The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all is possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one area to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make an increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" and then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to be supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is getting more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill for editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold for new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to start. But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a "semi-professional editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five years - more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to volunteers driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all is possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one area to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make an increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" and then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to be supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is getting more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill for editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold for new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to start. But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a "semi-professional editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five years - more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to volunteers driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality" and then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors could had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more elaborate rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to start. But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five years - more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when discussing with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I wouldn't know, Pete. But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't it? And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages?
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wouldn't know, Pete. But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't it? And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy Initiative using the same method, which found found similar results.[2]
It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in tools for easy data generation and collection). But I think Pete's point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0 scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do.
[1] = https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia [2] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_quality...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used.
That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already. Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal of caution.
While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator that it's at least pretty decent. The bigger problem is that the lower ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date. For both the process-based ratings (FA, A, GA) and the informally assigned ones (Stub, Start, C, B), the ratings are probably best thought of as a very approximate lower bound for quality. (That is, a "B-class" article might really be GA quality and it just never went through the process, or a "Stub" might actually have developed well into C-class territory in the time since its rating was assigned.)
The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it. The history of this page would be fun to play with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles
-Sage
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy Initiative using the same method, which found found similar results.[2]
Thanks Sage, [1] is the page I was looking for, and had trouble finding.
It's true that these studies were manual processes that took a huge amount of work and wouldn't scale (at least, without some investing in tools for easy data generation and collection).
Yes -- the *research that produced* the finding was resource-intensive. But as Sage says, my point was it's the *results* of the research that have lasting value.
But I think Pete's point is that these studies show that the widespread Wikipedia 1.0 scale itself does a decent job of what it is intended to do.
[1] = https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_Contributions_to_Wikipedia [2] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article_quality...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA,
GA,
etc.) should be used.
Exactly. And the question of *exactly how* reliable that system is, is an important one, and one we are at least part way to answering.
That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already. Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal of caution.
Very good point. (But, not so much caution that we fail to proceed at all!!!)
While this is true to some degree, if an article *does* make it
through one of these processes, that's a fairly reliable indicator that it's at least pretty decent.
Yes. The value of Amy's research is that we can say that with confidence -- not just as Wikipedians with anecdotal experience.
It is true that her study covered only the US Public Policy topic, and also I don't think it was ever published by a peer reviewed journal. But it does, if nothing else, lay out a clear path for future research. Amy also published her methodology.[3]
The bigger problem is that the lower ratings, between Stub and B-class, are often badly out-of-date.
<snip>
That is true, but it is also something that can be systematically evaluated by software. For instance, and automated process could "score" the currency of a rating by determining when the "class=" parameter was updated, and summarizing what has happened to the article since (bytes added, number of references added, sub-articles spun off, number of talk page comments.....) This would of course require further deliberation and design -- but it's a rich vein to mine.
The nice thing about the Wikipedia 1.0 ratings is that we already have
all the data, just waiting for someone to do something cool with it. The history of this page would be fun to play with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles
-Sage
OK, a small pet peeve about that table: the "importance" axis is meaningless when aggregaged. If an an Academy Award winning film was set partially in Wisconsin, it might be rated "top" importance by WikiProject Film, but "low" importance by WikiProject Wisconsin. "Importance" in the abstract is a meaningless term; it's "importance in XYZ context" that matters. </rant>
-Pete
[3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative_Evaluation_and_...
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article level, but it does scale well. On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Handy link for background: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Quality (quite old and outdated now, but still good).
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.comwrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article level, but it does scale well. On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played
with
that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert
readers
into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it
is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
in
various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it
as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our
strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
became
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then
need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used.
That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already. Focusing strategy on those is likely to have volatile effects and any step in that direction has to be done deliberately and with a great deal of caution.
-- Marc
The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or indeed because people think it's not their business to.
As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell if they're stale.
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
Andrew.
On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ? Thanks, GerardM
On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or indeed because people think it's not their business to.
As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell if they're stale.
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
Andrew.
