Hi Zubin and welcome.
The discussions about declining editor levels started to go quiet in mid 2015 after we noticed that numbers had started to rally at the end of 2014.
Here is the signpost article that covered part of this in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_foc... That focussed on the very active, but the raw edit count shows the same pattern on English wikipedia, a decline from 2007 to 2014, then a rally and the last couple of years being broadly stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits
"Wikipedia in terminal decline" was an interesting story for journalists and others, "maturing organisation is broadly stable on several measures" sounds just a tad boring.
As for your concern about bureaucracy and philosophical rants. Many of the policies are complex, and there are even examples of things that contradict each other. But it is a very very complex system, and some of the complexity comes from hard won compromises between people with very different views. A commercial organisation could have done some things more simply, but a volunteer organisation can't simply tell people to do what they are paid to do. I suspect that many reforms are possible and may even be necessary, but it really helps when you are changing something to understand the different perspectives that lead to that compromise.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:42:32 +0800 From: Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ? Message-ID: <CABRVQKPs3YDucchXt7VHshrdrvrz=PMVD5u3pNeVFM+fjC2=sQ@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 13
Are you aware of the huge difference in bureaucracy on the different language versions?
Of course a more elaborate set of written rules is needed where there are many users, then what is needed where the number of contributors are fewer.
But even on an smaller language version like "mine" svwp, it is tough to be a newbee. There is a lot or best practice being accumulated, and you must follow these even if i is more by being told of these then need for you to "know" or look into policiy documents etc. And there is a need to know more of techniques, like templates and Wikidata use.
So I agree the general complexity is increasing, but I disagree that there is in general increasing bureaucracy.
Anders
Den 2018-03-06 kl. 11:16, skrev WereSpielChequers:
Hi Zubin and welcome.
The discussions about declining editor levels started to go quiet in mid 2015 after we noticed that numbers had started to rally at the end of 2014.
Here is the signpost article that covered part of this in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_foc... That focussed on the very active, but the raw edit count shows the same pattern on English wikipedia, a decline from 2007 to 2014, then a rally and the last couple of years being broadly stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits
"Wikipedia in terminal decline" was an interesting story for journalists and others, "maturing organisation is broadly stable on several measures" sounds just a tad boring.
As for your concern about bureaucracy and philosophical rants. Many of the policies are complex, and there are even examples of things that contradict each other. But it is a very very complex system, and some of the complexity comes from hard won compromises between people with very different views. A commercial organisation could have done some things more simply, but a volunteer organisation can't simply tell people to do what they are paid to do. I suspect that many reforms are possible and may even be necessary, but it really helps when you are changing something to understand the different perspectives that lead to that compromise.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:42:32 +0800 From: Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ? Message-ID: <CABRVQKPs3YDucchXt7VHshrdrvrz=PMVD5u3pNeVFM+fjC2=sQ@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 13
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:16 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
The discussions about declining editor levels started to go quiet in mid 2015 after we noticed that numbers had started to rally at the end of 2014.
The numbers for English Wikipedia, you mean. For the next four largest wikis, only French has improved recently; for German the decline got slightly less steep around 2014 but still ongoing, Dutch has been in a pretty much linear decline since 2007 and Russian actually started to decline around 2014. https://imgur.com/a/OISNg
Many other wikis show the same pattern of decline. Also if you look at English Wikipedia new editor counts it's not hard to think that whatever caused the stabilization was a one-off event: https://imgur.com/a/SEN5e
This is slightly more complex. Some projects have a very large and steady decline, especially in new contributors,[1] while some projects have an increase, especially in the established users group.[2] Why it is so is not clear at all, but some editors favor an idea that other sites like Facebook have drained the pool of available editors. What is pretty clear is that users have limited time and Wikipedia is not what they favor the most. To little social and cultural credit for the work, perhaps even a hostile environment, can be attributed to the decline.
The referenced graphs are made by averaging over a one year window, and taking a diff over one year to make the trend visible. It looks backward in time to avoid the artificial drop-off that became so much discussed some years ago!
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nowiki-stats-new-users-2017-01-15.pn... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nowiki-stats-100-users-2017-01-15.pn...
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:16 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Zubin and welcome.
The discussions about declining editor levels started to go quiet in mid 2015 after we noticed that numbers had started to rally at the end of 2014.
Here is the signpost article that covered part of this in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ 2015-08-26/In_focus That focussed on the very active, but the raw edit count shows the same pattern on English wikipedia, a decline from 2007 to 2014, then a rally and the last couple of years being broadly stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits
"Wikipedia in terminal decline" was an interesting story for journalists and others, "maturing organisation is broadly stable on several measures" sounds just a tad boring.
As for your concern about bureaucracy and philosophical rants. Many of the policies are complex, and there are even examples of things that contradict each other. But it is a very very complex system, and some of the complexity comes from hard won compromises between people with very different views. A commercial organisation could have done some things more simply, but a volunteer organisation can't simply tell people to do what they are paid to do. I suspect that many reforms are possible and may even be necessary, but it really helps when you are changing something to understand the different perspectives that lead to that compromise.
