Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


tbayer at wikimedia

Jul 29, 2012, 2:17 PM

Post #26 of 41 (226 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
>>
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
>>
>> accompanied by a Q&A:
>>
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
>>
>> The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
>> Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
>> Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
>> meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
>> recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
>> difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
>>
>
> Slide 8 : "How are we doing against the 2012 targets"
>
> I was stopped by
>
> "The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort of
> the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a
> projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student
> assignements 2011-2012"
>
> OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually
> initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough.
>
> But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is
> the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably
> true.
>
> But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but
> also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the
> largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but
> I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the
> actual community.
>
> High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students.
Over the last years, the Foundation has been trying to base decisions
and evaluations more often on objective data and research rather than
on personal opinions and impressions.

Of course, here the term "high quality" does not necessarily mean,
say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured
articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but
instead refers to comparisons with average contributions.

Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more
thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for
example I'm aware of
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/
. The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar
methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about
Wikipedia in the academic literature.

Which research methodology did you use to arrive at your conclusions above?
>
> Florence
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayvdb at gmail

Jul 29, 2012, 2:39 PM

Post #27 of 41 (227 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Jul 30, 2012 7:18 AM, "Tilman Bayer" <tbayer [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9 [at] yahoo>
wrote:
> > On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published
at
> >>
> >>
> >>
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
> >>
> >> accompanied by a Q&A:
> >>
> >>
> >>
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
> >>
> >> The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
> >> Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
> >> Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
> >> meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
> >> recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
> >> difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
> >>
> >
> > Slide 8 : "How are we doing against the 2012 targets"
> >
> > I was stopped by
> >
> > "The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort
of
> > the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a
> > projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student
> > assignements 2011-2012"
> >
> > OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually
> > initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough.
> >
> > But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP
is
> > the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is
probably
> > true.
> >
> > But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content,
but
> > also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it
is the
> > largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous...
but
> > I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward
the
> > actual community.
> >
> > High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students.
>
> Over the last years, the Foundation has been trying to base decisions
> and evaluations more often on objective data and research rather than
> on personal opinions and impressions.
>
> Of course, here the term "high quality" does not necessarily mean,
> say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured
> articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but
> instead refers to comparisons with average contributions.
>
> Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more
> thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for
> example I'm aware of
>
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/

Ive asked for more info at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Education_Program_evaluation#random_sample

> . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar
> methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about
> Wikipedia in the academic literature.

Do you have links to any relevant studies of the GEP?

--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Jul 29, 2012, 11:18 PM

Post #28 of 41 (233 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
> Regarding the "normal levels", I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
> to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?

Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM
situation. Actually I was reading
<http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm>
which shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number
of uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month.

> Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik
> Zachte, posted this interesting analysis:
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/
>
> If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants,
> 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053
> active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ;
> note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month
> falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors
> metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to
> improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM.

Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with
some activity after the end and 61 very active editors seems to be
better than what the university students do?
This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: «[...] multimedia is where
early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs
like Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few
areas where active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a
spike to 9.37K from 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)».

Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 23:17:
> Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more
> thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for
> example I'm aware of
>
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/
> . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar
> methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about
> Wikipedia in the academic literature.

Still, even if we consider only quantity, 19 millions characters is not
that much, and with some guesstimate I'm not sure it's more than what
some WikiProjects or edit drives have done in the past, e.g. the
addition of all Italian municipalities on it.wiki back in 2005 or so.
That passage would have been clearer by excluding all "normal" volunteer
(individual or organized) activity from the comparison, otherwise it's
easy to mix things up.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


meta.sj at gmail

Jul 30, 2012, 12:08 PM

Post #29 of 41 (223 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki [at] gmail>wrote:

>
> >> Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
> >>
> >> I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good
> >> idea.
> >>
> >> SJ
> >
> > Well, the biggest blocker would be that the WMF wiki is private.
>
> For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the
> wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell


Yes, this is broken. The wiki should be public to editing, at the very
least in every namespace but the main one. (And probably there too. We
know how to keep publicly editable websites looking shiny :)

To return to the original thread, and to Anne's comments:

The Budget page hasn't been edited since 2009 until now; it's good to see
that changing. [.If the wmfwiki were opened to collaborative updates, it
would be fine to replace it with a cross-wiki redirect. But for now that's
not possible.]

