Lack of research on Wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lack of research on Wikipedia

erikzachte
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 thrill
for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
The number became less and less meaningful with introduction of bots. It
also skews the comparison between large and small wikipedias.
There is more bot activity on small wikipedias, relatively speaking, but my
guess is most of that activity on small wikipedias is on housekeeping tasks
(e.g. interwiki links).
On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough of a
community to drive this semi automated article creation process.

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.

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.

Here is nice trivia which is somewhat relevant:
Volapük has 118,788 articles (July 2009). Out of these 54 were added in the
last 12 months. This is because of retirement of an article creation bot.
There were 224.481 edits on Volapük (96% by bots) in the last year.
Ah I just learned I have a welcome message on my user page on the Volapük
Wikipedia :-)

Erik Zachte

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrix.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesCurrentStatusVerbose.htm



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Ziko van Dijk
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 <[hidden email]>:

> I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a thrill
> for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.

> On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough of a
> community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 language projects that have no life in them.

I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance however
it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress in
a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is
writing a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
> thrill
> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
>
> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough
> of a
> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Ziko van Dijk
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 language projects that have no life in them.
>
> I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance however
> it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress in
> a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is
> writing a Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
>> thrill
>> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
>>
>> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not enough
>> of a
>> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ziko van Dijk
>> NL-Silvolde
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images for
Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the suspense
of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
accomplishment.
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > 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 language projects that have no life in them.
> >
> > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> however
> > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of progress
> in
> > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task that is
> > writing a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave us a
> >> thrill
> >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> >>
> >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> enough
> >> of a
> >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ziko van Dijk
> >> NL-Silvolde
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by erikzachte
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte <[hidden email]>:
> 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.

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. We need to
start emphasising quality more than quantity (everyone knows we have
lots and lots of articles - that's not news!). A few months ago we
passed the 2,500 FA milestone on enwiki and I completely missed it -
that would have been a good milestone to make a big deal about. We
should make a big deal out of the 3000 FA milestone when we get there
(probably about a year's time, judging by a quick glance at the FA
stats page). FAs+GAs is approaching 10,000, though - we'll probably
reach that in a couple of months - I suggest issuing a press release
for that milestone in an attempt to get the media interested in the
quality of Wikipedia articles. (Obviously self-assessed quality is
only of limited value, but external assessment doesn't happen very
often.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

David Gerard-2
2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> 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 like to have a big fuss over the "TWO BILLION WORDS" milestone,
though that's a way off yet. TWO BILLION WORDS. Holy crap, that's a
LOT of text.

Your Featured Articles suggestion is good, though we must keep in mind
that the en:wp FA requirements keep ratcheting upwards, such that the
total pretty closely tracks 0.1% of the article count.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Thomas Dalton
2009/8/22 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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 like to have a big fuss over the "TWO BILLION WORDS" milestone,
> though that's a way off yet. TWO BILLION WORDS. Holy crap, that's a
> LOT of text.
>
> Your Featured Articles suggestion is good, though we must keep in mind
> that the en:wp FA requirements keep ratcheting upwards, such that the
> total pretty closely tracks 0.1% of the article count.

The main article growth rate is dropping, though, so the FA count
might get a chance to catch up. I don't really see that that is a
problem, anyway, more FAs is more FAs, regardless of how many other
articles there are. Standards climbing is better than standards
dropping, although that increase is standards is part of what made me
suggest including GAs too. A GA today isn't far off an FA when they
were started. Actually, it's probably stricter - we weren't too good
at references back then.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Fowler, John
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hi all,

I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.

We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
discussion regarding the 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-----
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:[hidden email]]
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. 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 else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
for
Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
suspense
of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
accomplishment.
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > 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 language projects that have no life in them.
> >
> > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> however
> > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
> in
> > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
> > writing a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a

> >> thrill
> >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> >>
> >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> enough
> >> of a
> >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ziko van Dijk
> >> NL-Silvolde
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___________________NOTICE____________________________
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients.  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Cox, Serita
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 some past
foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.

We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
discussion regarding the 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-----
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:[hidden email]]
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. 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 else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
for
Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
suspense
of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
accomplishment.
Thanks,
        GerardM

2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>

> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > 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 language projects that have no life in them.
> >
> > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> however
> > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
progress
> in
> > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
that is
> > writing a Wikipedia.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
us a

> >> thrill
> >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> >>
> >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> enough
> >> of a
> >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ziko van Dijk
> >> NL-Silvolde
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___________________NOTICE____________________________
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients.  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Fowler, John
What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much progress
on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements
connected with those.  Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor
population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that
honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study. As
WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will
continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and
a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the
projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such
folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve.
Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady
narrowing and deadening of the projects.

