Lars Aronsson wrote:
Day 1: Create article "Apple is a fruit". Day 2: Create article "Pear is a fruit". Day 3: Extend article about apples. Add photos. Cite sources. Day 3: Zero growth in the number of articles. Panic!!!
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a thrill for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit. The number became less and less meaningful with introduction of bots. It also skews the comparison between large and small wikipedias. There is more bot activity on small wikipedias, relatively speaking, but my guess is most of that activity on small wikipedias is on housekeeping tasks (e.g. interwiki links). On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough of a community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
Also a say 30% share of bot edits on some Wikipedia does not mean 30% of articles have been created by bots. My guess is that share is higher.
Too often I see people bragging how they managed to 'one up' another Wikipedia in the rankings. I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from the media.
Here is nice trivia which is somewhat relevant: Volapük has 118,788 articles (July 2009). Out of these 54 were added in the last 12 months. This is because of retirement of an article creation bot. There were 224.481 edits on Volapük (96% by bots) in the last year. Ah I just learned I have a welcome message on my user page on the Volapük Wikipedia :-)
Erik Zachte
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesCurrentStatusVerbose.htm
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones" is the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a thrill for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough of a community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the only milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African language Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the other African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance however it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress in a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones" is the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the only milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African language Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the other African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance however it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress in a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones" is the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done.. Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of accomplishment. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the only milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the other African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress
in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones" is the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
millionth
article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries
from
the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi all,
I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
We're trying to pull together all available research currently on Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
Best, John
-----Original Message----- From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hoi, I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done.. Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of accomplishment. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
millionth
article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
from
the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. _______________________________________
Awesome :)
-----Original Message----- From: Fowler, John Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:13 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: Lanzerotti, Laura; Cox, Serita Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hi all,
I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
We're trying to pull together all available research currently on Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
Best, John
-----Original Message----- From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hoi, I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done.. Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of accomplishment. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
millionth
article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
from
the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. _______________________________________
What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much progress on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements connected with those. Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study. As WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve. Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady narrowing and deadening of the projects.
The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.
IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good a job the projects are doing.
And therein may lie some of your recommendations.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John john.fowler@bridgespan.orgwrote:
Hi all,
I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
We're trying to pull together all available research currently on Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
Best, John
-----Original Message----- From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hoi, I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done.. Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of accomplishment. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
millionth
article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
from
the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. _______________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I do not know what you are talking about.. Several of our projects do not have any activity at all. others are praised because there is activity as in less then 100 new articles in the last year. So when you talk about "much progress on quality" you forgot what this thread was about. So my argument would be that the Usability Initiative contributions are extremely welcome. As they are based on actual usability studies, they are clued in into what prevents people to contribute to our projects.
You do appreciate that in a project with hardly any activity what a new editor does, someone equivalent to a top writer on a de en nl ja fr or sr Wikipedia (just a sample) .. The activity on the Swahili Wikipedia is because of a handful of people. They are the community and they can be named. So when we want to know what is needed to "get greater focus on user needs" we can ask them personally.
For the projects with less then 10 active editors, the question what about the public is moot. They are working their arses off to get to the inflection point where things get a momentum of their own. And we have a clue what helps bring this point down, but we do not have numbers. I name you two.
- Localisation is easy to understand. When you know what you are expected to do, you understand that you have the choice to do it - Most relevant articles. This one is controversial. Is our emphasis on encyclopaedic information we think is important or is it encyclopaedic information people want to read.
For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know). The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such articles.
All in all, we need more research, we need more research about the smaller projects, we need to learn how to make them awesome (I refer to SJ's blog about this). It does not have to be academic research to serve my purposes. When our experience tells us that Localisation is important and when the delivery of localisations is broken, we need a LocalisationUpdate. When we want to know what the public for a Wikipedia is looking for, we register what they cannot find.
In essence it is easy, but in order to convince people to do what seems right, we need those academic studies as well. We need them because we can be wrong.. We need them because they can be the driver to get us the statistics we need (the not found statistics for instance). Thanks. GerardM
2009/8/24 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much progress on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements connected with those. Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study. As WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve. Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady narrowing and deadening of the projects.
The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.
IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good a job the projects are doing.
And therein may lie some of your recommendations.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John <john.fowler@bridgespan.org
wrote:
Hi all,
I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
We're trying to pull together all available research currently on Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the discussion regarding the availability of research on Wikipedia, but any additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
Best, John
-----Original Message----- From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hoi, I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done.. Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for instance, how else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of accomplishment. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hi Gerard, Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated articles on the fauna and flora of our region... Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the
only
milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African
language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the
other
African language projects that have no life in them.
