When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
We have seen several search results where Wikipedia search rank have gone down. It is not only me but several other Wikmedians have found the same, so it may not be a user preference/behaviour issue. It is also not only for specific search such as "vaccine", where Google would show WHO.
শুক্র, 7 জানু., 2022 11:21 PM তারিখে Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> লিখেছেন:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se>):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of these data.
As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of reading and having a stable editing base.
All the best, Toni
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se>):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to the pandemic.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski toni91ehrlich@gmail.com wrote:
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of these data.
As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of reading and having a stable editing base.
All the best, Toni
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this?
Best Regards, Jürgen.
Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to the pandemic.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> wrote:
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of these data. As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of reading and having a stable editing base. All the best, Toni On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>> wrote: There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>): When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en). Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views" Anders https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it.
-- Gohary (ircpresident)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn jfenn@gmx.net wrote:
Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this?
Best Regards, Jürgen.
Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to the pandemic.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> wrote:
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of these data. As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of reading and having a stable editing base. All the best, Toni On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>> wrote: There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>): When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en). Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readersand
contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views" Anders https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like Osmosis, which are basically short video overviews with questions banks attached, are more commonly mentioned. Video is becoming a more common way for younger folks to learn.
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM Mohamed ElGohary ircpresident@gmail.com wrote:
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it.
-- Gohary (ircpresident)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn jfenn@gmx.net wrote:
Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this?
Best Regards, Jürgen.
Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to the pandemic.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> wrote:
Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many people commit to different activities, among them starting editing on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of these data. As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of reading and having a stable editing base. All the best, Toni On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>> wrote: There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>): When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en). Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readersand
contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views" Anders https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks, James. I think this is an important point. So we could say we have lost a part of acedemia.
More to the point, we seem to have failed to integrate course materials and multimedia formats into Wikipedia articles.
Could we try and create some of these and integrate them into articles relevant to students in oder to test whether this makes a difference to them? Or do you think they would stick to Osmosis etc. anyway?
Best regards, Jürgen.
Am 08.01.22 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like Osmosis, which are basically short video overviews with questions banks attached, are more commonly mentioned. Video is becoming a more common way for younger folks to learn.
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM Mohamed ElGohary <ircpresident@gmail.com mailto:ircpresident@gmail.com> wrote:
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it. -- Gohary (ircpresident) On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn <jfenn@gmx.net <mailto:jfenn@gmx.net>> wrote: Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this? Best Regards, Jürgen. Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman: > Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. > It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during > the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This > despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to > the pandemic. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages>> > > James > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> > <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many > people commit to different activities, among them starting editing > on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better > to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some > kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of > these data. > > As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite > surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of > reading and having a stable editing base. > > All the best, > Toni > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com> <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>>> wrote: > > There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge > peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. > > 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders > Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> > <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>>): > > When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, > nl they all > show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a > year ago, > and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception > of en). > > Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and > contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info > "smarter" not > creating "views" > > Anders > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org>> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/>> > > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/>> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/>> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGYAA3IDVSVMTQBOL4GFH52COEWXGEYT/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGYAA3IDVSVMTQBOL4GFH52COEWXGEYT/> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FQPWDPSRKEYHQ66TZKLLDFFQXJC4GT5X/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FQPWDPSRKEYHQ66TZKLLDFFQXJC4GT5X/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4OKRPG46Z64NBBLRHE5PHZWPPZ2T2ZAC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4OKRPG46Z64NBBLRHE5PHZWPPZ2T2ZAC/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think a lot has been said on this list over the last few years about a couple of major factors that probably still play a role:
* Shift to mobile device usage and how that affects Wikipedia usage and pageview stats * Availability of more and more "snippets" in search engine results, which often makes it unnecessary for someone to click through into an article
My own sense is that the prevalence of snippets and smart search results is growing rapidly, I often skip clicking through to Wikipedia if my question is answered by Google.
Nathan, All,
I wonder if Google maintains provenance for their “snippets” and whether developers and platform teams would be interested in requesting an API which includes features such as subscribing to pings (daily, weekly, or monthly) reporting usage data pertaining to derived data. The envisioned pings would say something like: 10,000 users this month asked questions which were answered by snippets derived from your content at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams .
Brainstorming about the future of mobile computing and multimedia educational content, you might be interested in interactive video – video with menus (like Netflix “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch”, “Puss in Book: Trapped in an Epic Tale”, and “Minecraft Story Mode”). A tool for creating these videos is available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/makerbox/tools/storyformer . In my opinion, interactive video is better for educational content than video.