The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user
needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the
obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.

IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good a
job the projects are doing.

And therein may lie some of your recommendations.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
> foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
> Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
> planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
>
> We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
> Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
> bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
> here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
> the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
> discussion regarding the 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-----
> From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:[hidden email]]
> 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. 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 else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
> for
> Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
> illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
> suspense
> of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
> while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
> accomplishment.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > > 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 language projects that have no life in them.
> > >
> > > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> > however
> > > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
> progress
> > in
> > > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
> that is
> > > writing a Wikipedia.
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >>
> > >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
> us a
> > >> thrill
> > >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> > >>
> > >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> > enough
> > >> of a
> > >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> > >> >
> > >> > 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.
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > foundation-l mailing list
> > >> > [hidden email]
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ziko van Dijk
> > >> NL-Silvolde
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ziko van Dijk
> > NL-Silvolde
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> ___________________NOTICE____________________________
> This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its
> clients.  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information
> in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose
> intended and for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or
> disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes
> other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received
> this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
> then destroy this e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in
> this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be
> understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to Bain
> clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the
> terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
> _______________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dennis C. During

Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity
with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I do not know what you are talking about.. Several of our projects do not
have any activity at all. others  are praised because there is activity as
in less then 100 new articles in the last year. So when you talk about "much
progress on quality" you forgot what this thread was about. So my argument
would be that the Usability Initiative contributions are extremely welcome.
As they are based on actual usability studies, they are clued in into what
prevents people to contribute to our projects.

You do appreciate that in a project with hardly any activity what a new
editor does, someone equivalent to a top writer on a de en nl ja fr or sr
Wikipedia (just a sample) .. The activity on the Swahili Wikipedia is
because of a handful of people.  They are the community and they can be
named.  So when we want to know what is needed to "get greater focus on user
needs" we can ask them personally.

For the projects with less then 10 active editors, the question what about
the public is moot. They are working their arses off to get to the
inflection point where things get a momentum of their own. And we have a
clue what helps bring this point down, but we do not have numbers.  I name
you two.

   - Localisation is easy to understand. When you know what you are expected
   to do, you understand that you have the choice to do it
   - Most relevant articles. This one is controversial. Is our emphasis on
   encyclopaedic information we think is important or is it encyclopaedic
   information people want to read.

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).
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 also the wiki network around such
articles.

All in all, we need more research, we need more research about the smaller
projects, we need to learn how to make them awesome (I refer to SJ's blog
about this). It does not have to be academic research to serve my purposes.
When our experience tells us that Localisation is important and when the
delivery of localisations is broken, we need a LocalisationUpdate. When we
want to know what the public for a Wikipedia is looking for, we register
what they cannot find.

In  essence it is easy, but in order to convince people to do what seems
right, we need those academic studies as well. We need them because we can
be wrong.. We need them because they can be the driver to get us the
statistics we need (the not found statistics for instance).
Thanks.
     GerardM

