Дана Friday 24 July 2009 16:42:06 Pavlo Shevelo написа:
> > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
>
> Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic
> in analysis and straight in putting things
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Felipe Ortega wrote:
> You can check more precise figures and graphs in my thesis about general
> statistics for survivability for all logged editors and core editors (the top
> 10% most active editors in each month), from the beginning until Dec. 2007,
> in the
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> * ... Older age groups are not interesting
>> anymore in the sense of quantity
>
> Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
>
>> In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that
>> their main recruiting age i
I asked a source if they may grant us access to some statistics on users
behaviour within social media. The time series starts well before Nupedia.
John
Felipe Ortega wrote:
> --- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
>
>> De: Milos Rancic
>> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> The foundation is not really like en.WP bumped up another level. We rarely
> get into policing such issues on this mailing list and that is nowhere near
> past tolerance levels, because of among other things features in this medium
> that ar
--- On Fri, 7/24/09, stevertigo wrote:
> From: stevertigo
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 2:56 PM
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM,
> Chad
> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm speaking as a volunteer: g
> * ... Older age groups are not interesting
> anymore in the sense of quantity
Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
> In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that
> their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the
> long run (i.e., i
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> I started a thread on Wikien-l last month suggesting we start a
> dispute resolution mailing list:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101428.html
>
> Responses were largely positive, and what little criticism the idea
> got
No, really, you need to discuss this on wikien-l instead of here. This
has been explained to you by multiple people on multiple occasions. I'd
suggest someone enforce that if need be.
Thanks,
-Mike
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:24 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad wrot
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>
> > I'm speaking as a volunteer: go away, and take your thread with you.
> > It is /not/ appropriate for foundation-l, period.
> >
> > It is obvious to everyone that this thread exists for solel
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chad wrote:
> I'm speaking as a volunteer: go away, and take your thread with you.
> It is /not/ appropriate for foundation-l, period.
>
> It is obvious to everyone that this thread exists for solely one reason:
> for you to bitch and moan when you didn't get wha
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> What do you not understand ?
> That is not for you to say.
>
>> It has been explained to you that the en approach is not compatible with
>> what happens elsewhere.
> What does this even mean? Nothing has been "explained
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> What do you not understand ?
That is not for you to say.
> It has been explained to you that the en approach is not compatible with what
> happens elsewhere.
What does this even mean? Nothing has been "explained." Terse and
useless "go away's" do not suffice as explanatio
Hoi,
What do you not understand ? It has been explained to you that the en
approach is not compatible with what happens elsewhere. This list is
explicitly NOT about the en policies. You have been politely asked to go
away.. Now what does it take for you to move on with this nonsense ?
Thanks,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Chad wrote:
> Pedro pretty much outlined my views already. I was going to write
> a point-by-point rebuttal as to why this doesn't belong on foundation-l,
> but I decided not to. Honestly, I thought it was pretty damn obvious
> that this doesn't belong on foundati
Pedro Sanchez commented on a few of my points, but mistakenly removed
my byline, making Yaroslav look like the author. These are responses
to Pedro's comments.
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> And english wikipedia has several mailing lists to deal with its own issues.
> Foundation-l is for wikimedia-wide
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>> I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
>> this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
>> to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad wrote:
> I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
> this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
> to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
> to wikien-l, /please/.
If you could offer some actual
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:58 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
>> valuable to all projects.
>
> Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that
> wikien-l pl
2009/7/24 Gregory Maxwell :
> Eh, backspace isn't much of a difficulty. It could probably also be
> made to only trigger for text over some particular size. You're not
> likely to have a legal obligation for a couple of words, but if you
> copy several paragraphs you'll have both a legal and an e
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
> valuable to all projects.
Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that
wikien-l played for years, and for which there are several disjointed
o
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann :
> > Milos Rancic wrote:
> >> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
> >> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Brian :
>> In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
>
> Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
> reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
> attributio
2009/7/24 Brian :
> I believe the alternate usability interpretation is more persuasive. That by
> law they are required to provide attribution and yet many users are totally
> unaware a) that they are required to provide attribution b) that a "free"
> encyclopedia cares about attribution in the fi
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Brian :
> > In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
>
> Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
> reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
> attribu
2009/7/24 Brian :
> In that case they can highlight the attribution and press backspace!
Sure, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult for people to
reuse our content and tidying up after our crude attempt to force
attribution would qualify as unnecessarily difficult.
