On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:35 AM, wrote:
> This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a crowd-sourcing
> project. The basic premise underlying the whole model is increasing the
> quantity of contributors increases the quality of the content. Is this
> really disputed?
An astute o
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Will Takatoshi wrote:
>
> >... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
> > seem to care about the quality of the content
>
> There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
> I keep careful tabs on quality studies and perform in
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
>>> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this.
>>
>> How much discussion has there been int
This strikes me as a very oddly articulated concern about a
crowd-sourcing project. The basic premise underlying the whole model
is increasing the quantity of contributors increases the quality of
the content. Is this really disputed?
BirgitteSB
I am not sure whether I want to dispute this bu
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
>> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
>
> Thank you for sharing this.
>
> How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wron
If anyone wants to help work on these template-related issues,
Maryana and
I are still in the midst of work on this in a couple wikis... I
don't want
to flood the thread with a report on its status, but let me know if
you
want to join in our not-so-secret effort to make the current user
talk
On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride wrote:
> Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th
> high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't
> understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating.
I'm around the hundred thousands and I st
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Walling"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New
editor engagement experiments team!
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Ger
Zack Exley wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> I was thinking more about this today and how it somewhat relates to you and
>> your previous work at MoveOn.org.
>>
>> Mandatory voting laws look great on paper: increased democratic and civic
>> participation, a more involved and engaged citizenry, etc. But
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> And it turns out the new editors often assume the templates are
> completely bot-generated.
>
> That is: the editors using templates are, literally, failing the Turing
> test.
>
>
> > I know the solution is not
> > to just stop using template
On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley wrote:
> Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is
> that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of
> writing a personal note about a specific edit.
And it turns out the new editors often assume the t
> But what to call it? Wikipedia2 doesn't have much flavor.
> WikipediaLocalized? WikiDetails? WikipediaExpanded? WikipediaSuppliment?
>
> On 3/20/2012 5:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> > From: David Goodman
> > What I suggest is a '''Wikipedia Two'' - an encyclopedia su
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Zack Exley wrote:
> >> A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
> >> trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
> >> numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
>
>... Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
> seem to care about the quality of the content
There is no need for the Foundation to try to improve content quality.
I keep careful tabs on quality studies and perform independent tests
of Wikipedia quality regularly. By every measure, q
Responding to MZMcBride's question, "And a bit larger than this, what's an
acceptable cost for keeping new editors around? For example, deleting a new
user's article is probably the easiest way to discourage him or her, but is
the alternative (allowing their spammy page to sit around for a while
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Zack Exley wrote:
> >> A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
> >> trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
> >> numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
>
Zack Exley wrote:
>> A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
>> trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
>> numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
>> seem to care about the quality of the content that it's pro
Why do we need a seperate Wikipedia project for this? Surely userspace
drafts are acceptable, they just need 'mainstreaming'...
Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered
This is an excellent idea - a kind of searchable sandbox where articles
could eventually be promoted into the main site or simply used as in
depth backing for a Wikipedia One article. It would need to have some
high level sort mechanism to make it easier to access articles within a
geopolitical
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
>> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
>
> Thank you for sharing this.
>
> How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
> approach
> A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also
> trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the
> numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't
> seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing (or the
> quali
This seems like it deserves its own thread.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> The vision of the Wikimedia movement is to create a free and accessible
> repository of (high-quality) educational content; the vision is not about
> trying to get as many people involved as possible
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
approach? A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikim
Hey folks,
I sent the note below to the staff and board a few hours ago: sharing
now with everyone :-)
Thanks,
Sue
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner
Date: 20 March 2012 19:17
Subject: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
To: Staff All
Hey folks,
A co
On 21 March 2012 08:17, Jürgen Fenn wrote:
> I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
> order to make pressure on manufacturers to support free-software
> codecs than adopting the costly and patented codecs. I mean, it's not
> only about content. MediaWiki and Wikime
Am 20. März 2012 18:18 schrieb David Gerard :
> This is a drastic policy change that affects all projects, and so
> needs wider discussion than just wikitech-l.
Thanks for forwarding the discussion.
I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
order to make pressure on m
26 matches
Mail list logo
