We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Bon dia/Hi
This is a very good graph, Anders. Do we have it at least for the 25-30 first languages in number of articles, or at least to those that have 10 million speakers? Even if grouped in separate graphs, it would certainly help more to extract further conclusions, given that it compares mostly central and northern European languages (and therefore a bias towards a specific cultural and economic context).
I remember that, in 2021, for the English Wikipedia's 20th anniversary, The Economist published an interesting article comparing the same trends (active editors per million speakers) with an additional factor: the GDP per person by averaging the countries in which that language is autochthonous and spoken. Unfortunately, the article has a paywall: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/01/09/happy-birthday-wikipedia
I don't want to say at all that the lessons are purely economical, but I am sure that plotting them against economical parameters, or cultural (population subscribed to streaming platforms per year: Prime+Netflix, etc., or usages of Tiktok+Instagram) we could draw further conclusions. However, we have serious availability gaps in Wikimedia Stats to geolocalize by small country some users', articles' and visits' data of several languages, which could help in the breakdown to see what happen between countries that edit in French or German.
Salutacions/Best
Xavier
El dijous, 3 de octubre 2024 a les 14:52, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se va escriure:
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad ________________________________ From: Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
*From:* Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From, I dream of horses She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <thadmguidry@outlook.com mailto:thadmguidry@outlook.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad From: Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se mailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large
part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From, I dream of horses She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
*From:* Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
All of the above/below
Cheers, Peter
From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: 04 October 2024 20:04 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From,
I dream of horses
She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
_____
From: Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
This is a really interesting discussion, and most of the reasons explained here are plausible. From my experience with students, the idea we of Internet we had 20 years ago it's gone. The idea of "do it yourself" (learn how to use the computers, make your own webs/blogs, build your own castle) is something that doesn't fit in their current world. Sometimes I talk about Matrix (the film) with students trying to explain them what Internet was when we started with Wikipedia. They just don't get it.
Instead, the world is like in Matrix Resurrections: there are big companies, things are done and provided by someone else, there's no scape from that. They fully understand that Google/FB/whoever is using them and their private data to make money, but the only alternative is to live in a cave. There's no way to just build your own app, to make something alternative. Everything is done, the world is given, and if there's an error or gap in Wikipedia, someone should come and solve that, because they don't think they could be editing it (if not for vandalizing).
That's what "future audiences" are, and that's what we are losing. However, it may be true that active editors are declining on English Wikipedia, because we are aging and because we are losing people in the way, but it is interesting that the same is not happening in other languages. There are new language projects born and some are growing. So, the overall number of editors may be going down, young audiences might be not interested or with a mindset that makes them think that there's nothing that can be done... but there may be other communities and projects blooming. Researching that could be a really interesting thing.
Have a good weekend
Galder ________________________________ From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:22 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
All of the above/below
Cheers, Peter
From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: 04 October 2024 20:04 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen <idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.commailto:idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From,
I dream of horses
She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.commailto:cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <thadmguidry@outlook.commailto:thadmguidry@outlook.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
________________________________
From: Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.semailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v...]http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Virus-free.www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ?
One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it.
I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet.
So quality must be added in our Kpis.
We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference).
I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile.
Waltercolor
________________________________ De : Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com Envoyé : vendredi 4 octobre 2024 21:01 À : Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Objet : [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
This is a really interesting discussion, and most of the reasons explained here are plausible. From my experience with students, the idea we of Internet we had 20 years ago it's gone. The idea of "do it yourself" (learn how to use the computers, make your own webs/blogs, build your own castle) is something that doesn't fit in their current world. Sometimes I talk about Matrix (the film) with students trying to explain them what Internet was when we started with Wikipedia. They just don't get it.
Instead, the world is like in Matrix Resurrections: there are big companies, things are done and provided by someone else, there's no scape from that. They fully understand that Google/FB/whoever is using them and their private data to make money, but the only alternative is to live in a cave. There's no way to just build your own app, to make something alternative. Everything is done, the world is given, and if there's an error or gap in Wikipedia, someone should come and solve that, because they don't think they could be editing it (if not for vandalizing).
That's what "future audiences" are, and that's what we are losing. However, it may be true that active editors are declining on English Wikipedia, because we are aging and because we are losing people in the way, but it is interesting that the same is not happening in other languages. There are new language projects born and some are growing. So, the overall number of editors may be going down, young audiences might be not interested or with a mindset that makes them think that there's nothing that can be done... but there may be other communities and projects blooming. Researching that could be a really interesting thing.
Have a good weekend
Galder ________________________________ From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:22 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
All of the above/below
Cheers, Peter
From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] Sent: 04 October 2024 20:04 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen <idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.commailto:idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From,
I dream of horses
She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.commailto:cunctator@gmail.com> wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <thadmguidry@outlook.commailto:thadmguidry@outlook.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
________________________________
From: Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.semailto:mail@anderswennersten.se> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v...]http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Virus-free.www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
(reposting, apparently my previous message disappeared)
"Imagine a World in which every single Wikipedia reader makes a good edit"
(And hence is not reverted, not told off and rather praised and encouraged).
