Perhaps what we need is also to add new Key Performance Indicators (Kpis). Performance on Wikipedia is mainly evaluated by these indicators : number of active editors, number of articles created. On the other hand, the rights of the contributors inside of the community (for being able to vote, etc...) are unequal and progressive and based on these three factors : seniority, industriousness, recent activity. These kpis are all based on quantitative factors. But there is no evaluation of the quality of the contributions.
But how establishing content based criterias and how measuring them ? One thing that can be assessed is if a given modified or added accurate information is also correctly added or changed in all the other concerned articles to guarantee a coherence in Wikipedia. Another one could be the evaluation of the impact of addition of new contents on Wikipedia on the display of the results of research tools like Google. I made some quick and informal tests. I made screenshots of the results of a given research before and after adding some new names or sources in a given article. It seems that some additions are taken quickly in account in the results of Google, ranking differently Wikipedia where there was previously no such content in the article (I speak from small additions in an existing article, not the creation of a new article). And also, particularly, specific new sources used to back these additions that were before very hard to find for the same topic on the same research tool (it takes me sometimes hours and days to get Wikipedia compatible good sources about specific topics...) surface now on the research results. Probably they are still specific researches about the impact on Internet of addition of new Wikipedia content (micro-edition), but working on defining content Kpis seems crucial to attract new micro editors. Yes, adding a good information and a good source on Wikipedia, even if it's only a single one, has a direct and significative impact on the quality of the information displayed on Internet. We have to prove it and value it. I'm convinced that there will never be so many intensive life-time editors in the future, but this can still be compensated by a lot of quality micro-editors, also including more women, who don't want to devote all their time to Wikipedia only, but are able to do quality editing with a significant impact on the information provided on Internet. So quality must be added in our Kpis. We can do a lot for getting more "micro-editors", including more creative tools and innnovative training materials (I'll present some objects at the next French Wikiconference). I'm also sure that a specific Wikipedia app dedicated to a good editing palette would ease a lot the editing on Mobile. Waltercolor ________________________________ De : Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <[email protected]> Envoyé : vendredi 4 octobre 2024 21:01 À : Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> Objet : [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor This is a really interesting discussion, and most of the reasons explained here are plausible. From my experience with students, the idea we of Internet we had 20 years ago it's gone. The idea of "do it yourself" (learn how to use the computers, make your own webs/blogs, build your own castle) is something that doesn't fit in their current world. Sometimes I talk about Matrix (the film) with students trying to explain them what Internet was when we started with Wikipedia. They just don't get it. Instead, the world is like in Matrix Resurrections: there are big companies, things are done and provided by someone else, there's no scape from that. They fully understand that Google/FB/whoever is using them and their private data to make money, but the only alternative is to live in a cave. There's no way to just build your own app, to make something alternative. Everything is done, the world is given, and if there's an error or gap in Wikipedia, someone should come and solve that, because they don't think they could be editing it (if not for vandalizing). That's what "future audiences" are, and that's what we are losing. However, it may be true that active editors are declining on English Wikipedia, because we are aging and because we are losing people in the way, but it is interesting that the same is not happening in other languages. There are new language projects born and some are growing. So, the overall number of editors may be going down, young audiences might be not interested or with a mindset that makes them think that there's nothing that can be done... but there may be other communities and projects blooming. Researching that could be a really interesting thing. Have a good weekend Galder ________________________________ From: Peter Southwood <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:22 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[email protected]> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor All of the above/below Cheers, Peter From: Todd Allen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2024 20:04 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Trend of number of active editor I think it's even more simple than that. There are a limited number of people who would say "You know what I'd really like to do in my free time? I want to work on an encyclopedia." That's just not something that would be, or ever will be, appealing to everyone. And by now, well, the vast majority of them have at least heard of Wikipedia. Maybe some haven't tried it and caught "the bug", but a lot of people would try it out and say "Nah, this isn't my thing." Todd On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:38 AM Neurodivergent Netizen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. Can’t it be both? Because the more general areas of knowledge is covered, we’re less inclined to be understandable towards newer editors and more inclined to delete. The problem I think we have now is trying to attract subject matter experts, possibly along with their students/proteges, who can contribute reliable sources to Wikipedia. From, I dream of horses She/her On Oct 4, 2024, at 9:57 AM, The Cunctator <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: No, I think the problem is the impenetrable thicket of jargon and bureaucracy and the bias for deletionism. On Fri, Oct 4, 2024, 10:22 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I think the reasons for less active editors is primarily because a large part of common knowledge is already now created and being held in Wikipedia, unlike at the start and first few years of it's existence. I think generally that as any knowledge base grows, such as Wikimedia, that edits tend to be fewer as general knowledge articles are set in place, and thus remains creating only articles that cover the long tail of remaining knowledge. Hence, we are in a position in many of the larger language Wikipedia's having less of a need for general article authorship, and instead a need for creating articles that cover the long tails of knowledge with domain experts. -Thad ________________________________ From: Anders Wennersten <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Trend of number of active editor We have often discussed the trend of fewer active editors, and some of us have just discussed this at nowp and swwp and one of my fellow wikiedian has made a very interesting comparison graph where the numbers are normalized according to number of speakers, https://puu.sh/Kg6xQ.png As can be seen av very positive trend on frwp and plwp and reassuring one on enwp. Do we others have important lessons to be learnt from pl and frwp? Anders _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/Y6WFUJNFNN63QGUDXVJKDK4EMU2GFUDQ/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MTN6RCBQKX2QF5MMSCSTTECE4BG4MSVB/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2FISWVQY326DTAO45RCZV5C6BCA5Z7PD/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/MI467VD2FRSN2YOBXN3P2MGRLAEWE5ZO/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/J2GXCERWQV6GO6OTECVXAZBP6M5MHXLV/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