You might be also interested in a new project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikianswers .
Best regards, Adam
From: Nathanmailto:nawrich@gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing Listmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are we losing our readers?
I think a lot has been said on this list over the last few years about a couple of major factors that probably still play a role:
* Shift to mobile device usage and how that affects Wikipedia usage and pageview stats * Availability of more and more "snippets" in search engine results, which often makes it unnecessary for someone to click through into an article
My own sense is that the prevalence of snippets and smart search results is growing rapidly, I often skip clicking through to Wikipedia if my question is answered by Google.
Brainstorming, interested stakeholders could advance Web standards to improve “snippets”, for example facilitating menus on “snippets”. With extensible menus on “snippets”, “snippets providers” could place hyperlinks, e.g., “view”, “edit”, and “discuss”, on each “snippet” provided for end-users.
With respect to a “view” menu option, end-users could navigate to a “snippet’s” source content in context. This navigation could make use of text fragments (https://wicg.github.io/scroll-to-text-fragment/). It is possible is that “source content providers” could specify other mechanisms, e.g., URL-query-based, to override this default behavior with respect to hyperlink URL’s provided to end-users to “view” source content in context.
With respect to an “edit” menu option, end-users could navigate to pages for editing source content, e.g., wiki edit pages.
With respect to a “discuss” menu option, end-users could navigate to pages for discussing source content, e.g., wiki discussion pages.
There are more options for extensible “snippets” menus. For example, “like”, “upvote”, and “downvote”. It remains to be explored whether these kinds of menu options, “like”, “upvote”, and “downvote”, should keep end-users on “snippets provider” websites, navigate end-users to “source content provider” websites, or open “source content provider” websites in a new tab. These indicated possibilities, “like”, “upvote”, and “downvote”, may involve multi-party user authentication and bot prevention considerations.
Yet other menu options include a “follow” option which could subscribe end-users to alerts when the information in a “snippet” changes or is updated.
Yet other menu options include the option to “share” a snippet.
I hope that these initial ideas show that there are opportunities to advance the definitions of what “snippets” are and may become.
Web-standards-based approaches to improving “snippets”, e.g., facilitating extensible menus on “snippets”, could involve defining relevant HTML metadata (uses of <meta> and <link> elements to provide information to “snippet providers”) and/or expanding relevant Web schemas. That is, “source content providers” could use HTML metadata or Web schemas to provide information to “snippets providers” to populate menu options as “snippets” from derived content are presented to end-users.
Best regards, Adam
From: Adam Sobieskimailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:31 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing Listmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: RE: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are we losing our readers?
Nathan, All,
I wonder if Google maintains provenance for their “snippets” and whether developers and platform teams would be interested in requesting an API which includes features such as subscribing to pings (daily, weekly, or monthly) reporting usage data pertaining to derived data. The envisioned pings would say something like: 10,000 users this month asked questions which were answered by snippets derived from your content at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams .
Brainstorming about the future of mobile computing and multimedia educational content, you might be interested in interactive video – video with menus (like Netflix “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch”, “Puss in Book: Trapped in an Epic Tale”, and “Minecraft Story Mode”). A tool for creating these videos is available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/makerbox/tools/storyformer . In my opinion, interactive video is better for educational content than video.
You might be also interested in a new project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikianswers .
Best regards, Adam
From: Nathanmailto:nawrich@gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 7:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing Listmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are we losing our readers?
I think a lot has been said on this list over the last few years about a couple of major factors that probably still play a role:
* Shift to mobile device usage and how that affects Wikipedia usage and pageview stats * Availability of more and more "snippets" in search engine results, which often makes it unnecessary for someone to click through into an article
My own sense is that the prevalence of snippets and smart search results is growing rapidly, I often skip clicking through to Wikipedia if my question is answered by Google.
Introduction By establishing HTML metadata standards and defining new XML-based file formats, content providers, e.g., Wikipedia, could specify data, resources, and endpoints (e.g., XML-RPC endpoints) in webpage metadata for search engines, e.g., Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Google, to provide end-users with enhanced snippets as indicated in the following visualization. Visualization
To what regions are cherry blossom trees indigenous?
Logo of content provider Japan
Most flowering cherry trees are native to Japan and other parts of Asia, and they are roughly adapted to U.S. Department of Agriculture plant hardiness zones 5 to 8, though specific climate requirements vary among different varieties. April 6, 2020
View Edit Comment Discuss Upvote Downvote Subscribe Share
Discussion of Visualization The logo of the content provider could also function as either a hyperlink to the content provider’s main page or a hyperlink to the same address as the “view” menu option.
