On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not
based on actual discussions about the forum.
Please provide excerpts of the report that make you think this.
Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is
doubtful, the data
presented in the discussion (
is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the
axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in
percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something
in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as
a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people
participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world
region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in
Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5%
of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users.
But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33
people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan
Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this
point, not only in the percent not adding up.
It's obvious that the number of users is way higher for Meta than the
Forum. Having more users than Meta is not a goal of the Forum. We are
sharing the numbers there only to better understand the percentages shown.
The point of these metrics is to compare the regional location of Forum
users vs the regional location of Meta users. The hypothesis is that the MS
Forum can be especially useful for users outside of Northern & Western
Europe and North America.
The percentages show the distribution of users by region on Meta and on the
Forum. ~18% for the ESEAP blue line means that in that month ~18% of Meta
users were located in that region. The red line means the % of Forum users
in that month without counting Foundation staff. The yellow line includes
Foundation staff as well (as the number of Forum participants grows, the
influence of Foundation staff should become irrelevant, as in Meta).
This is the first time we produce these metrics. Comparing Meta with the MS
Forum is complex for many reasons. Meta covers way more than Movement
Strategy and discussions happen (with some exceptions) in the Talk
namespace. We could explore a smaller subset of Meta pages getting closer
to the MS Forum scope. Again, the goal being to check regional distribution
of users, not "Meta vs Forum". Still, we thought it was useful to start
recording this data and sharing it.
We will include these metrics in our monthly reports. Over time we will see
whether we can learn anything comparing the regional distribution of Meta
and Forum users.
Then there are some interesting points about
engagement. Is clearly going
down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta
engagement, so a comparison is difficult,
When a new space is announced, it is expected to receive a first bump of
activity. After that comes the actual curve of consolidation (or not) of
this new space. Two other factors influence in this case:
- Many users responded to the community review call, joined, tested,
maybe engaged a bit, and then left back to their routines, waiting for the
outcome of the review period.
- After mid June, Wikimedia activity enters a seasonal reduction of
activity that can be especially felt in global conversations.
We will see how the trends look for August-October, after the review period
has ended and in the context of a more active season.
About Meta, there is this: Active editors on Meta in non content pages
One can see that May-July has lower numbers than January-April. Maybe a
seasonal effect? We will see in the upcoming months.
There is also All Time active editors in non content pages
and in all pages
It took a couple of years for the new platform to consolidate and start
growing month after month. Just to put things into perspective.
but the data provided to defend that this forum is
thriving is just saying
That's because we don't provide the data to defend anything, but to allow
everyone to check how the Forum is doing. Your critique based on that data
proves this point.
If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data.