Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> The other is write what people want. We do not know what people want. If we
> did we had a list of most looked for articles that could not be found for
> each project. Now THAT would be user driven and THAT would motivate people
> to write not only the article but possibly
Yes indeed. I have left something on that subject on
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Reach_out_by_active_promotion_of_content_in_wiki-weak_large_languages
By the way, we have come a little bit far away from the original
thread, isn't it? :-)
Kind regards
Ziko
2009/8/25 Gerard Me
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:53:49AM -0300, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> How does a list of most read articles on any Wikipedia give a clue on what
> is of interest in the Swahili Wikipedia ??? Would they really be interested
> in subjects like "Sarah Palin" ?? If the idea is to have user driven
>
Hoi,
How does a list of most read articles on any Wikipedia give a clue on what
is of interest in the Swahili Wikipedia ??? Would they really be interested
in subjects like "Sarah Palin" ?? If the idea is to have user driven
content, let it be driven by the community it is written for. It is more
l
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> For the second there are two approaches. We create a 100/1000 list of must
> have articles. While there is merit in many of the subjects selected, do you
> really think American Football is relevant in Upper Volta (I do not know).
he availability of research on Wikipedia, but any
> > additional information would be a huge help--especially given how much
> > knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
> >
> > Best,
> > John
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > Fr
help--especially given how much
> knowledge seems to be passed back and forth on this mailing list.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundat
Awesome :)
-Original Message-
From: Fowler, John
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: Lanzerotti, Laura; Cox, Serita
Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hi all,
I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through
ge-
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hoi,
I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was
done..
Nobody else did
2009/8/22 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to
>> work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias
>> number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones,
>> particularly the English Wikip
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton :
> Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to
> work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias
> number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones,
> particularly the English Wikipedia, it probably isn't.
I'd l
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> Too often I see people bragging how they managed to 'one up' another
> Wikipedia in the rankings.
> I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth
> article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from
> the media.
Milestone
Hoi,
I wrote articles on all the fish of the Benelux. I cheered when I was done..
Nobody else did. What we need is to celebrate something that has meaning to
all. Articles do that better then anything I know.
The thing with news is that it needs to be told. That is why I blog for
instance, how els
Hi Gerard,
Indeed, people need news. But they can be produced also with more
sence having accomplishments: All mayors of our capital have an
article, the 50 most important folk singers, great illustrated
articles on the fauna and flora of our region...
Kind regards
Ziko
2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen :
2009/8/20 Lars Aronsson :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
> I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear
> growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years).
> But hey, that's growth in the number of articles
Hoi,
For some of our smaller projects, the number of articles are the only
milestones available. It is necessary to celebrate progress. It is
meaningful when the Swahili Wikipedia becomes the biggest African language
Wikipedia. It is meanigful when you compare it with most of the other
African lang
I couldn't agree more, Erik. Not paying attention to "milestones" is
the first and best step; Wikipedia:Signpost should start with it.
Ziko
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a thrill
> for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the b
> Also a say 30% share of bot edits on some Wikipedia does not mean 30% of
> articles have been created by bots. My guess is that share is higher.
That was too rash. I simply don't know the actual amount, but there is no
linear relation for sure.
Let me rephrase that more safely:
If say
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Day 1: Create article "Apple is a fruit".
> Day 2: Create article "Pear is a fruit".
> Day 3: Extend article about apples. Add photos. Cite sources.
> Day 3: Zero growth in the number of articles. Panic!!!
I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
>
> I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear
> growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years).
> But hey, that's g
David Gerard wrote:
> Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth?
I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear
growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years).
But hey, that's growth in the number of articles. We shouldn't
focus on the nu
> I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is
> slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the
> attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some
> numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among
> the projects?
>
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:06:40 +0100
> From: David Gerard
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen :
> 2009/8/16 John at Darkstar :
>
>> I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is
>> slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the
>> attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some
>> numbers on the total influx of content and how it is
2009/8/16 John at Darkstar :
> I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is
> slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the
> attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some
> numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distrib
Hoi,
- Many of the Wikipedias do not show any growth
- other Wikipedias are young and they do not get the kind of attention
like en.wp did
- they do not have a Jimbo to evangelise their project.
- often the language technology does not really support their language
- a
> My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a
> whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's
> growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of
> standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in
> * «Action»: Real cross-wiki teamwork in research, corrections etc. -
> in handling items (actionitems) from agenda.
>
For the beginning if you want ;)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Multilingualism
(forgotten ideas, but resurrection is possible):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikip
> Hoi,
> For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that
> interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not
> write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia.
> Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen :
> For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that
> interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not
> write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia.
> Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrate
So let me make a summary of our common position:
What all Wikipedias has in common is following:
* «What we're doing»: mission statement and core values - like content
being freely licensed, openness to newcomers ("...everybody can edit")
etc.
* «How we're doing that» (Howto): 'Requirements' and p
Hoi,
I am very much a proponent of those who consider Wikipedia one project with
many iterations in a language project and community. For me it means that
there are several basic requirements for all Wikipedias. The content being
freely licensed and of a neutral point of view are core values I also
Hello Gerard,
Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but
Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
Some small example (casestudy): recently I requested asked for
as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just
because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly
Hoi,
For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that
interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not
write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia.
Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260
projec
34 matches
Mail list logo