A search engine could present multiple answers from one or more content providers in response to an end-user’s question. Menu Items View When selected, this menu option allows end-users to navigate to source content in context. This may involve a hyperlink using text fragments. With HTML metadata, content providers could override this default behavior, for example requesting a copy of the text fragment to a specified URL query parameter. Edit When selected, this menu option allows end-users to navigate to content providers’ pages for editing content. Comment1 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to enter a comment on the search engine website, e.g., in a popup-styled widget, and this text comment is relayed to the content provider via XML-RPC. Comment2 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to navigate to content provider website to comment on source content. Discuss When selected, this menu option allows end-users to navigate to content provider pages for discussing source content. Upvote/Downvote1 When selected, these menu options allow users to upvote/downvote a snippet on the search engine. Upvote/Downvote2 When selected, these menu options allow users to upvote/downvote a snippet on the content provider. Subscribe1 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to subscribe to receive notifications from the search engine when source content, e.g., the answer to a question, changes or is updated. Subscribe2 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to subscribe to receive notifications from the content provider when source content, e.g., the answer to a question, changes or is updated. Share1 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to share the snippet with other end-users. The shared URL in this scenario is from the search engine. Share2 When selected, this menu option allows end-users to share the snippet with other end-users. The shared URL in this scenario is from the content provider, perhaps with a text fragment affixed to the shared URL. Content View Reporting Related topics include content providers being able to specify endpoints to receive pings and aggregated pings from search engines for relaying views and usage data. An aggregated ping is a report which includes aggregated views and usage data, e.g., hourly, daily, or weekly views and usage data. Potential Next Steps Interested individuals and organizations could create and participate in a new W3C Community Group to discuss these and related topics and to develop HTML metadata and XML-based document formats. Conclusion Thank you. I hope that these ideas were of some interest to you.
Best regards, Adam Sobieski http://www.phoster.com
Hi/Bona nit
Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already had the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some channels that he already had: our sister projects.
Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikisource were in the past powerful and attractive tools, valid to integrate knowledge in more flexible (non-enciclopedic) forms until mid- last decade. Until they were abandoned with no further tech investing. I remember having trained and mentorized schools, universities and public institutions in Catalonia on Wikibooks until 2015. It was seen as a really valid alternative by then.
Since then WikiHow, Moodle, StuDocu, Notion or other participative niches have progressed with some multimedia inclusions as better opportunities than the WMF sister projects —even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies. All this, despite many small-sized community efforts and requests to claim for better integration of multimedia features, that imho are the key to get these projects a bit back to new success. I don’t think that these competitors offer amazing features that we could not develop (apart from their cuter and cleaner interfaces?).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore I find that is normal that has some conceptual limitations in how it shapes and shows the content. You rely in other niches for more specific stuff. However, this may be easily tackled in Wikimedia if sister projects' potential and existing contents would be really valued and connected.
That way, if videos are one of the reasons why there is a loss of readers (I agree that we should be able to see longers trend to unmask possible covid peaks) on Wikipedia, we could still redirect/invite/seduce them to alternatives that are still interactive, Open Access, participative & transparent (i.e. Wikimedia wikis).
Best,
Xavier Dengra
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
El dissabte, 8 de gener 2022 a les 00:53, Juergen Fenn jfenn@gmx.net va escriure:
Thanks, James. I think this is an important point. So we could say we
have lost a part of acedemia.
More to the point, we seem to have failed to integrate course materials
and multimedia formats into Wikipedia articles.
Could we try and create some of these and integrate them into articles
relevant to students in oder to test whether this makes a difference to
them? Or do you think they would stick to Osmosis etc. anyway?
Best regards,
Jürgen.
Am 08.01.22 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the
medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they
study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like
Osmosis, which are basically short video overviews with questions banks
attached, are more commonly mentioned. Video is becoming a more common
way for younger folks to learn.