It is interesting to think about transitory editors. People who will come for 6 months or a year, or two, when their life allows them the time and the mindset. I have wondered whether retention at all costs is the right way to look at what being part of our ecosystem is.
The investment might be different for someone who stays not too long. It might be less deep, more utilitarian (what are they learning that will be useful outside of Wikimedia?), geared on maximising quality edits and immediate reward rather than deep community integration.
I think we want to make sure that someone is welcome, trained and given tools they can use outside of our ecosystem, and shown quick ways to have fun so as to make them the irresistible ambassadors for the next wave of short-career editors.
This also means a very strong (not necessarily numerous) community backbone from seasoned editors who can teach well, are patient and don't mind teaching the same thing over and over again.
The main question being whether everyone needs to become a Wikimedian or whether it's enough they learn to reach out to a toolbox which includes editing Wikipedia once in a while, to do whatever it is they're doing professionally or personally better.
Cheers,
Delphine
Le sam. 5 oct. 2024 à 21:38, waltercolor--- via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> a écrit :
Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ?
One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it.
I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet.
So quality must be added in our Kpis.
We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference).
I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile.
Waltercolor
"Imagine a World in which every single Wikipedia reader makes a good edit"
(And hence is not reverted, not told off and rather praised and encouraged).
It is interesting to think about transitory editors. People who will come for 6 months or a year, or two, when their life allows them the time and the mindset. I have wondered whether retention at all costs is the right way to look at what being part of our ecosystem is.
The investment might be different for someone who stays not too long. It might be less deep, more utilitarian (what are they learning that will be useful outside of Wikimedia?), geared on maximising quality edits and immediate reward rather than deep community integration.
I think we want to make sure that someone is welcome, trained and given tools they can use outside of our ecosystem, and shown quick ways to have fun so as to make them the irresistible ambassadors for the next wave of short-career editors.
This also means a very strong (not necessarily numerous) community backbone from seasoned editors who can teach well, are patient and don't mind teaching the same thing over and over again.
The main question being whether everyone needs to become a Wikimedian or whether it's enough they learn to reach out to a toolbox which includes editing Wikipedia once in a while, to do whatever it is they're doing professionally, or personally, better.
Cheers,
Delphine
Le sam. 5 oct. 2024 à 21:38, waltercolor--- via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> a écrit :
Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ?
One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it.
I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet.
So quality must be added in our Kpis.
We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference).
I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile.
Waltercolor
My perspective is to treat everyone as a "Wikipedian". Whether you edit a lot, admin, contribute only images, or participate one time in a jam, or simply rely on it was a reliable resource in an increasingly unreliable Internet, you're part of the community.
Being welcoming should absolutely be a bedrock principle.
One of the greatest lessons I've learned raising toddlers is how important it is to not assume bad intent but instead to be in a role of encouragement and safety, seeing experimentation in a positive light and teaching boundaries and rules by demonstration and example.
Experienced and active members of this community should try to set a positive example.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:52 AM Delphine Ménard delphine.menard@gmail.com wrote:
"Imagine a World in which every single Wikipedia reader makes a good edit"
(And hence is not reverted, not told off and rather praised and encouraged).
It is interesting to think about transitory editors. People who will come for 6 months or a year, or two, when their life allows them the time and the mindset. I have wondered whether retention at all costs is the right way to look at what being part of our ecosystem is.
The investment might be different for someone who stays not too long. It might be less deep, more utilitarian (what are they learning that will be useful outside of Wikimedia?), geared on maximising quality edits and immediate reward rather than deep community integration.
I think we want to make sure that someone is welcome, trained and given tools they can use outside of our ecosystem, and shown quick ways to have fun so as to make them the irresistible ambassadors for the next wave of short-career editors.
This also means a very strong (not necessarily numerous) community backbone from seasoned editors who can teach well, are patient and don't mind teaching the same thing over and over again.
The main question being whether everyone needs to become a Wikimedian or whether it's enough they learn to reach out to a toolbox which includes editing Wikipedia once in a while, to do whatever it is they're doing professionally, or personally, better.
Cheers,
Delphine
Le sam. 5 oct. 2024 à 21:38, waltercolor--- via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> a écrit :
Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ?
One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it.
I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet.
So quality must be added in our Kpis.
We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference).
I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile.
