Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF - Wikimedia-l

Dan Rosenthal

21 Oct 21 Oct

4:19 p.m.

New subject: The new narrowed focus by WMF

I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus. Dan Rosenthal

Reply

Dan Rosenthal

9:29 p.m.

New subject: The new narrowed focus by WMF

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>wrote;wrote:

...

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:

I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus. Dan Rosenthal ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

Hi Dan, whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not). Cheers Yaroslav

The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at, were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved in Malleus's specific debate. -Dan

Reply

David Gerard

9:52 p.m.

New subject: The new narrowed focus by WMF

On 21 October 2012 22:50, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

As I understand it, the biggest problem with editor retention at the moment is the second edit. By that point, they haven't had any interaction with our governance structure, so that can't really be the cause.

Anecdotally, I see it turning a lot of smart people with friends into anti-evangelists. I'm not sure how one would measure that, but I do think it's bad enough to be a problem. - d.

Reply

Marc Riddell

10:37 p.m.

New subject: The new narrowed focus by WMF

...

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>wrote;wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:

I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus. Dan Rosenthal ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists… imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>

Hi Dan, whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not). Cheers Yaroslav on 10/21/12 5:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal at swatjester(a)gmail.com wrote:

The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied and reported on by the Fellowship program. Basically, it's a specific example of a broader problem that would be perfect for Fellows to look at, were the program to continue. I was not advocating that the WMF be involved in Malleus's specific debate.

While I agree completely with what you say, Dan, I think it would be a good idea to start the discussion with a coherent definition and/or description of the English Wikipedia's "governance structure". And, a discussion of the work environment of the Project is very much worth it's own thread. Marc Riddell

Reply

Anthony

11:10 p.m.

New subject: The new narrowed focus by WMF

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up at the same rate.

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Since 2005 the need to create accounts in order to do things has significantly increased.

http://www.informationweek.com/wikipedia-tightens-rules-for-posting/1749007… December 05, 2005 "As a result of the incident, Wikipedia no longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors, Wales said. A person now has to register with the site before contributing an article." I wonder, what percentage of those newly created accounts with only a handful of edits include an edit which required the creation of an account? If you're going to check, make sure to include deleted edits.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wsor-june13-enwiki-time-percentage.png Ignoring pre-2003, the percentage of anonymous edits peaked in November of 2005.

Reply