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM Mohamed ElGohary <ircpresident@gmail.com
mailto:ircpresident@gmail.com> wrote:
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it. -- Gohary (ircpresident) On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn <jfenn@gmx.net <mailto:jfenn@gmx.net>> wrote: Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this? Best Regards, Jürgen. Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman: > Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. > It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during > the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This > despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to > the pandemic. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_2009_until_2014.png>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages>> > > James > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> > <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makes many > people commit to different activities, among them starting editing > on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better > to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some > kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of > these data. > > As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I was quite > surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of > reading and having a stable editing base. > > All the best, > Toni > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com> <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>>> wrote: > > There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge > peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. > > 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders > Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> > <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>>): > > When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, > nl they all > show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a > year ago, > and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception > of en). > > Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and > contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info > "smarter" not > creating "views" > > Anders > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org>> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/66FNJZYIDINNHVOBRBWQ7WCBD6EHUMLC/>> > > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AIZF4GBG63E6PS3IQOOYLY6QUKZL526H/>> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSBWBQMFTKVRM4NVPZV2OME3SQCN3TH7/>> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGYAA3IDVSVMTQBOL4GFH52COEWXGEYT/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QGYAA3IDVSVMTQBOL4GFH52COEWXGEYT/> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FQPWDPSRKEYHQ66TZKLLDFFQXJC4GT5X/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FQPWDPSRKEYHQ66TZKLLDFFQXJC4GT5X/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4OKRPG46Z64NBBLRHE5PHZWPPZ2T2ZAC/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4OKRPG46Z64NBBLRHE5PHZWPPZ2T2ZAC/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Xavier and all,
You say, "even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies"
It seems these rebranding efforts are in fact ongoing after all. According to Meta,[1] the fundraising emails sent to donors over the past few months have had Jimmy Wales signing off as follows:
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising&diff=next&o...
Email text linked in that edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAjBvUJh3cwuYDzpXRusX7HqOOJIwtTfLXgTMRsb... Archive link: https://archive.fo/J30ls
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:37 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi/Bona nit
Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already had the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some channels that he already had: our sister projects.
Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikisource were in the past powerful and attractive tools, valid to integrate knowledge in more flexible (non-enciclopedic) forms until mid- last decade. Until they were abandoned with no further tech investing. I remember having trained and mentorized schools, universities and public institutions in Catalonia on Wikibooks until 2015. It was seen as a really valid alternative by then.
Since then WikiHow, Moodle, StuDocu, Notion or other participative niches have progressed with some multimedia inclusions as better opportunities than the WMF sister projects —even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies. All this, despite many small-sized community efforts and requests to claim for better integration of multimedia features, that imho are the key to get these projects a bit back to new success. I don’t think that these competitors offer amazing features that we could not develop (apart from their cuter and cleaner interfaces?).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore I find that is normal that has some conceptual limitations in how it shapes and shows the content. You rely in other niches for more specific stuff. However, this may be easily tackled in Wikimedia if sister projects' potential and existing contents would be really valued and connected.
That way, if videos are one of the reasons why there is a loss of readers (I agree that we should be able to see longers trend to unmask possible covid peaks) on Wikipedia, we could still redirect/invite/seduce them to alternatives that are still interactive, Open Access, participative & transparent (i.e. Wikimedia wikis).
Best,
Xavier Dengra
Actually, I see an issue with snippets.
Wikipedia articles have very variable quality. Some are reasonably good and contain reliable information which is confirmed by reliable sources listed in the article. But a lot have information which is promotional, POV, unconfirmed, or outright false. In Wikipedia, we have mechanisms to indicate that information is less reliable or more reliable (such as templates for example). But snippets do not have this information. If you want to know for example who was the US president after Jimmy Carter probably this question can be answered by a snippet to everyone's satisfaction. But if you want to know for example who is Elizabeth Holmes I doubt that information provided by a snippet is a good replacement to the lede of the Wikipedia article (may be this is not the best example but I hope you get what I want to say). It is like snippets give you information in black and white, and on Wikipedia we try to get it colored or at least shaded.
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 2:41 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Xavier and all,
You say, "even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies"
It seems these rebranding efforts are in fact ongoing after all. According to Meta,[1] the fundraising emails sent to donors over the past few months have had Jimmy Wales signing off as follows:
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising&diff=next&o...
Email text linked in that edit:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAjBvUJh3cwuYDzpXRusX7HqOOJIwtTfLXgTMRsb... Archive link: https://archive.fo/J30ls
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:37 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi/Bona nit
Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already had the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some channels that he already had: our sister projects.
Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikisource were in the past powerful and attractive tools, valid to integrate knowledge in more flexible (non-enciclopedic) forms until mid- last decade. Until they were abandoned with no further tech investing. I remember having trained and mentorized schools, universities and public institutions in Catalonia on Wikibooks until 2015. It was seen as a really valid alternative by then.
