Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is all too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you have a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is not the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we are not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I doubt; the second will be true of any interface.
DGG
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is all too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you have a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is not the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we are not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, I hardly ever write a Wikipedia article because there are too many showstoppers as far as I am concerned. The reasons for me are that the policies involved are so overly complicated that I first consult a friend about my plan for an article and its feasibility. The second reason is the large amount of template hell that I am supposed to overcome that are neither intuitive nor straight forward. Finally there are the button warriors; they have their finger ready to destroy. Once they determine that it is "not good enough" they expect you to do better or else and understand the overly complicated processes that may save your work. It includes making sense out of arcane widely distributed lore and templates that exist in so many guises, mostly undocumented or not readily accessible.
Really I prefer not to write wikitext for all those reasons.
A more intuitive interface that removes all the little empires and makes for a more reasoned understanding of what is needed in skills and understanding will help a lot. The point I make about a new interface is mostly that the current interface does not work on mobiles and tablets. Given the work that I do (Wikidata) I mostly look at sources. This is our future. Thanks, Gerard
On 8 September 2014 03:07, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I doubt; the second will be true of any interface.
DGG
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is
all
too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you
have
a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is
not
the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we
are
not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The way I see it, there is something each and every one of us can do to help with attrition right now with no interference from or dependencies on anyone else.
We can treat each other with the respect that we all deserve. Before hitting send or Save Page, we can ask ourselves if we've said what we wanted to say in the least confrontational manner possible. Have we kept in mind that we're addressing real people and not 2 dimensional usernames? Have we considered how our points may be taken from a different perspective than our own?
I commit to practicing respect to the best of my ability in all of my Wikimedia communications, right here and right now, for this entire list to see. Gerard, will you join me in this commitment? Will anyone else join me in this commitment?
,Wil
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is all too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you have a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is not the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we are not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, When you talk about respect, it can mean so many things and have different implications.
When people argue like "the community this and that" I do not respect their arguments. The community is often flat wrong and there is no mileage, quite the contrary to respecting the "gravitas" of someone using it to strengthen an argument. They either agree with a statement and make it their own or the point is not made; a point that can be argued with that person.
When there is a need for change, a demonstrable need preferably a need backed by numbers like the need for a discussion system that works on mobiles that deny these numbers, the need for change. I do not respect the arguments by people bemoaning the fact that they will lose their beloved talk pages. The argument is made and, the argument is backed by numbers that increasingly our readers and editors use mobiles and tablets. Ignoring this is irresponsible. This is not a zero sum game.
That is not to say that I do not respect the people when they are not making such an argument.
I pick my battles, I make the points I make personal and I am honest about them. I make an effort to continuously stick to the point. When people are unhappy about me strongly attacking what is so precious to them, they forget that it is not about them. It is about what prevents us to support all our users.
In all this I do not think that the WMF is shitting gold. I have my favourite example of a UI issue that is not worthy of consideration because "technically" it works. [1] Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/07/mediawiki-media-viewer.html
On 8 September 2014 06:02, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
The way I see it, there is something each and every one of us can do to help with attrition right now with no interference from or dependencies on anyone else.
We can treat each other with the respect that we all deserve. Before hitting send or Save Page, we can ask ourselves if we've said what we wanted to say in the least confrontational manner possible. Have we kept in mind that we're addressing real people and not 2 dimensional usernames? Have we considered how our points may be taken from a different perspective than our own?
I commit to practicing respect to the best of my ability in all of my Wikimedia communications, right here and right now, for this entire list to see. Gerard, will you join me in this commitment? Will anyone else join me in this commitment?
,Wil
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is
all
too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you
have
a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge. Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is
not
the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had before.
What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we
are
not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all costs.
We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next decennia. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?
If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.
The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.
When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.
Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record since 2007?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 1:54 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
... We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to provide more free time or money to editors....
That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't seen any.
Individual engagement grants are not a monetary reward for contributing content. They are, just like larger programs internally at WMF or in a chapter, intended to produce another outcome which has a wider and more sustainable impact. Suggesting that the success of IEG is evidence we should/could just pay editors directly in some way is quite the stretch.
Providing cash on a large scale to motivate contributors has diminishing returns as an alternative strategy to usability improvements, when you consider that the software platform which enables content creation will continue to show its age. Even if we lived in a parallel universe where every editor of Wikipedia was paid for their work, we'd still need to continually improve the platform they used to make the encyclopedia.
It's interesting you bring up IEG though. If you're not talking about 1:1 alternatives to software improvements, but instead you want us to consider potentially complementary new ideas to motivate people to edit... go for it. No one can deny the positive impact of initiatives like The Core Contest on English Wikipedia (I've been a contestant myself).[1] Piloting a larger scale set of contests where there are rewards or prizes for winners might be a pretty cool IEG project that could prove your theory.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org