I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
writing a Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones"
is
the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it. Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a
thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
enough
of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th
millionth
article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any
inquiries
from
the media.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the
information
in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for
purposes
other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to
Bain
clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. _______________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Dennis C. During
Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote: <snip>
For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know). The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such articles.
Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in [[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but how often will it actually be looked up.
Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is spoken.
-- Jonathan G Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
Hoi, How does a list of most read articles on any Wikipedia give a clue on what is of interest in the Swahili Wikipedia ??? Would they really be interested in subjects like "Sarah Palin" ?? If the idea is to have user driven content, let it be driven by the community it is written for. It is more likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.
The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to our data that would be beneficial. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/25 Jonathan Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip> > For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must > have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you > really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know). > The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we > did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for > each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people > to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such > articles. Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in [[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but how often will it actually be looked up.
Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is spoken.
-- Jonathan G Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqTotEACgkQb6WEh7PWaozODACaA슀꛴憀藤灦땊� RBsAniDlg2QSDUoOUgLPVxNubrF3DAB/ =UW1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:53:49AM -0300, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, How does a list of most read articles on any Wikipedia give a clue on what is of interest in the Swahili Wikipedia ??? Would they really be interested in subjects like "Sarah Palin" ?? If the idea is to have user driven content, let it be driven by the community it is written for. It is more likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.
The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to our data that would be beneficial.
That's what I meant when I said "from IPs in the areas where the language in question is spoken". Of course I didn't mean to say we could infer what Swahili speakers wanted from sw.wp by looking at the total statistics for other Wikipedias. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with that.
J
-- Jonathan G Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
Yes indeed. I have left something on that subject on http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Reach_out_by_active_promoti...
By the way, we have come a little bit far away from the original thread, isn't it? :-)
Kind regards Ziko
2009/8/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, How does a list of most read articles on any Wikipedia give a clue on what is of interest in the Swahili Wikipedia ??? Would they really be interested in subjects like "Sarah Palin" ?? If the idea is to have user driven content, let it be driven by the community it is written for. It is more likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.
The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to our data that would be beneficial. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/25 Jonathan Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip> > For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must > have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you > really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know). > The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we > did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for > each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people > to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such > articles. Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in [[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but how often will it actually be looked up.
Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is spoken.
-- Jonathan G Hall jonathan@sinewave42.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqTotEACgkQb6WEh7PWaozODACaA슀꛴憀藤灦땊� RBsAniDlg2QSDUoOUgLPVxNubrF3DAB/ =UW1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people to write not only the article but possibly also the wiki network around such articles.
I hear that this might be available in the future.
In the meantime portals such as www.wikipedia.fr or www.wikipedia.de might do it too.
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com:
Too often I see people bragging how they managed to 'one up' another Wikipedia in the rankings. I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from the media.
Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones, particularly the English Wikipedia, it probably isn't. We need to start emphasising quality more than quantity (everyone knows we have lots and lots of articles - that's not news!). A few months ago we passed the 2,500 FA milestone on enwiki and I completely missed it - that would have been a good milestone to make a big deal about. We should make a big deal out of the 3000 FA milestone when we get there (probably about a year's time, judging by a quick glance at the FA stats page). FAs+GAs is approaching 10,000, though - we'll probably reach that in a couple of months - I suggest issuing a press release for that milestone in an attempt to get the media interested in the quality of Wikipedia articles. (Obviously self-assessed quality is only of limited value, but external assessment doesn't happen very often.)
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones, particularly the English Wikipedia, it probably isn't.
I'd like to have a big fuss over the "TWO BILLION WORDS" milestone, though that's a way off yet. TWO BILLION WORDS. Holy crap, that's a LOT of text.
Your Featured Articles suggestion is good, though we must keep in mind that the en:wp FA requirements keep ratcheting upwards, such that the total pretty closely tracks 0.1% of the article count.
- d.
2009/8/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones, particularly the English Wikipedia, it probably isn't.
I'd like to have a big fuss over the "TWO BILLION WORDS" milestone, though that's a way off yet. TWO BILLION WORDS. Holy crap, that's a LOT of text.
Your Featured Articles suggestion is good, though we must keep in mind that the en:wp FA requirements keep ratcheting upwards, such that the total pretty closely tracks 0.1% of the article count.
The main article growth rate is dropping, though, so the FA count might get a chance to catch up. I don't really see that that is a problem, anyway, more FAs is more FAs, regardless of how many other articles there are. Standards climbing is better than standards dropping, although that increase is standards is part of what made me suggest including GAs too. A GA today isn't far off an FA when they were started. Actually, it's probably stricter - we weren't too good at references back then.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org