Since then WikiHow, Moodle, StuDocu, Notion or other participative niches have progressed with some multimedia inclusions as better opportunities than the WMF sister projects —even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies. All this, despite many small-sized community efforts and requests to claim for better integration of multimedia features, that imho are the key to get these projects a bit back to new success. I don’t think that these competitors offer amazing features that we could not develop (apart from their cuter and cleaner interfaces?).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore I find that is normal that has some conceptual limitations in how it shapes and shows the content. You rely in other niches for more specific stuff. However, this may be easily tackled in Wikimedia if sister projects' potential and existing contents would be really valued and connected.
That way, if videos are one of the reasons why there is a loss of readers (I agree that we should be able to see longers trend to unmask possible covid peaks) on Wikipedia, we could still redirect/invite/seduce them to alternatives that are still interactive, Open Access, participative & transparent (i.e. Wikimedia wikis).
Best,
Xavier Dengra
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
Indeed, there is not much we can do about the "snippets" aspect. Besides that: I too worry about the general quality of Wikipedia content, about minimum standards and whether we (always) meet such standards. Also, sometimes a Wikipedia article is much too long. Would a "quality campaign" improve the attractiveness of Wikipedia for readers? Kind regards Ziko
Am So., 9. Jan. 2022 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com:
Actually, I see an issue with snippets.
Wikipedia articles have very variable quality. Some are reasonably good and contain reliable information which is confirmed by reliable sources listed in the article. But a lot have information which is promotional, POV, unconfirmed, or outright false. In Wikipedia, we have mechanisms to indicate that information is less reliable or more reliable (such as templates for example). But snippets do not have this information. If you want to know for example who was the US president after Jimmy Carter probably this question can be answered by a snippet to everyone's satisfaction. But if you want to know for example who is Elizabeth Holmes I doubt that information provided by a snippet is a good replacement to the lede of the Wikipedia article (may be this is not the best example but I hope you get what I want to say). It is like snippets give you information in black and white, and on Wikipedia we try to get it colored or at least shaded.
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 2:41 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Xavier and all,
You say, "even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies"
It seems these rebranding efforts are in fact ongoing after all. According to Meta,[1] the fundraising emails sent to donors over the past few months have had Jimmy Wales signing off as follows:
Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising&diff=next&o...
Email text linked in that edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAjBvUJh3cwuYDzpXRusX7HqOOJIwtTfLXgTMRsb... Archive link: https://archive.fo/J30ls
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:37 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi/Bona nit
Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already had the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some channels that he already had: our sister projects.
Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikisource were in the past powerful and attractive tools, valid to integrate knowledge in more flexible (non-enciclopedic) forms until mid- last decade. Until they were abandoned with no further tech investing. I remember having trained and mentorized schools, universities and public institutions in Catalonia on Wikibooks until 2015. It was seen as a really valid alternative by then.
Since then WikiHow, Moodle, StuDocu, Notion or other participative niches have progressed with some multimedia inclusions as better opportunities than the WMF sister projects —even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies. All this, despite many small-sized community efforts and requests to claim for better integration of multimedia features, that imho are the key to get these projects a bit back to new success. I don’t think that these competitors offer amazing features that we could not develop (apart from their cuter and cleaner interfaces?).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore I find that is normal that has some conceptual limitations in how it shapes and shows the content. You rely in other niches for more specific stuff. However, this may be easily tackled in Wikimedia if sister projects' potential and existing contents would be really valued and connected.
That way, if videos are one of the reasons why there is a loss of readers (I agree that we should be able to see longers trend to unmask possible covid peaks) on Wikipedia, we could still redirect/invite/seduce them to alternatives that are still interactive, Open Access, participative & transparent (i.e. Wikimedia wikis).
Best,
Xavier Dengra
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Well the story around Osmosis has further details... They released their first 300 or so vidoes under an open license and they were within Wikipedia articles for a while. You can still see them on Commons here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Osmosis
A number of folks pushed exceedingly hard for their removal. And thus they are no longer in EN WP. How extensively they were viewed we do not know as we have no way to determine that data. Our only data for videos is if the portion of the page they are on is loaded or not, and not if the play button has been pressed or how much of the video was watched.
Following the breakdown of our collaboration with Osmosis they dropped the use of an open license, and all their subsequent material is fully copyrighted. Just a few weeks back they sold themselves to Elsevier...
