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 Rancic<millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo
Shevelo<pavlo.shevelo(a)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...