[Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
While I agree that these numbers are interesting, they typically only show
what they highlight. When you consider "featured articles" you will find
that many Wikipedias do not have featured articles. For some Wikipedias it
is hard to establish yourself as a Wikipedian when you are a teenager we are
said. For most of our Wikipedias this is not the case. For most of our
Wikipedias a half decent article is a welcome addition and citations are not
an issue at all.

The point has been made repeatedly; Wikis follow a pattern and most of our
Wikipedias are still very much in their early stages of development. The big
issue of identifying with your Wikipedia is that the issues of the other
Wikipedias are not considered.

It would be interesting to know for instance which Wikipedias have:

   - featured articles
   - featured pictures
   - their own featured pictures

Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega <glimmer_phoenix at yahoo.es>

>
> This is a good point, Milos. Quantity and quality are more related to each
> other than we may thought initially.
>
> For instance:
>
> * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
> needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
>
> * Most of editors contributing to FAs were high experienced editors,
> meaning more than 2.5 or 3 years participating in Wikipedia. And these
> editors tend to be very active ones (though they not necessarily get 'sysop'
> or other special privileges). I recall you that more than 50% of editors
> abandonned after aprox.. half a year, in all versions we studied.
>
> Therefore, the high experienced editors are taking care of top-quality
> content. Probably because they know, better than many other editors, the
> guidelines, procedures and daily workflows in the community. Of course,
> their knowledge (about the topics they contribute to) also matters. But I
> believe that the first condition is also critical. And you can get to that
> point with time, interacting with Wikipedia and the community.
>
> As a result, any attempt to improve the "feeling" of newcomers as they
> start to contribute is invaluable. I've read your comments about chats with
> sysops or article's main editors. I've also read about training environments
> (customized sandboxes, more friendly, etc.).
>
> So, all this makes *a lot of sense* in the current situation. Not because
> of quantity, but to improve *quality*.
>
> Best,
> Felipe.
>
>
> --- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > De: Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
>
> > So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need
> > quantity to
> > have sustainable community development or even just a
> > sustainable
> > stagnation. We shouldn't be shy of saying that quantity is
> > very
> > important to us because we are able to build quality. And,
> > yes, it is
> > possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about
> > that: we
> > have to think how to do that. If we don't think
> > (thinking=quality) how
> > to bring quantity and our quantity is lowering: we are at
> > the dead
> > end.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>