But we do know the, number of actual editors will always be overreporrted,
because there will always be more accounts created than editors actually
using them. So noting a pattern of decline is valid, even if the extent of
it is unclear due to the masking effects of false churn.
Sent from my mobile device.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 28, 2011 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline
To: "Stephanie Daugherty" <sdaugherty(a)gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 21:49, Stephanie Daugherty <sdaugherty(a)gmail.com>
> Actually because duplicate accounts can only skew results in one direction
> over the long term I think the warning signs raised are just as valid even
> if the exact numbers are questionable, because the actual situation can
> be worse than the numbers presented.
I don't see how that would follow, Stephanie.
Imagine 500 people create an account in 2005. They create a second
account in 2007 (because banned, or in trouble with the first account
in some way, or because they want a break from editing with that
account, or because they want a second account to run in parallel).
Six months later, they abandon the second, and create a third, or
return to the first.
That will show up as (a) 500 accounts created in 2005 edited for more
than a year; and (b) 500 accounts created in 2007 left after six
So the results of the survey are meaningless unless we know how many
people are behind the user names.
I think that somewhere along the way we lost sight of many of the qualities
that make the wiki model work.
There are certain patterns, which a wiki community needs to follow to be
successful - beyond assume good faith, there are principles such as forgive
and forget that are just as crucial to community building. instead we punish
reputation endlessly -, once you make a mistake it follows you forever or at
least until you make a clean start. most people don't want to have to start
over every time they manage to offend someone, so I think we are becoming
victims of an increasingly cynical unforgiving and hopeless culture. The
editors that are left are either the ones with really thick skin, the ones
that haven't become jaded yet by community interaction,, or the ones that
create such a hostile enviroment.
We lack an effective structure for dealing with the more persistently
hostile editors- arbitration can only work so well when the abuse is subtle
and sustained rather than sharp outbursts.
We need both technological and social fixes to this problem. Edit histories
are both necessary and harmful. Community interaction in some cases needs to
be filtered - limiting who interacts with new editors sounds extreme but it
may be exactly the sort of change that helps us to ease new editors into our
All these sort of things require interface changes to accomplish the needed
This is the sort of area where the foundation should take a very active
role, because the mission itself is jeopardized by communities that are too
hostile for new members to be comfortable in.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 27, 2011 8:27 PM, "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
while i really enjoy the amount and quality of the contributions in
the strategy wiki, one could even imagine different dimensions
influencing the number of contributions:
additional content types requires additional contribution. while
wikipedia might be considered "quasi-complete", other projects pretty
sure are not, just to name commons, wikinews, wikiversity (which is
information targetted to people of different age / education in other
words). and if you take wikinews, this one will never be complete :)
additional people having access to wikimedia projects will trigger
some of them to contribute. this i find particularly well covered in
the strategy. one aspect would be additionally interesting, related to
the interenet accessibility timeline. in the western world internet
and computer penetration started in the 90ies, and wikipedia started
into a "penetrated world". other social / community sites like
facebook grew bit a little bit afterwards, also blogging. what is the
influence of this, i.e. does somebody who starts to edit wikipedia
_before_ facebook or a personal blog stay longer with wikipedia or
not? what does this mean in, e.g. global south, countries where
internet penetration meets an already existing facebook and
if it is easy / quick to contribute it consumes less time, and one
does it more often. this is basically a technical issue. templates,
syntax, procedures, software. questions like "is mediawiki still the
right software", "can the type of contents we want be nicely edited",
like an interactive course in wikiversity, just to name something
where we have nothing good. i would love if this would get better
coverage in the strategy - maybe even shorter coverage.
if we extend the possibility to contribute everywhere, people might
find it easier to take a short time slot to contribute. partially i
feel this is very well covered, especially with the mobile strategy.
providing content creation examples might help in this respect. to
give an example: while travelling one can take geodata, photos, films,
audio recordings, and can store it for later upload.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 22:18, Ting Chen <tchen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear all:
> The Wikimedia Board of Trustees just completed its two-day meeting 
> this weekend in Berlin. We devoted the longest time to discussing
> declining trends in editing activity and our collective response to it.
> I encourage everyone to review Sue’s March update , and the editor
> trends study itself . It is a deeply important topic, and each report
> is only a few pages long.
> The Board thinks this is the most significant challenge currently facing
> our movement. We would encourage the whole movement - the communities,
> wikiprojects, Chapters, Board, Foundation staff - to think about ways to
> meet this challenge. We know many contributors care about this and have
> worked on outreach and hospitality in past years. We are considering how
> we can help make such work more effective, and ask for suggestions from
> the community to this problem now and to invite discussion and
> suggestions .