Now one of the legitimate criticisms of these videos is that they were not easily collaboratively editable. We have built software to make collaborative editing of video easier. Unfortunately currently it is down and we are needing to find a programmer able and willing to fix it, we at Wiki Project Med do not have much funding available...
https://mdwiki.org/wiki/WikiProjectMed:VideoWiki
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:53 PM Juergen Fenn jfenn@gmx.net wrote:
Thanks, James. I think this is an important point. So we could say we have lost a part of acedemia.
More to the point, we seem to have failed to integrate course materials and multimedia formats into Wikipedia articles.
Could we try and create some of these and integrate them into articles relevant to students in oder to test whether this makes a difference to them? Or do you think they would stick to Osmosis etc. anyway?
Best regards, Jürgen.
Am 08.01.22 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like Osmosis, which are basically short video overviews with questions banks attached, are more commonly mentioned. Video is becoming a more common way for younger folks to learn.
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM Mohamed ElGohary <ircpresident@gmail.com mailto:ircpresident@gmail.com> wrote:
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it. -- Gohary (ircpresident) On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn <jfenn@gmx.net <mailto:jfenn@gmx.net>> wrote: Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this? Best Regards, Jürgen. Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman: > Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. > It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during > the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This > despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to > the pandemic. > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
> > James > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> > <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makesmany
> people commit to different activities, among them starting editing > on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better > to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some > kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of > these data. > > As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I wasquite
> surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of > reading and having a stable editing base. > > All the best, > Toni > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com> <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>>> wrote: > > There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge > peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results. > > 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders > Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> > <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>>): > > When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, > nl they all > show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a > year ago, > and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception > of en). > > Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and > contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info > "smarter" not > creating "views" > > Anders > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org>> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:47 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Well the story around Osmosis has further details... They released their first 300 or so vidoes under an open license and they were within Wikipedia articles for a while. You can still see them on Commons here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Osmosis
A number of folks pushed exceedingly hard for their removal. And thus they are no longer in EN WP. How extensively they were viewed we do not know as we have no way to determine that data. Our only data for videos is if the portion of the page they are on is loaded or not, and not if the play button has been pressed or how much of the video was watched.
Following the breakdown of our collaboration with Osmosis they dropped the use of an open license, and all their subsequent material is fully copyrighted. Just a few weeks back they sold themselves to Elsevier...
WoOoW - that sounds terrible... When was this happening and How? This is worth writing about, reflecting and keeping in mind for the future! #BestPracticies #WorstPracticies
Maybe EN Wikipedia's lowest common denominator of tolerance to innovation is too low :-(
Now one of the legitimate criticisms of these videos is that they were not easily collaboratively editable. We have built software to make collaborative editing of video easier. Unfortunately currently it is down and we are needing to find a programmer able and willing to fix it, we at Wiki Project Med do not have much funding available... https://mdwiki.org/wiki/WikiProjectMed:VideoWiki
It is admirable you do not give up on this.
Best Z. Blace
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:53 PM Juergen Fenn jfenn@gmx.net wrote:
Thanks, James. I think this is an important point. So we could say we have lost a part of acedemia.
More to the point, we seem to have failed to integrate course materials and multimedia formats into Wikipedia articles.
Could we try and create some of these and integrate them into articles relevant to students in oder to test whether this makes a difference to them? Or do you think they would stick to Osmosis etc. anyway?
Best regards, Jürgen.
Am 08.01.22 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb James Heilman:
With respect to some anecdotal evidence, I have for many years asked the medical students who work with me on their clinical rotations how they study. I get a few passes through my department a month.
Most reported using Wikipedia 5 to 10 years back. Now sources like Osmosis, which are basically short video overviews with questions banks attached, are more commonly mentioned. Video is becoming a more common way for younger folks to learn.
James
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM Mohamed ElGohary <ircpresident@gmail.com mailto:ircpresident@gmail.com> wrote:
"Is the traffic measured where content is read" would be a better way of putting it. -- Gohary (ircpresident) On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:52 AM Juergen Fenn <jfenn@gmx.net <mailto:jfenn@gmx.net>> wrote: Anders raised the question how this relates to "smarter" machine-created traffic. Do we know more about this? Best Regards, Jürgen. Am 07.01.22 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb James Heilman: > Have been tracking medical pageviews for EN WP for more than 10 years. > It appears our readership peaked around 2014, there was a bump during > the pandemic, and now the fall in pageviews is continuing again... This > despite much of our pageviews for medicine continuing to be related to > the pandemic. > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_medical_pageviews_from_200...