___
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/24 David Gerard :
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
> >
> > Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> > pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> > them this is
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/24 David Gerard :
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
> >
> > Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> > pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> > them this i
2009/7/24 David Gerard :
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
>
> Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
> pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
> them this is licensed, not PD.
>
> Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious?
We can't use this particular tool because it includes a tracking bug.
However, I like the idea of automatically providing CC-BY-SA attribution. I
think we should hold a projects-wide vote on this, probably it would go over
well. Another area to consider automatic attribution is within EXIF data so
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> > Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
> > even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
>
> Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16060
Basically, if you cut'n'paste text, it appends a CC credit line to the
pasted text. Obviously the paster can remove it, but it does remind
them this is licensed, not PD.
Worth using for our stuff? A bit obnoxious? What do you think?
- d.
__
stevertigo wrote:
> Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
>> I suggest a hatnote on the main page of the site: "This is the website
>> of Wikimedia United Kingdom. For other uses, see uk.wikimedia.org
>> (disambiguation)."
>>
> I actually coined the word "hatnote" - probably in violation of our
> 'no n
>
> Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
>
to contribute =/= to write new articles / to add new info
#categorization
#linking
#templating
#bots making
#translating
#etc.
I know many young people who '''can''' clean up Wikipedia very well.
przykuta
___
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>
>> Who are our actual users?
>
> This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
> academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
> or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
> on how to treat cancer, but mig
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Who are our actual users?
This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
on how to treat cancer, but might be out
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 16:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> wrote:
> >> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
>
> There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
> there are some articles which c
--- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
> De: Milos Rancic
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: viernes, 24 julio, 2009 5:25
> Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good
> to have numbers about newcomers
> There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
> there are some articles which could be explained in layman's terms,
> particularly in maths and physics, that don't bother and just launch
> into a forest of LaTeX.
>>
I agree that every article ideally should have a "Subject
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 16:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
>> level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and
>> can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb
>> down articles to th
> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
> level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and
> can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb
> down articles to the needs of school curriculums.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
There are
Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that
analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations
based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise
data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM,
>> Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
>> articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
>> people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
>> articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
>> (no
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
>
> But do we know how many professionals and other people from the general
> public use Wikipedia every day? One of the most active contributors to
> de-WP once told the story that he was at a pediatric with his sick child
> and the docto
> we should not dumb down articles
Exactly!
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> Dennis During wrote:
>
>> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
>> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
>> users ha
> Dennis During wrote:
>> Uhm sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to confine ourselves with the
>> user vulgaris, which is by definition semi-literate imbecile :) Our target
>
> Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
> > Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
> >> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
> >> Wikimedia community or the Fou
Dennis During wrote:
> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
> users have appropriate weight in decision making
Who are our actual users? Students are of course well known to use
Wiki
Some complementing data on users from Swedish Wikipedia,
-Youngsters 15-22- high turnover & somewhat decreasing volume - do
vandal fighting, write of computer games, music, film, sport etc (and
these areas are worthy of respect too)
-Middle aged 22-50
--An increasing number of low volume contr
Just to clarify: The passage below was one I quoted and was requoted by
Nikola. It was from another en.wikt admin, NOT ME. Moreover it is not
en.wikt policy and got negative response, but not as much as I would have
hoped, from those I believe to be retired and active academics and graduate
studen
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
Ciao Henning
* Mantra No.2:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Markus_Mueller/Mantras
Disclaimer: T
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
> even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
> sports, movies and other enterta
2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
>> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
>
> Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
> wrong in your assumptions and therefore in
The retired academics trend is apparent at en.wikt too. There are many
valuable depth and quality contributions that they can make and few others
can.
It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our act
> Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
> articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
> people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
> articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
> (not nec
> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking
> at retired academics as the future of our user base.
That's right point!
If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something
more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students
As a matter od fact teenagers contribute m
Hello Milos,
What an informative note you made!
Thanks a lot!
There is a lot to think about but as for meantime would you please
provide more details on
> If we assume that our target groups
> are between 15 and 24...
(and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys)
?
As a part of that: do
> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have
> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are
> completely irrelevant for de-WP.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@li
> Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
> Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
> interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
> in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
>
"July 17, 2009: the method of cou
Milos Rancic wrote:
> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least
regarding de-WP.
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
> Mike.lifeguard wrote:
>> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
>> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
>> Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
>> this discussion back to the p
Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
I went to en.wp stats [1] and I've seen that
Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
valuable to all projects.
From: Mike.lifeguard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:06:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing li
63 matches
Mail list logo
