[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
werespielchequers at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 09:00:11 UTC 2012
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:02:51 -0700
> From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer at wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual
> Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
> E6sZp2021WQt845V7VLJXaBuPBnfVvg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
> >> Regarding the "normal levels", I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
> >> to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?
> > Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM
> Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August
> 2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards
> trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to
> the interpretation "returning to normal levels".
> > Actually I was reading
> > <http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm>
> > shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of
> > uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month.
> It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those
> with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it
> also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly
> supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to
> this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already
> cited below.
> >> Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik
> >> Zachte, posted this interesting analysis:
> >> If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants,
> >> 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053
> >> active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ;
> >> note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month
> >> falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors
> >> metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to
> >> improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM.
> > Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with
> > some activity after the end and 61 very active editors
> That's not quite what the blog post said. 61 was the number of all
> *active* editors left during the latest month examined (May), and it
> doesn't say how the average number of edits is distributed among
> these. That being said, it's of course absolutely great that WLM
> appears to have brought in at least some very active contributors,
> among them one who has already done 20,000 edits so far.
> > seems to be better
> > than what the university students do?
> If "what the university students do" refers to the Education Program,
> note that boosting the number of active editors by those students
> isn't its primary goal, and neither has WLM been focused on that
> > This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: ?[...] multimedia is where
> > early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs
> > Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas
> > active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K
> > 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)?.
> Again, I'm not quite sure what "This" in "This is also acknowledged
> later on" refers to. See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spike for
> the meaning of "spike".
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
As Wiki Loves Monuments is an annual competition involving the upload of
photographs in September, I would think we need a couple more Septembers
before we know how successful it is at acquiring a group of additional
However what we already know is that it is pretty successful at getting a
large amount of useful content.
If as a non-participant I could suggest one change it would be to allow
people to upload images at any time of year and submit them to the contest
in September. Aside from the advantages of potentially turning an annual
event into a hobby, there are monuments where we want images of the light
at different times of the year, or that are best seen after the leaves have
More information about the Wikimedia-l