On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
in
various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
became
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Not trivially. The toolserver WP1.0 log records the last date the rating was altered, but this is done by watching the page and logging changes in a database. There's nothing on the wiki to indicate it in most cases, though GA/FA ratings are dated.
Incidentally, for context, enwiki ran a "regrade or expand stubs" contest in December last year. Over a month, it removed (approximately) 50,000 stubs... which sounds great, and then you realise that the system still thinks there are 2,420,000 of them :-)
Andrew.
On 27 March 2014 06:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ? Thanks, GerardM
On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or indeed because people think it's not their business to.
As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell if they're stale.
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
Andrew.
On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippe@wikimedia.orgwrote:
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article quality very well.
I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
point.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
for
fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
volunteers
driven rules in the respective language editions.
Rupert Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
up
to
the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits
in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
in
various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
it
will
be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
all
is
possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
one
area
to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
plan
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
became
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
make
an
increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of
"more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
quality"
and
then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could
had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
to
be
supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate
rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
getting
more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
skill
for
editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
treshhold
for
new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
start.
But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
"semi-professional
editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
years -
more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
Anders
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ contributions_amendment _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
<snip>
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
Andrew.
On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure article quality.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
There is at present no comprehensive automated tool that can be used to measure article and media file quality. Measuring quantity is easy; quality much more difficult.
At the Wikimedia Conference over the weekend I presented some thoughts about a possible software project, to be lead by Wikimedia UK, to tackle this.
A review of the presentation, and slides, can be seen at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Documentation/24#M...
The WMUK wiki page is here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Technology_Committee/Project_requests/WikiRate...
Comments and feedback are most welcome. In particular, we would like to know whether creating such tools would be considered a useful thing to do by the community.
Best regards
Michael
____________ Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK
Anders Wennersten wrote:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as all is possible
Stephen LaPorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
[...]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Hi.
Thanks for starting this thread.
I think it's important to note that the paid contributions amendment discussion (or perhaps more accurately, the straw poll) was very heavily advertised, using a banner at the top of Wikimedia wikis for several weeks that displayed to both logged-in and logged out users (as is required for a change to the site terms of use). Due to the heavy advertising, it's no surprise there were several thousand participants, but that number needs context, of course.
It may or may not be a good use of time and energy to address paid editing (or rather, paid advocacy) or article quality or any number of other strategic goals, but we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion alone sway what we feel is important to focus on, particularly not without better understanding whether this specific set of self-selected people (i.e., people who saw the banner and decided to comment) is representative of the overall Wikimedia community.
I personally agree that measuring and improving the quality of the work on Wikimedia wikis is important and deserves renewed focus as the next strategic planning process gets underway. Though as others in this thread have already noted, it's difficult to measure article (or transcript or dictionary entry or news story or data item or...) quality. And I'll add to this that the current Strategic Plan sets a fair number of goals that likely won't be reached, so we'll need to figure out whether the expectations and/or the resource allocation needs adjustment.
MZMcBride
MZMcBride, 26/03/2014 01:40:
we shouldn't allow a heavily advertised discussion alone sway what we feel is important to focus on
I agree. In fact, as said yesterday, the WMF board could well refuse to discuss the ToU amendment if they feel it's not worth it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=7954604 The same holds true for all the many topics some vocal or less vocal (groups of) persons ask the WMF board to do something about, of course. As long as it's clearly and transparently communicated what was included in or excluded from the agenda, there's nothing strange. A collegial body must have its own priorities and focus on those.
Nemo
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)
I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contribu...
Gryllida, the section is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Maggie
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida gryllida@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)
I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contribu...
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ah. Thanks!
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, at 2:38, Maggie Dennis wrote:
Gryllida, the section is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendme...
Maggie
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Gryllida gryllida@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, at 3:06, Anders Wennersten wrote:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1)
I don't see my edit in the final archived version. Namely, the "What to ask to disclose: paid contributions or COI?" section I created. Link provided. I hope someone here can provide insight on where it's gone.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contribu...
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org