These are some thoughts prompted by the incident on Wikinews recently discussed on this list. They are general in nature, and decidedly *not* directed at any particular individual. I venture to say that anyone who thinks they know what individuals I have in mind is *highly* likely to be mistaken. However, I think the general principles are important to consider, especially for those who are trying to shepherd the development of Wikimedia's younger projects (i.e., everything but Wikipedia).
Wikipedia is clearly our most successful project. It attracts the bulk of our contributors and is easily the best at producing quality content. In the process, it has become a solid, well-functioning community. This is because it consists of people who can collaborate well, and for those who cannot, the system allows people of good will to exert various pressures until the problem cases either change their ways or leave. These factors are self-reinforcing and thus allow for continued improvement (this is not predestined, and we should avoid complacency, but that is a topic for another day).
None of the other projects, in my opinion, is yet particularly successful at any of these things - attracting contributors, creating quality content, or developing a sustainable community. They are still in earlier stages, so I'm not saying they can't, or even that they should be further along than they are. And they do have fine content occasionally, but need the contributor base and the community atmosphere in order to bring the content to a higher level overall.
The contributor base is a huge problem, because none of the other projects brings in enough new people on its own; they all grow by virtue of Wikipedia's coattails. But people strongly attracted to Wikipedia are more likely to stay there, so the other projects end up with those who, for whatever reason, did not fit in.
Why do some people not fit in? In some cases it's due to legitimate disagreements over how broadly Wikipedia should extend, so we often talk about other projects as ways to accommodate content not included in an encyclopedia. This is fine, and people who are less comfortable in the Wikipedia community for this reason are not a problem. Let them work on the project they like best, and they can team up with those people who never would have even tried Wikipedia, but contribute now because they really love the idea of Wiktionary or Wikinews or whichever project.
The problem is with people who don't quite fit in with our community ideals. By this I don't just mean NPOV, but the need for collaboration and consensus-building. This kind of person starts out on Wikipedia, and would likely have stayed there if they had been successful in that community. They don't leave on account of a block, nor are they even obviously violating any policy. But when they grow frustrated with the give and take of the process (not having their way, essentially), they migrate to one of the other projects to try again.
These people, if there are too many in a project, will drag the community down instead of up, and the content will ultimately suffer as well. I am concerned at having observed several cases (again, no names) follow this pattern. I'm not talking about people trying to push a political agenda in one place and then the next - those are easier to recognize and deal with. Rather, I mean people whose Wikipedia careers show that they have difficulty recognizing community sentiment and understanding when a consensus is developing. The problem may manifest itself in a different way on the next project, but its cause remains the same.
One also hopes that people can learn and do better with a fresh start in a new project. Some of these users will improve and avoid their Wikipedia errors, but some will not. I think it is important for those trying to guide the newer projects to watch for problems of this sort, and be especially diligent in fostering a community ethic on the project.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow a écrit:
These are some thoughts prompted by the incident on Wikinews recently discussed on this list. They are general in nature, and decidedly *not* directed at any particular individual. I venture to say that anyone who thinks they know what individuals I have in mind is *highly* likely to be mistaken. However, I think the general principles are important to consider, especially for those who are trying to shepherd the development of Wikimedia's younger projects (i.e., everything but Wikipedia).
Wikipedia is clearly our most successful project. It attracts the bulk of our contributors and is easily the best at producing quality content. In the process, it has become a solid, well-functioning community. This is because it consists of people who can collaborate well, and for those who cannot, the system allows people of good will to exert various pressures until the problem cases either change their ways or leave. These factors are self-reinforcing and thus allow for continued improvement (this is not predestined, and we should avoid complacency, but that is a topic for another day).
None of the other projects, in my opinion, is yet particularly successful at any of these things - attracting contributors, creating quality content, or developing a sustainable community. They are still in earlier stages, so I'm not saying they can't, or even that they should be further along than they are. And they do have fine content occasionally, but need the contributor base and the community atmosphere in order to bring the content to a higher level overall.
The contributor base is a huge problem, because none of the other projects brings in enough new people on its own; they all grow by virtue of Wikipedia's coattails. But people strongly attracted to Wikipedia are more likely to stay there, so the other projects end up with those who, for whatever reason, did not fit in.
Why do some people not fit in? In some cases it's due to legitimate disagreements over how broadly Wikipedia should extend, so we often talk about other projects as ways to accommodate content not included in an encyclopedia. This is fine, and people who are less comfortable in the Wikipedia community for this reason are not a problem. Let them work on the project they like best, and they can team up with those people who never would have even tried Wikipedia, but contribute now because they really love the idea of Wiktionary or Wikinews or whichever project.
The problem is with people who don't quite fit in with our community ideals. By this I don't just mean NPOV, but the need for collaboration and consensus-building. This kind of person starts out on Wikipedia, and would likely have stayed there if they had been successful in that community. They don't leave on account of a block, nor are they even obviously violating any policy. But when they grow frustrated with the give and take of the process (not having their way, essentially), they migrate to one of the other projects to try again.
These people, if there are too many in a project, will drag the community down instead of up, and the content will ultimately suffer as well. I am concerned at having observed several cases (again, no names) follow this pattern. I'm not talking about people trying to push a political agenda in one place and then the next - those are easier to recognize and deal with. Rather, I mean people whose Wikipedia careers show that they have difficulty recognizing community sentiment and understanding when a consensus is developing. The problem may manifest itself in a different way on the next project, but its cause remains the same.
One also hopes that people can learn and do better with a fresh start in a new project. Some of these users will improve and avoid their Wikipedia errors, but some will not. I think it is important for those trying to guide the newer projects to watch for problems of this sort, and be especially diligent in fostering a community ethic on the project.
