Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedi...
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims from this article:
1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics [1], there are no significant changes between the first months of 2008 and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is it so.
The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies from Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I see highly relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure. All of them are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.
Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream media are talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some radical moves to stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which? I don't know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a couple of possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm [2] - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article693...
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedi...
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims from this article:
- English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
Not only "disenchanted" but disappointed most of all in any resolution of conflict because it is very complicated to understand how proceed to defend their point of view. The sysops are not so disposed to guide people in the right process or to unederstand the problem.
The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert users.
If I would list here the articles which are nNPOV for the reason described above, I could be blacklisted for a large amount of email sent to the mailing list.
Ilario
Hoi, So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ... Thanks, GerardM
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedi...
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims from this article:
- English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics [1], there are no significant changes between the first months of 2008 and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is it so.
The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies from Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I see highly relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure. All of them are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.
Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream media are talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some radical moves to stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which? I don't know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a couple of possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm [2] - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article693...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
(Actually, I have a couple of possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't know behavior of other participants.
Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are blocking constructive discussion at this list.
Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two emails.)
If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy), I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email, I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends. Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy (or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea; maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a limit.
No posting limit. Little bureaucracy. Ideas welcomed with open arms.
Hoi, Please assume good faith.. I am truly interested in good ideas.. It is exactly because I value your opinions that I asked. The fact that there is moderation is intended to prevent unproductive discussions. My intention is to be to the point, clear in my statements and questions and publish as little as necessary.
Answering this reply is necessary because I hope to get valued information from you. The notion that because of the threat of moderation asking for clarification is considered hostile, seems to me to be a sad and an unwanted unconsequence. Thanks, GerardM
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger
...
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
(Actually, I have a couple of possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't know behavior of other participants.
Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are blocking constructive discussion at this list.
Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two emails.)
If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy), I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email, I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends. Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy (or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea; maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- El jue, 26/11/09, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Asunto: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: jueves, 26 de noviembre, 2009 11:36 Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedi...
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims from this article:
Hello, Milos, all.
- English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net
loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008
Please, read the following blog post, which I already supervised in consensus with Erik Moller, explaining the difference between "retaining editors" (the numbers displayed in WSJ original article) and "monthly number of active editors"
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/
- There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
"which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby, author of The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site. 'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules. That has been forgotten. The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors.'"
This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics [1], there are no significant changes between the first months of 2008 and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is it so.
The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies from Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I see highly relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure. All of them are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.
Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream media are talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some radical moves to stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which? I don't know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a couple of possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm [2] - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article693...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es wrote:
This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics.
Those figures show we need help. Here's a place you can help:
My particular articles I'd like to see help with:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Talk anonymously if you like. Talk on the discussion page rather than edit. Join in.
--- El vie, 27/11/09, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com escribió:
De: Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: viernes, 27 de noviembre, 2009 00:58 On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es wrote:
Dear Bod.
I already offered some of my (unfortunately really scarce time) to contribute, already: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews
All the same, I'll try hard to find some additional time to contribute to Strategy Plan wiki. Our main goal has been always to understand Wikipedia better, as well as to ensure its sustainability in due course.
Best, F.
This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of
the claim
that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is
so, then en.wp
has around ten times more fluctuation of
contributors. (According to
statistics.
Those figures show we need help. Here's a place you can help:
My particular articles I'd like to see help with:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
Talk anonymously if you like. Talk on the discussion page rather than edit. Join in.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org