Hi Milos,
Thanks a lot for so informative comment. Sorry but you provided more for my new counterargumentation than "beat" previous portion :)
Let me start bottomup (I have such habit)
... we are at the dead end
Wikipedia community evolve and became different, who said that it's signs of death? I like this quotation of wise person: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." By this I mean that we should have thorough research howto treat current tendencies (while I don't mean to do nothing until that research will be done).
yes, it is possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about that: we have to think how to do that.
Yes, it's quite *possible* that quantity of people within "15-24" age range will bring quality of articles that are "sexy"/"cool" for those ...agers, but what about articles that: - are boring for them if not of any interest for them; - they have no clue about that field of science&technology that this article should be about; - they are unable to comprehend the literature about that topic - just because they are too young and not yet educated ???
Scenario analysis: There was no reason to <s>waste</s> invest time into Scenario1 - nobody (not me, neither anybody else) said that we should abandon wiki-evangelisation of youngsters.
Scenario3 seems very scary in terms of imbalance in articles quantity and quality: only topics which seems "cool" for youngsters will be covered (see above).
From other point of view don't you think that 100% concentration on
youngsters recruiting will be treated by elders community members like age discrimination increasing their discomfort in projects (like Ukrainian) where they are in dramatic minority (that is their percentage is much less than in country population)? I mean they could decrease their contribution if not leave project instead of evangelisation among friends and colleagues. And what I'm saying is not just my guesswork - I know many cases of such elders decisions.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
- ... Older age groups are not interesting
anymore in the sense of quantity
Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?).
:) My point is not switch from "15-24" to "50+" age limits, but to object narrowing of limits too much. I mean that combining of several age diapasons could provide "best of two worlds" result.
And "recruiting" process should go as snowball - for example "50s" should hunt for more "50s" (as "30s" seems not mature enough to do that really well :) )
I have to say a lot about this, but I'll try to be concise...