>  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/March_25-26
>  http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update
>  http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study
>  http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:March_2011_Update
> Ting Chen
> Member of the Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> E-Mail: tchen(a)wikimedia.org
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The Oriental Press Group in Hong Kong prosecution the Wikimedia Foundation, see
the news in their newspaper.
*Translate by Google*
Based in the United States in the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", was revealed
in the last published article in the Oriental Press Group defamation. Oriental
Press Group then take legal action, filed with the Hong Kong High Court, on the
operation and management of "Wikipedia," the company to take legal actions to
prohibit defamation articles, and to the other party to pay compensation. As the
"Wikipedia", after receiving the complaint, did not respond to the allegations,
the East was made to apply for a court to directly sentence the claim is
allowed. Orient this application, High Court yesterday by the Court accepted,
under the prohibition and immediate compensation orders awarded. As the amount
of compensation will be decided by the Court of the Masters.
The amount of compensation determined by the Master
This case the plaintiff is the Oriental Press Group Limited, the defendant was
the U.S. company Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Plaintiff filed last August, saying
the defendant under the "Wikipedia" site, respectively, in April and May last
year, published in two paragraphs, the contents constitute a defamation of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore requested the court order restraining the
defendant continued to publish the relevant text, for monetary compensation to
The plaintiff shall be represented to the judge yesterday that the complaint
served on the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant did not submit documents
to respond. The ruling in favor of this plaintiff's application for a summons,
in the March 4 has been given to the defendant, the defendant has chosen not to
respond, but also did not send people to attend the hearing
yesterday. Application for the judge accepted the plaintiff, an order prohibits
the publication of defamatory words involved, and damages to the plaintiff to
the defendant. Plaintiff also requested the defendant to disclose the original
text involved two hits, but the judge believes that this information will only
be involved in determining the amount of compensation, it was decided by the
Case Number: HCA 1257/2010
案件編號： HCA 1257/2010
Thank you for your attention.
I personally enjoy the independence that each project has in the
Wikimedia universe. Therefore, I've given much thought on wether I
should write this email. Bun in the situation I will present below, I
really don't know what more can be done according to the current
policies in effect on my home wiki (ro.wikipedia). I ask your help in
finding a path to follow.
One of our users has created a page for tracking "mistakes" made by
other users , which propted protests from other users, including
myself . Eventually, I asked for the deletion of the page at the
Romanian equivalent of [[WP:AFD]] on 20th of February . The rules
for deleting the pages are very much the same as on en.wp (see
[[:en:WP:NotEarly]]), however the user page rules are not quite the
same as on en.wp. There is an ongoing debate on ro.wp on using en.wp
rules when missing an equivalent policy. this was used by the user who
created the page in his defense.
On ro.wp it sometimes happens that decisions on deleting pages take
much longer than a week, so I would expect a decision to be made
sometime soon. However, this request is special because all the active
sysops are either present in the page in question or were involved in
the discussions about it, so it would be unfair of them to close it.
What do you think the following steps should be? Should we call some
of the other sysops from "retirement"? Should we appeal to someone
from the arbcom on en.wp?
The movement roles working group met again yesterday, and the main
meta pages are being updated as a result. One point of note -- Sue
recently shared her long-form answers to some questions about the
process (thank you!), which are worth reading:
Other responses to these questions are welcome.
I'm pleased to announce the release of the 2009-10 Wikimedia Foundation annual report today.
The report, licensed under CC BY SA, has been posted in PDF format on Wikimedia Commons, and on the WMF wiki:
The report is published in 2 PDF sizes - one for on-screen reading and a higher resolution version for printing. The Foundation prints copies of the report every year. Copies will be made available to chapters and other affiliate groups in small quantities.
This year, following in the footsteps of the Strategy plan summary report, we've also prepared a fully wiki-based version of the report, hosted on meta to facilitate localization and reuse:
The meta version is also a very good place to post any comments or feedback. I'm also very keen to hear anyone's suggestions for future editions.
We are releasing a bit later than preferred, but as we pull resources together for future design projects in the coming year we're poised for a 2011 'anniversary' year report to be released by November 2011.
Many thanks to folks in the community who helped us sort out some of the details for the stories throughout the report. And of course we owe great thanks to the generous photographers whose work makes the report look pretty darn good, cover to cover. Free is beautiful!
Head of Communications
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw