and our message
* Quick and easy dictionary (wiktionary)
* Read a classic, a history, from science geniuses (Wikisource),
** or even download the work! Well only if there were resources provided so we could
explore the Epub extension
* grab a free lecture (wikiversity)
Different sites, different scopes, different experiences ... synergism of knowledge.
Regards, Andrew <- crawling back into his hole, and pulling the rock back over the top
Now, we have a lot of work to do, it's obviously encyclopedic and it
would be hard to get really wrong.
What needs to be in place to make it possible to recruit newbies for
the task of referencing things? (Alleviate the citation syntax
problem. Make the results easily checkable by the experienced. Ban the
use of Twinkle or similar semi-botlike mechanisms on the resulting
edits, as nothing repels good-faith new users like instant reversion.
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:58:32 +0100
> From: "Peter Damian" <peter.damian(a)btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia ideology
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Message-ID: <B5D73D52B61047D99DB70BB610E8F971@edwardPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> > What license(s) will the book be released under?
> > MZMcBride
> Very funny :)
> I have just completed my book on Scotus, which will be submitted to
> the Catholic University Assocation Press next week. Assuming it gets
> through their lengthy approval process,it will be published under
> whatever license they use - I imagine the 'evil' one.
> So to for the Wikipedia book, but it is early days to
> approach a publisher.
> If you ask why, I reply that no method has yet been devised
> to give attribution to the author of a work in a way that advances
> their career. I will earn little or no money from either work, I
> imagine. Note that Andrew Lih's book, which I have ordered
> from Waterstone's, is also under a standard copright license.
> At least I assume - I paid good money for it, because it
> was not available any other way.
> However, I do publish material on my own website,
> the Logic Museum. I fund this myself, and the translation work
> such as here
> is published under a 'free' license.
> I don't get any formal recognition for this. I do it because I want this
> material, which is very hard to get access to, even for subject matter
> experts, to be freely available to everyone on the planet.
I don't see the question as humorous, nor indeed do I see non-free licences
as evil. As a community we spend a lot of time making sure that the
non-free copyrights that others have used are respected. But there is a
default expectation here that when we ask for volunteers time, the end
result will be released under a free license. So when someone asks for
people to put time into something that won't be under a free license then I
think that at the least one should be up front about that; and being
upfront and open about it may even get people thinking about alternatives.
We have very similar issues in the research area. Would it make it more
difficult to publish your book if the arrangements were more like "The book
will be published under a commercial license, and any "off the record"
comments will remain so. But where the interviewee agrees, transcriptions
of the interviews will be posted on ??????? within x months of the
publication of the book."?
I am writing a book on the history of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement, focusing on its 'history of ideas'. Would any Wikipedians be prepared to be interviewed for this? Obviously long-standing Wikipedians would be a focus but I am interested in anyone who is involved in the movement because of passionately held convictions or 'ideology'.
A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it? In particular, how does the current ideology, if there is one, compare with the ideology which inspired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the founding editors of Wikipedia were women, I don't know how many people know that.