Waltercolor
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikipedia in Portuguese editor here. From our stats, I understand we have been fairly steady for many years, without much disruption apart from a very significant increase in active editors after IP editing was banned from there. However, I have detected a number of possible causes which may be hindering growth:
- Trend from PCs to cell phones and similar appliances. Few people nowadays use PCs for their hobbies apart from gamers, and those are usually gaming. Since editing in a cell phone can equate a punishment from hell, it's not surprising that it has been increasingly difficult to reach young targets, though gamers continue being a loyal pool; - Kind of a subpoint of the above, people who newly connect to the Internet usually do it by cell phone. This is a general case in some African countries, like Guinea Bissau - a lot of people are connected and read Wikipedia, but they are using devices that make editing impracticable, especially in their free time; - Google, ChatGPT and whatelse AI now provides well structured and easy to understand answers about most stuff people look for in the Internet, when before they had to read Wikipedia articles and try to understand what is there. This pushes down the number of viewers, and consequently new opportunities for people to hop on on Wikipedia; - The few people that actually join is often received by grumbling disgruntled non welcoming folk, who tells them everything they do is wrong and they should have read instructions before (and there are no tutorials worth of that name... 🙄 ) and stop short of saying the infamous Royston Vasey catch line - "This is a local project for local editors!"; - And in cohorts with the above, the staggering lack of decent documentation, tutorials and whatelse, which will never be produced because quite obviously volunteers prefer to do something else.
On the positive side;
- Banning IPs forces editors to actually have a relation/community channel with Wikipedia, which have been yielding very positive results; - Sources are mandatory for more than 10 years now, which had a very significant impact on the perceived quality of the encyclopedia, especially in the Brazilian market. This combines with the IP banning mentioned above, as IP editing seem to have been traditionally perceived, particularly in Brazil, as a signal of low content quality (Brazilian IPs even vandalized articles writing just that). Better quality attracts more quality editors; - The very significant outreach & engagement work of the Brazilian affiliate, Wiki Movimento Brazil, which is constantly bringing dozens of new editors, many of them later becoming power editors, not only in Wikipedia but Wikidata, Commons, Wikisource and Wikiversity. - This affiliate has been producing quality tutorials and documentation for years, which greatly help with newbie integration when they come via WMB programmes. However, it is my uinderstanding that this documentation is not well integrated with the projects themselves, so new editors coming from other places have difficulty finding it.
Just sharing my 2 cents. All the above is my opinion based on my own experience and stuff people tell, so as always, YMMV.
Best, Paulo
The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com escreveu (sábado, 12/10/2024 à(s) 16:32):
My perspective is to treat everyone as a "Wikipedian". Whether you edit a lot, admin, contribute only images, or participate one time in a jam, or simply rely on it was a reliable resource in an increasingly unreliable Internet, you're part of the community.
Being welcoming should absolutely be a bedrock principle.
One of the greatest lessons I've learned raising toddlers is how important it is to not assume bad intent but instead to be in a role of encouragement and safety, seeing experimentation in a positive light and teaching boundaries and rules by demonstration and example.
Experienced and active members of this community should try to set a positive example.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:52 AM Delphine Ménard delphine.menard@gmail.com wrote:
"Imagine a World in which every single Wikipedia reader makes a good edit"
(And hence is not reverted, not told off and rather praised and encouraged).
It is interesting to think about transitory editors. People who will come for 6 months or a year, or two, when their life allows them the time and the mindset. I have wondered whether retention at all costs is the right way to look at what being part of our ecosystem is.
The investment might be different for someone who stays not too long. It might be less deep, more utilitarian (what are they learning that will be useful outside of Wikimedia?), geared on maximising quality edits and immediate reward rather than deep community integration.
I think we want to make sure that someone is welcome, trained and given tools they can use outside of our ecosystem, and shown quick ways to have fun so as to make them the irresistible ambassadors for the next wave of short-career editors.
This also means a very strong (not necessarily numerous) community backbone from seasoned editors who can teach well, are patient and don't mind teaching the same thing over and over again.
The main question being whether everyone needs to become a Wikimedian or whether it's enough they learn to reach out to a toolbox which includes editing Wikipedia once in a while, to do whatever it is they're doing professionally, or personally, better.
Cheers,
Delphine
Le sam. 5 oct. 2024 à 21:38, waltercolor--- via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> a écrit :
Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ?
One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it.
I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet.
So quality must be added in our Kpis.
We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference).
I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile.
Waltercolor
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
This doesn't make sense - there are more humans on the planet, more people online, than ever before. The only reason that editorship has declined into stagnation is because of how unpleasant editing Wikipedia is compared to how it could be.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:05 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large
part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From, I dream of horses She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
*From:* Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Well, at some point we will hit the situation when a typical user can not read an average Wikipedia article during their attention span - which will be a totally different reason.
Best Yaroslav
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 4:23 PM The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
This doesn't make sense - there are more humans on the planet, more people online, than ever before. The only reason that editorship has declined into stagnation is because of how unpleasant editing Wikipedia is compared to how it could be.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:05 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's even more simple than that.
There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone.
And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing."
Todd
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen < idoh.idreamofhorses@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large
part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
Can’t it be both?
Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete.
The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia.
From, I dream of horses She/her
On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry thadmguidry@outlook.com wrote:
I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence.
I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts.
-Thad
*From:* Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor
We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png
As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp?
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org