--Michael Snow
Nod. I think what you wrote here is very true.
A strong mind in a small community will have a major impact in the way it develops. It is one of the major risk of small projects, especially when the strong mind knows well the general structure and level s/he can use on people. This is even more problematic in small projects isolated for language reasons.
Michael,
I think the process you describe - the people joining being people who left Wikipedia for some reason - *does* exist. We certainly have a number of users who quit Wikipedia and joined Wikinews. And certainly, we have to be aware of their sensibilities. So thanks for pointing this out.
However, we also have a constant influx of people from Wikipedia who simply wish to know what Wikinews is about, and who either like it and become contributors, or who don't like it and go back to Wikipedia. Some of these people may eventually quit Wikipedia entirely, not because they don't like it, but because they find Wikinews more interesting. That doesn't mean they didn't "fit into" Wikipedia. As crazy as this may sound, it is not impossible to like another project more and still like Wikipedia. :-)
For Wikinews in particular there's also the process of discovery through blogs that link to us and news sources that copy our content. This should not be underestimated. Today, Wikinews was slashdotted and linked from many, many blogs due to the tragic London terrorist attacks. It has received an unprecedented influx of new contributors, many of whom are not Wikipedians. The main story about the attack has received more than 500 edits so far (much, much kudos to Dan100 for being on the case from the first hour).
So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing beyond the point where the effect you mention is highly significant. I also think that in terms of "quality content", the community has produced some excellent material so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to offer.
As unfortunate as the recent conflict on en.wikinews.org is, it also demonstrates that Wikinews is growing large enough to *have* such conflicts. Wikipedia did have similar conflicts in the early days -- big fights between LMS and Cunctator, H.J. and 24, the Spanish fork, and so on. You don't know what a huge deal it was when Wikipedia got its first trolls! Learning to deal with conflict is part of growing up. Call it the puberty phase of the wiki. :-)
The next level is that the community becomes large enough for conflict to generally be accepted as a part of life, and for conflict resolution mechanisms to be developed, refined, and applied regularly. From the perspective of the rest of the Wikimedia community, seeing Wikinews grow up may be disturbing. What has the kid done this time! But please do recognize that this is a natural process, and it needs to happen. While babies are cute and innocent, they can't do much besides screaming, consuming food, and excreting waste products. ;-)
Best,
Erik
Michael, thanks for starting such an interesting thread.
On 7/7/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing beyond the point where the effect you mention is highly significant. I also think that in terms of "quality content", the community has produced some excellent material so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to offer.
Surely you exaggerate. The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a hasty, impressionist memo next to Wikipedia's nuanced and excellent monographs.
But that's just my opinion, and I mainly read in English. It there any way to decide this objectively? Now there is. We're having an international media contest at Wikimania, with categories for articles, text modules, and news created in the last year (along with images, sound, and video). Submit the best news content for review, and we can compare lineups.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions
Cheers, SJ
While babies are cute and innocent, they can't do much besides screaming, consuming food, and excreting waste products. ;-)
But they are great at attracting attention. --
On 7/7/05, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing beyond the point where the effect you mention is highly significant. I also think that in terms of "quality content", the community has produced some excellent material so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to offer.
Surely you exaggerate. The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a
On a very serious note, I would like to mention what many of you may already know : that the Wikinews overview of today's catastrophe in London is among the finest in the world. Please read it if you have not done so already.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Coordinated_terrorist_attack_in_London
~sj~
--- SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, thanks for starting such an interesting thread.
On 7/7/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing
beyond the point where
the effect you mention is highly significant. I
also think that in terms
of "quality content", the community has produced
some excellent material
so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to
offer.
Surely you exaggerate. The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a hasty, impressionist memo next to Wikipedia's nuanced and excellent monographs.
But that's just my opinion Cheers, SJ
Now really, I must take issue here.
Every Wikinews article is npov, fully referenced, and fully fact-checked. Only a handful of Wikipedia articles, compared to the bulk, are written to such a high quality.
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Dan Grey wrote:
--- SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, thanks for starting such an interesting thread.
On 7/7/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
So, in that respect, Wikinews is quickly growing
beyond the point where
the effect you mention is highly significant. I
also think that in terms
of "quality content", the community has produced
some excellent material
so far - on par with the best Wikipedia has to
offer.
Surely you exaggerate. The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a hasty, impressionist memo next to Wikipedia's nuanced and excellent monographs.
But that's just my opinion Cheers, SJ
Now really, I must take issue here.
Every Wikinews article is npov, fully referenced, and fully fact-checked. Only a handful of Wikipedia articles, compared to the bulk, are written to such a high quality.
Dan
Hoi, I do not take issue but want to note to a discrepantion. What you describe may be true for the en.wikinews but if it is true it is certainly not true for all the other Wikinews projects. I sincerely hope that the other projects will be a success. But there is still a lot of growing to do.
The London bombing had a positive effect on the Dutch Wikinews as well. I hope we do not need many of these incidents to make the other Wikinews sites a success too.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/8/05, Dan Grey dangrey101@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Surely you exaggerate. The pinnacle of Wikinews content is still a hasty, impressionist memo next to Wikipedia's nuanced and excellent monographs.
But that's just my opinion Cheers, SJ
Now really, I must take issue here.
Every Wikinews article is npov, fully referenced, and fully fact-checked. Only a handful of Wikipedia articles, compared to the bulk, are written to such a high quality.
I hope you're ready to present nominations to prove that.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions
+Sj
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org