WereSpielChequers
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:42:32 +0800 From: Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ? Message-ID: <CABRVQKPs3YDucchXt7VHshrdrvrz=PMVD5u3pNeVFM+fjC2=sQ@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some
of
the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition
and
the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that
it's
unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just
to
communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor
from a
few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on
the
future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 13
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi John,
I agree that millions of people choose to spend time on Facebook, as well as games and other recreational activities like computer games. My guess is that, for most people, these activities often don't feel like work, while contributing to Wikimedia often feels like work. I think that are technical and social factors that contribute to Wikimedia activity feeling like it requires more effort and/or is less rewarding than the alternatives.
If we had enough human and financial resources, there are changes that could be made to improve the user experience and to make the rules be easier to learn and to understand.
I think that making the rules be easier to learn and to understand are more realistic goals than reducing the complexity of the rules.
Also, I think that there may be design and technical changes that could be made to improve the intuitiveness of the user experience, and to improve the social experience.
I'm hoping that my training project will help with users' learning and understanding of the rules and the interface. However, this is a long term project.
Design improvements made to the interface would be good if they could be done well and if WMF could afford them, but my guess is that such changes will be incremental over many years and that giants like Google will always be in the lead party because they can afford to spend so much more money and have so many more staff to make their sites be user-friendly and to optimize their sites for the user behaviors that they want to foster.
To a certain extent, Google and other large consumer-oriented organizations compete with WMF for the time of consumers, although one can hope that they will eventually decide that Wikimedia content is valuable enough to them that they want to support the community far more than they do at the moment.
I wish that I had reasons to be more optimistic about the human resources and financial situation in Wikimedia. If you can think of any, I would like to hear them. :)
en:wp has a vast collective of policies, guidelines and essays to navigate. Where once we had a philosophy "if the rule get in the way of making an enncyclopedia ignore the rules" now with so much of what we do the rules have become absolute. Acknwoledging BLLP, COI, and copyright need to be absolute.
When new people come along we have expectations that these people can research, write, and produce content as post grad level from day, if they create a new article its expected to ready for at least a GA rating if not FA.
we have so many processes that our precious volunteer resources are stretched thin which leaves us with small groups of contributors focused on discussion in isolation, that creates the power imbalance.
1. Articles for deletion 2. templates for deletions 3. files for deletions 4. categories for deletions 5. redirect for deletions 6. miscellany for deletions 7. speedy 8. prod
each with their own process and rules, each with their tiny own group regulars responding to every request and doing the process gnome work. While it may make for bigger maintance pages the reality is these 8 processes can defined into two areas,
- Content - Articles - Files - Speedy - prod
- internal / administrative functionality - templates - categories - redirects - miscellany
We then have deletion review, which also divided and into smaller parts depending on the deletion discussion process it went through. At the time dividing process because they were too big sounded like a good idea, the reality was what we did was also divide resources and create virtual fiefdoms. When you add into the deletion mix New page patrol with its various tools and Articles for creation each with their own processes its no wonder so many potential new contributors cant get their head around how we work. This isnt limited to deletion, it happens with everything Admin, Vandalism, renames, disputes, and everything else we do. We've made RFA a big deal once admins got the tools if on the balance of things they likely to work towards the benefit of the community, now if they are required to have a lifetime of experience, the personality of a saint, and perfection of master craftsman before they even get nominated at which the community tears there contributions apart word by word looking for the faintest reason to oppose, in the process veiled abuse and innuendo is accepted, praised, and speaker raised to the status of a god. In reality all we need to see is positive contributions, and a fair tone when participating in consensus building.
We frown upon external discussions about policies and process, like the current Strategic direction discussions taking place maybe its time that the WMF do a similar process talking to as many people as possible , bring back to the community a way forward that not only refines our bureaucracy but also ensures that the Wikipedia communities out lasts the 25 year Strategic plan
On 24 March 2018 at 09:27, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
I agree that millions of people choose to spend time on Facebook, as well as games and other recreational activities like computer games. My guess is that, for most people, these activities often don't feel like work, while contributing to Wikimedia often feels like work. I think that are technical and social factors that contribute to Wikimedia activity feeling like it requires more effort and/or is less rewarding than the alternatives.
If we had enough human and financial resources, there are changes that could be made to improve the user experience and to make the rules be easier to learn and to understand.
I think that making the rules be easier to learn and to understand are more realistic goals than reducing the complexity of the rules.
Also, I think that there may be design and technical changes that could be made to improve the intuitiveness of the user experience, and to improve the social experience.
I'm hoping that my training project will help with users' learning and understanding of the rules and the interface. However, this is a long term project.
Design improvements made to the interface would be good if they could be done well and if WMF could afford them, but my guess is that such changes will be incremental over many years and that giants like Google will always be in the lead party because they can afford to spend so much more money and have so many more staff to make their sites be user-friendly and to optimize their sites for the user behaviors that they want to foster.
To a certain extent, Google and other large consumer-oriented organizations compete with WMF for the time of consumers, although one can hope that they will eventually decide that Wikimedia content is valuable enough to them that they want to support the community far more than they do at the moment.
I wish that I had reasons to be more optimistic about the human resources and financial situation in Wikimedia. If you can think of any, I would like to hear them. :)
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org