second the technology that edit is easy highly influences contributions. mobile edit experience is by far not where it should be, for me it is unusable. given that africa is a mobile connected country it is no wonder that we have so little contributions.
Is this to say that contributions from Africa are to some extent low because of Africa being mobile, and the mobile editing platform not being fully advanced yet? If that's your point, then I won't agree on that. At the moment, I personally find the mobile editing (both from the native apps and web app ) to be great. There's not much I would add to the current state without bloating up the small screen of a mobile to the stage where control buttons have taken over the screen estate. I don't do extensive editing on mobile, and I don't know anyone who makes extensive editing on mobile. I've always seen the mobile editing to be an added advantage, and not to replace the conventional desktop editing experience. On the go, you wanna fix a typo in an article, you wanna add a paragraph, that's how I see the mobile experience, and not as a reference/citation editing experience, or not for the advanced editing stuffs. I wouldn't blame the low edits from the 'mobile Africa' ( is that even a good thing?) on the fledgling Wikipedia mobile editing experience. Perhaps it boils down to a blame game. Without PC? "I would edit if I had a PC". No Internet? "I would edit if I had Internet." No smartphone? "I would edit if I had one." Give me all that and I'll say: "If only the internet was that fast, and phone and PC were that high performing, I would edit." Gimme combined power of all quantum processors in the world, and I'll still say: "If only my PC was a bit slower, it's too fast." My point? Something is always to be blamed; something always is the culprit, but never *me*! I'm never the problem! On 12 Mar 2016 8:58 am, "rupert THURNER" <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > > i find this a delicate topic in general, boiling down to two aspects at > the end. first, value edits (article space, not talk page and meta edits), > software contributions. when persons apply for positions in the wikiverse, > edits are considered a nice to have - which is imo setting a bad > example. second the technology that edit is easy highly influences > contributions. mobile edit experience is by far not where it should be, for > me it is unusable. given that africa is a mobile connected country it is no > wonder that we have so little contributions. > > on a scholarship side, factor in the financial possibilities, and the cost > of coming might not be to bad. if africans contribute and 20 apply, i would > not find it wasted money to have them all come. i do not care about africa > as a continent, or percentage of whatever. it is a personal, human factor. > what counts is if persons from regions attend where the knowledge of the > movement is not so high. let people mix up with experienced persons to > discuss attitudes. but - they need to meet persons who edit otherwise it > has more an effect of travel agency :) this also means that i consider it > pointless if every year the same persons come. my mail does not mean i > appreciate the style and tone of olaniyans mail though, there i am 100% > with asaf, and rex. > > rupert > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Douglas Scott <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> I think Rexford and Asaf raise some good points here. If we are serious >> about Africa having a stronger presence at future Wikimanias we must >> improve our efforts at increasing the number of editors from the continent >> whist encouraging more editors to apply for scholarships with high quality >> applications. It's a long road to travel that requires a lot of work but I >> feel that the rewards in terms of edits from African sources and >> representation within the broader community make it well worth it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Douglas. >> On 11 Mar 2016 23:13, "Nkansah Rexford" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Ellie for the short breakdown of the stats in here. Will be on >>> standby for more of these stats to be put up on the wiki. >>> >>> I think things will be more clearer when all the stats are up. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> On 11 Mar 2016 7:25 pm, "Ellie Young" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Isla, >>>> >>>> I am in the process of putting up information from the scholarship >>>> committee onto the wiki and will respond to the other thread on wikimania-l >>>> soon. >>>> >>>> 124 Scholarships were awarded. >>>> >>>> Of the 400 scholarships that passed into Phase 2 of the review, 20 were >>>> African applicants passed Phase 2. 4 of those got scholarships, so by my >>>> calculations that's 20% of the eligible African applicants. >>>> >>>> Geographic regions are *not* the emphasis of the program. >>>> >>>> You might want to take this up directly with the Scholarship Committee >>>> if you have ideas for changes to the program in the future? >>>> >>>> Ellie Young >>>> WMF Events Manager >>>> on behalf of the Scholarship Committee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Isla Haddow Flood < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Okay - so - of 170 potential full and partial scholarships offered by >>>>> the WMF, Africa got 4. >>>>> >>>>> FOUR. >>>>> >>>>> that is 0.02% of what was on offer. >>>>> >>>>> Mexico I could understand was difficult to access. BUT you couldn’t >>>>> get closer to Africa than Italy, if you tried. >>>>> >>>>> That is just not acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> > > _______________________________________________ > African-Wikimedians mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/african-wikimedians > >
_______________________________________________ African-Wikimedians mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/african-wikimedians
