On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future.
> Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead
> half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to
> think about who will write W
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian,
> they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They
> are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be
> better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their repor
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
> and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
> languages since I was about 15.
Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few -
just think of how many of
Milos Rancic wrote:
> * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young
> people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become
> retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a
> very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors.
Milos Rancic wrote:
> Now, we are starting with the implementation of the Scenario 1: we
> want to attract more retired academicians and we don't care for
> younger and we are very successful in that implementation. So, during
> the next year we are getting 500 more contributors in the ages groups
Correct, we have built a system that does not value new users, but rather seeks
to get rid of them. Its a pattern I have observed in some businesses as well.
Subconsciously, people hate change. While they consciously want new users or
wonder why the flow has stopped, their subconscious is busy e
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> Don't you think it is delusional hubris to plan with editors, who stay
> in the project from 15 to retiring age? For pretty much everyone
> Wikipedia is of passing interest. The phase can be 30 days, 100 days,
> two or three years. But v
geni wrote:
> English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
> still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
> different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
> reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article.
> [[Ordnance Surve
People and/or folks :)
Would you (several of you, starting from Milos) please, OH
please stop playing with me in 'Straw man'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) game!!!
> But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have
> plenty youngsters able to write science and techno
2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo :
> Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship).
> So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to
> see 19-year old steward.
>
> ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same
> scientific/technology topic written by 19
Oh, Milos...
We were talking about articles on nuclear physics, aren't we?
... and you suddenly switched to stewardship. Why?
With all due respect to the institution of stewardship (and each of
our Stewards personally ;) ) what's the big deal with that in context
of what we were talking before yo
Mark,
I appreciate your input to this discussion as well as I believe you
regarding your contribution to en:WP.
Both of us (you and me) know that there are "bright" young people
(geeks etc.) and ... not so bright. Besides I'm willing not to be
snobbish geek and I trust that people (whatever thei
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
languages since I was about 15.
There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe,
I don't know how much they are able to contribute to d
Yes here now.
On Saturday, July 25, 2009, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to
> be in nyc by any chance this wknd?
>
> samuel klein. �...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
>
> On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
2009/7/25 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega :
>
>> * 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.
>
>
> Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level -
> but a rising q
2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega :
> * 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.
Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level -
but a rising quality level. That is, the quality s
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 co
2009/7/25 Milos Rancic :
> I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
> with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
> with ~95% of support).
Yes. We must keep in mind that the Wikimedia projects attract some
*ridiculously* smart, clueful and ca
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, John at Darkstar escribió:
> De: John at Darkstar
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: sábado, 25 julio, 2009 3:47
> I asked a source if they may grant us
> access to some statistics on users
> behaviour
Dear all,
Again and again, I see the saying that Wikipedia does only work in
practice, but not in theory. Well, that depends on the theory. If one
describes Wikipedia as an anarchy or "wisdom of the masses" or "swarm
intelligence", that theoretical approach will certainly fail.
Wikipedia is commun
Dear John,
Sorry if I did not follow that entire conversation, but I would like
to support the idea that we need more communication with IP and new
users.
I am not peticular happy with the notion "stable version", which comes
from software development and should stay there. What you have
described
Hello everyone.
I have two questions.
Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed
to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by
[[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]?
Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but
only GFDL. How about me
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
> with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
> with ~95% of support).
BTW, one of the persons who trolled the project (sr.wp) was economist
who is
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> Let me illustrate by example:
> I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!)
> years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to
> several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal
>
One thing I like with the stable versions is that it is possible to keep
one version stable while discussions about a future version goes on.
This makes it possible to have a discussion with the contributors about
how to solve a problem without reverting them, and to let them
experiment with the ar
John,
Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;)
> Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with
> oldtimers until they learn the most basic things?
But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible?
If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we
should just to em
> Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his
> 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but
> just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that
> scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and
> energy even in 12
Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to
be in nyc by any chance this wknd?
samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, "Fred Benenson" wrote:
Hi There,
I"m a long time lurker on this list but work for Creative Commons and am a
s
Hi Milos,
Thanks a lot for so informative comment.
Sorry but you provided more for my new counterargumentation than
"beat" previous portion :)
Let me start bottomup (I have such habit)
> ... we are at the dead end
Wikipedia community evolve and became different, who said that it's
signs of deat
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles
> about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but
> neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding
> museums, literature (but Harry Pot
> Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale
> contributions coming from specific communities, specially from
> educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of
> Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research,
> and some authors ha
Well, well, well
> ... even if your
> observations are true
Not so bad for the beginning: you can suggest that my observations
might be correct.
By the way, when I wrote "Face the facts!" I meant (and still mean)
observations first of all.
> ... You are cynical, and ...
> your conclusions are wr
32 matches
Mail list logo