2009/8/24 Dennis During <[hidden email]>

> What is most remarkable in many ways is that there has been as much
> progress
> on quality and on meeting user needs despite a lack of measurements
> connected with those.  Perhaps that it attributable to the contributor
> population being a reasonably good match with the user population so that
> honest contributor introspection was almost as good as a usability study.
> As
> WMF pushes on it seems unlikely that the same fortunate conditions will
> continue. We have higher barriers to contribution by newer contributors and
> a richer mix of persons of academic orientation who seem to treat the
> projects as platforms for ersatz scholarly publication. In any event such
> folks are not a good model for the user base that the projects serve.
> Without some devices to get a greater focus on user needs, I fear a steady
> narrowing and deadening of the projects.
>
> The absence of information about how well the projects are serving user
> needs (those that we would want to serve) is part of what has led to the
> obsession with the crudest of measures about the product.
>
> IOW, you may not find so much information as you might want about how good
> a
> job the projects are doing.
>
> And therein may lie some of your recommendations.
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Fowler, John <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I stumbled across this thread when I was browsing through some past
> > foundation-l posts. My name is John Fowler, and I'm with the Bridgespan
> > Group, working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the strategic
> > planning process to develop a fact base to inform future work.
> >
> > We're trying to pull together all available research currently on
> > Wikimedia's strategic planning site. You can find these preliminary fact
> > bases at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base. There's good data
> > here on article count, number of contributors, quality of articles, and
> > the demographics of readers/contributors. This may be of some use to the
> > discussion regarding the 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-----
> > From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > 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. 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 else do I explain that a GLAM is not about getting images
> > for
> > Wikipedia but that they provide the basis for the credibility of the
> > illustrations we use. Compare that to article numbers, there is the
> > suspense
> > of the numbers rising to this magical number... It is a great show, and
> > while it may have limited meaning, it gives a more universal sense of
> > accomplishment.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > > > 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 language projects that have no life in them.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that on many levels the numbers game is of little relevance
> > > however
> > > > it becomes relevant when there is a need for the celebration of
> > progress
> > > in
> > > > a project. A need to be motivated to go on with the gigantic task
> > that is
> > > > writing a Wikipedia.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > > 2009/8/20 Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I concur wholeheartedly. Focusing on rising article counts gave
> > us a
> > > >> thrill
> > > >> > for many years, and now it is difficult to kick the bad habit.
> > > >>
> > > >> > On a small wikipedia (at least most of them) there is simply not
> > > enough
> > > >> of a
> > > >> > community to drive this semi automated article creation process.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > foundation-l mailing list
> > > >> > [hidden email]
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ziko van Dijk
> > > >> NL-Silvolde
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ziko van Dijk
> > > NL-Silvolde
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > ___________________NOTICE____________________________
> > This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains
> > confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its
> > clients.  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the
> information
> > in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose
> > intended and for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or
> > disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for
> purposes
> > other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received
> > this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
> > then destroy this e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in
> > this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be
> > understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to
> Bain
> > clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the
> > terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
>
> Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity
> with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Jonathan Hall-7
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
<snip>
> 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).
> 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 also the wiki network around such
> articles.
Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in
[[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of
the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the
abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but
how often will it actually be looked up.

Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by
looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger
Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to
start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is
spoken.

--
Jonathan G Hall <[hidden email]>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
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
likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila
Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.

The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest
for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area
where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to
our data that would be beneficial.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/8/25 Jonathan Hall <[hidden email]>

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> <snip>
> > 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).
> > 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 also the wiki network around
> such
> > articles.
> Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in
> [[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of
> the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the
> abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but
> how often will it actually be looked up.
>
> Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by
> looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger
> Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to
> start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is
> spoken.
>
> --
> Jonathan G Hall <[hidden email]>
> OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkqTotEACgkQb6WEh7PWaozODACaA슀꛴憀藤灦땊�
> RBsAniDlg2QSDUoOUgLPVxNubrF3DAB/
> =UW1I
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Jonathan Hall-7
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
> content, let it be driven by the community it is written for. It is more
> likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila
> Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.
>
> The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest
> for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area
> where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to
> our data that would be beneficial.
That's what I meant when I said "from IPs in the areas where the
language in question is spoken". Of course I didn't mean to say we could
infer what Swahili speakers wanted from sw.wp by looking at the total
statistics for other Wikipedias. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with that.

J

--
Jonathan G Hall <[hidden email]>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Ziko van Dijk
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 Meijssen <[hidden email]>:

> 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
> likely that they are interested in an article about Mwai Kibaki or Raila
> Odinga and sure enough both gentlemen have their sw.wp article.
>
> The only way in which you infer information about what might be of interest
> for another language is when you look at the articles read from the area
> where the language for a particular language is spoken. Another approach to
> our data that would be beneficial.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/8/25 Jonathan Hall <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:26:18AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > 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).
>> > 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 also the wiki network around
>> such
>> > articles.
>> Actually, there are no sportspeople and very few sports articles in
>> [[meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have]]. That said, some of
>> the articles in the philosophy section do tend a little towards the
>> abstract - an article on the concept of beauty is all well and good, but
>> how often will it actually be looked up.
>>
>> Maybe we could gain an idea of the sort of articles that are wanted by
>> looking at which articles are accessed in other languages with larger
>> Wikipedias (en, simple, fr, maybe de would probably be the best ones to
>> start with) from IPs in the areas where the language in question is
>> spoken.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan G Hall <[hidden email]>
>> OpenPGP KeyID: 0xB3D66A8C
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkqTotEACgkQb6WEh7PWaozODACaA슀꛴憀藤灦땊�
>> RBsAniDlg2QSDUoOUgLPVxNubrF3DAB/
>> =UW1I
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lack of research on Wikipedia

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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 also the wiki network around such
> articles.

I hear that this might be available in the future.

In the meantime portals such as www.wikipedia.fr or www.wikipedia.de
might do it too.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l