- ... 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 :) )
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Milos Rancicmillosh@gmail.com wrote:
Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelopavlo.shevelo@gmail.com wrote:
If we assume that our target groups are between 15 and 24...
(and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys)
15-24 is the main recruiting phase. Also, there is the next reasoning behind it:
- We already reached the peak. Older age groups are not interesting
anymore in the sense of quantity (of course, retired academicians *are* interesting, but there are not a lot of them; again, relatively speaking).
- If we reached the peak, we are able just to catch new generations in
bigger numbers.
- Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young
people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors. However, if we don't attract younger than us, Wikimedia projects will die with us.
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?).
I mean are you talking about people who just come (enter the door), or about those, who come and stay (don’t leave and eventually grow to “most active”)?
My aim is to point following: to accommodate newcomers is not less important than to attract attention (educate as you say) of prospective candidates.
Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good to have numbers about newcomers and those who made 10 or 100 edits, so we may compare how do we attract attention through the time. However, I think that those numbers are relatively stable in the past couple of years (let's say, from 2005 or so).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l