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages
> > James > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM Toni Ristovski <toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com> > <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com <mailto:toni91ehrlich@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Additionally, pandemic 2020 with a lot of lockdowns makesmany
> people commit to different activities, among them starting editing > on Wikipedia or reading more. Basically, in my opinion it is better > to compare with 2019 numbers. Also, it will be useful to have some > kind of survey about this which can give us a better overview of > these data. > > As I`m editor and admin on Macedonian Wikipedia, I wasquite
> surprised that our Wikipedia actually continues to grow in terms of > reading and having a stable editing base. > > All the best, > Toni > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 6:52 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > <galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com> <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com <mailto:galder158@hotmail.com>>> wrote: > > There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge > peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worseresults.
> > 2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders > Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> > <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se <mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se>>>): > > When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, > nl they all > show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a > year ago, > and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception > of en). > > Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and > contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info > "smarter" not > creating "views" > > Anders > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org>> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org> > <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org <https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org>> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>> > Public archives at >https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>> > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org [1] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
--- Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Links: ------ [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org]
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools (some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google search and clicking on the Wikipedia article.
I mean, we talked a lot about this during Strategy. We just must find a solution.
F.
Missatge de RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl del dia ds., 8 de gen. 2022 a les 10:03:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se>):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Just a couple of minutes ago I wanted to point out while chatting that two (shitty) singers work together because they work for the same major. A bunch of years ago I had to open some Google result to find such info, now I don't.
Loss of readers is not bad in itself, it can be if there's a significant number of potential new editors among the readers we lose in this way (also, readers could affect fundraising, but I think we already make enough of it). Anecdotically I think new editors rather come from those who look for info which cannot be found in knowledge graph, but surely this requires a proper investigation.
Vito
Il giorno sab 8 gen 2022 alle ore 12:39 Francesc Fort < taronjasatsuma2@gmail.com> ha scritto:
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools (some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google search and clicking on the Wikipedia article.
I mean, we talked a lot about this during Strategy. We just must find a solution.
F.
Missatge de RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl del dia ds., 8 de gen. 2022 a les 10:03:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Falling readers means less awareness of being able to edit, that means less contributors, and less donations. Over the last 10 years we've put a lot of effort and support into the basic contribution processes, but the contributions need to shift to more of what our new audiences are expecting from websites. With such a change there is both a need to embrace it and to facilitate learning the skills, investing in that learning curve.
We cant stay where we are, and we cant move forward without bringing the community along
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 19:59, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Just a couple of minutes ago I wanted to point out while chatting that two (shitty) singers work together because they work for the same major. A bunch of years ago I had to open some Google result to find such info, now I don't.
Loss of readers is not bad in itself, it can be if there's a significant number of potential new editors among the readers we lose in this way (also, readers could affect fundraising, but I think we already make enough of it). Anecdotically I think new editors rather come from those who look for info which cannot be found in knowledge graph, but surely this requires a proper investigation.
Vito
Il giorno sab 8 gen 2022 alle ore 12:39 Francesc Fort < taronjasatsuma2@gmail.com> ha scritto:
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools (some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google search and clicking on the Wikipedia article.
I mean, we talked a lot about this during Strategy. We just must find a solution.
F.
Missatge de RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl del dia ds., 8 de gen. 2022 a les 10:03:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Yeah, although I think every user will, eventually, actually open our pages several times, although less frequently because of smarter search engines.
Vito
Il giorno sab 8 gen 2022 alle ore 13:20 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com ha scritto:
Falling readers means less awareness of being able to edit, that means less contributors, and less donations. Over the last 10 years we've put a lot of effort and support into the basic contribution processes, but the contributions need to shift to more of what our new audiences are expecting from websites. With such a change there is both a need to embrace it and to facilitate learning the skills, investing in that learning curve.
We cant stay where we are, and we cant move forward without bringing the community along
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 19:59, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Just a couple of minutes ago I wanted to point out while chatting that two (shitty) singers work together because they work for the same major. A bunch of years ago I had to open some Google result to find such info, now I don't.
Loss of readers is not bad in itself, it can be if there's a significant number of potential new editors among the readers we lose in this way (also, readers could affect fundraising, but I think we already make enough of it). Anecdotically I think new editors rather come from those who look for info which cannot be found in knowledge graph, but surely this requires a proper investigation.
Vito
Il giorno sab 8 gen 2022 alle ore 12:39 Francesc Fort < taronjasatsuma2@gmail.com> ha scritto:
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools (some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google search and clicking on the Wikipedia article.
I mean, we talked a lot about this during Strategy. We just must find a solution.
F.
