Hoi, I am very much a proponent of those who consider Wikipedia one project with many iterations in a language project and community. For me it means that there are several basic requirements for all Wikipedias. The content being freely licensed and of a neutral point of view are core values I also consider it essential that Wikipedia is open to new people who want to contribute to what we already do, as such I would welcome new projects that fit in the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation.
As to people like Siebrand, he performs several crucial functions for MediaWiki and Wikipedia and I consider him one of the most important people in and for the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a central role in translatewiki.net, with Raymond_ he commits the localisations to SVN after doing some quality assurance to the localisations. As a consequence of his internationalisation and QA work he is the one of the most prolific contributors to MediaWiki. He also runs Siebot for ages and he does not only but also work on the interwikilinks that bring our projects together.
In answer to your question, the activities that Siebrand is involved in are best done in a collaborative way. Actually given the nature of Wikipedia it is the only way. Thanks, Gerard
2009/8/16 Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shevelo@gmail.com
Hello Gerard,
Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
Some small example (casestudy): recently I <s>requested</s> asked for as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like that.
There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda: Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single project' model provides very different level of different segments autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or forever?). Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia? Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand?
Sincerely,
Pavlo Shevelo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
260
projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important things that are happening.
I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias.
This
is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in
localisation
they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For
languages
like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to
take
part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate
on
languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale
being
that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way.
With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give
the
numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers provided by such research..
It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest
resource
in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for
other
languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the
internet
in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more
of
a worthwhile experience?
We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on
our
biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the
same
attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as
well.
Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and
study
how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to
kick
in?
Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The
lack
of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, issues particular to other languages do not get attention and
consequently
resources needed to address issues are not available.
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia
as a
whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English
Wikipedia's
growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in turn
will
bring up many subjects that en.wp does not cover. The existence of
articles
on subjects not covered in en.wp are indicative of a bias and once en.wp starts to cover these subjects it will improve its neutral point of
view..
Consequently ALL our Wikipedias including en.wp will benefit from
research
on the "other" Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l