Missatge de RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl del dia ds., 8 de gen. 2022 a les 10:03:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- GN.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Building on Francesc’s point: This is also why [what is now known as] ‘Wikimedia Enterprise’ appears twice in the Movement Strategy.[1] That is: to make sure that ‘downstream’ readers receive high quality Wikimedia knowledge (up to date, attributed…); and also to create a new diversified revenue stream from those high-volume reuse organisations (so that they’re financially subsidising Wikimedia, not the other way around).
In effect: it’s an insurance policy against the risks of potential future of declining ‘direct’ readership due to ‘intermediation’ by third parties. It’s not a complete solution, but plays a part.[2]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ#How_does_this_relat...
[2] https://openfuture.eu/blog/wikimedia-enterprise/
- Liam / Wittylama
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 12:39, Francesc Fort taronjasatsuma2@gmail.com wrote:
The slow but steady decrease in readerships is known and has been identified for a long. An important niche of readership are quick answers for trivia (such as "what's the capital of X country") and there are tools (some of those, powered by Wikidata) working better than a classical google search and clicking on the Wikipedia article.
I mean, we talked a lot about this during Strategy. We just must find a solution.
F.
Missatge de RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl del dia ds., 8 de gen. 2022 a les 10:03:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Ronnie,
The reported –21.23% drop seems to be based on a comparison of the December 2021 figure (4,970,053 edits) to the January 2021 figure (6,309,228 edits):
4,970,053/6,309,228 = 78.77% (so the reduction from January 2021 to December 2021 is 100% – 78.77% = 21.23%).
However, highlighting this figure in the English Wikipedia "Edits" box as "64M↓ –21.23% year over year"[1] makes no sense whatsoever as far as I can see. As you correctly observe, according to the monthly figures shown, the number of edits actually increased by 4% or so in 2021 compared to 2020.
If Ronnie and I are missing something here, please let us know ...
Andreas
[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 9:03 AM RonnieV wikipedia@ronaldvelgersdijk.nl wrote:
Could there something be wrong with the presentation?
The total number of edits at the English Wikipedia should have dropped 21,23% https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org] The numbers at https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/edits/normal%7Ct... do show 63.8M edits in 2021 and only 61.5M in 2020.
Do I misinterpret the graph?
Met vriendelijke groet,
RonnieV
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga schreef op 2022-01-07 18:51:
There's another option: the 2020 pandemic lockdowns made a huge peak on views, so year on year, 2021 has worse results.
2022(e)ko urt. 7(a) 18:41 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se>):
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks for all very interesting comments, I take it as support, that my hunch can be correct, that we are losing readers as a consequence of new ways to find information on the internet has emerged ("snippets", new tools and google code that gives better data then Wikipedia, and that links to Wikipedia gets lower priority in search engines).
In my home turf (svwp, 13,5% fewer reads, just as other mature wps) I have two examples:
*Our (OK) covidrelated articles have not been among the ten most visited pages during the pandemic, but our (good) article on Spanish flu was in the first months among top tree. And at searches the svwp articles on Covid was way down in the search result. I believe this was correct as other provider (including enwp) had better info to give, and Google had even their own created data.
*articles on my own speciality, 7500 articles on old administrative units in Sweden, have not shown a decrease in reading, but are fairly constant or marginally up. For these there are few other data providers on internet, and and more and more genealogist and local people learn that these articles exist
I am not worried a fewer hits, as our readers have found better info elsewhere, and see this fully in line of our aim to provide knowledge to all, and that is fulfilled even if this is done by better other means the Wikipedia interface.
But as other has indicated, is this also related to fewer contributors (as facts indicate, down 10-20%, even when a possible boom in 2020 is discarded)? On svwp we have a lot of contributors that gets active on "news breaks", and perhaps these articles gets less rewarding when these wp articles gets low priority in search engines, as there are better infoproviders and/or ways to provide readers with info from WP/WD?
I believe we are and will be best in providing typical encyclopedisc text, like of the Spanish flu. And perhaps we will not be best in other areas, like providing info in multimedia form
Anders
Den 2022-01-07 kl. 18:41, skrev Anders Wennersten:
When I look at statistics for mature wikipedias: en, de pl, nl they all show a decrease of views of 13-15% in last 12 months from a year ago, and number of active editors down 10- 20 % (with exception of en).
Has this been analysed somewhere, are we losing our readers and contributors or is it mostly Google that access our info "smarter" not creating "views"
Anders
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/de.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/nl.wikipedia.org
https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/pl.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org