--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


z at mzmcbride

Jul 30, 2012, 8:39 PM

Post #30 of 41 (231 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

Samuel Klein wrote:
>> I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of
>> wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a bit
>> tricky with raw HTML being allowed there.
>
> This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages?
> Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
>
> I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.

Trying to get me motivated? Tsk, tsk.

Raw HTML is just one piece of the puzzle. A lot of other hacks and
customizations have been built in to the site over the years with the
bedrock principle that account creation is restricted there. I'd like to see
at least the talk namespaces opened up as well. I laid out my thoughts here:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_wikimediafoundation.org>.

For those interested, there's discussion on the talk page about how to best
implement this idea.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 1, 2012, 4:35 AM

Post #31 of 41 (227 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget

I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the
WMF please answer the questions that are on that page?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sgardner at wikimedia

Aug 1, 2012, 9:36 AM

Post #32 of 41 (225 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
I was looking at the wrong page?

I'll ask Tilman via this mail to help coordinate getting answers from the
appropriate people.

Separately/additionally: I thought the Signpost coverage was pretty good.
It wasn't extensive, but I thought they did a good job of capturing the
basics in what is a pretty complex plan. This year is a tough slog
understanding the financials, because the assumptions underpinning them
(about how revenue is reflected, and spending) have changed significantly
with the creation of the FDC. We tried to create apples-to-apples
comparisons, and to caveat appropriately where that wasn't possible, but
it's inherently pretty complex.

Thanks,
Sue
On Aug 1, 2012 4:35 AM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
>
> I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the
> WMF please answer the questions that are on that page?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 1, 2012, 9:47 AM

Post #33 of 41 (229 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
> I was looking at the wrong page?

The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sgardner at wikimedia

Aug 1, 2012, 3:01 PM

Post #34 of 41 (227 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
>> I was looking at the wrong page?
>
> The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget


Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf
have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what
remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo.

Thanks,
Sue

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


abartov at wikimedia

Aug 1, 2012, 5:51 PM

Post #35 of 41 (216 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

Hi, folks.

I've also tried to address the (truly confusing) use of the word "grants"
across the plan. See here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimedia_Grants_budget

Cheers,

Asaf

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> >> I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions:
> maybe
> >> I was looking at the wrong page?
> >
> > The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
>
>
> Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf
> have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what
> remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tbayer at wikimedia

Aug 2, 2012, 10:33 AM

Post #36 of 41 (215 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in
> Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all
> those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.
>
Note that this question has now been answered at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#April-June_2013_revenue


>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > 46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a
> > joke.
> > _____
> > *Béria Lima*
> >
> > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> > construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> >
> >
> > On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published
> at
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
> > >
> > > accompanied by a Q&A:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
> > >
> > > The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
> > > Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
> > > Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
> > > meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
> > > recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
> > > difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tilman Bayer
> > > Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > > WikimediaAnnounce-l [at] lists
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tbayer at wikimedia

Aug 3, 2012, 3:02 PM

Post #37 of 41 (206 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
>
>> Regarding the "normal levels", I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
>> to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?
>
>
> Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM situation.
Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August
2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards
trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to
the interpretation "returning to normal levels".

> Actually I was reading
> <http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm> which
> shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of
> uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month.
It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those
with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it
also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly
supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to
this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already
cited below.
>
>
>> Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik
>> Zachte, posted this interesting analysis:
>>
>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/
>>
>> If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants,
>> 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053
>> active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from
>> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ;
>> note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month
>> falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors
>> metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to
>> improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM.
>
>
> Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with
> some activity after the end and 61 very active editors
That's not quite what the blog post said. 61 was the number of all
*active* editors left during the latest month examined (May), and it
doesn't say how the average number of edits is distributed among
these. That being said, it's of course absolutely great that WLM
appears to have brought in at least some very active contributors,
among them one who has already done 20,000 edits so far.
> seems to be better
> than what the university students do?
If "what the university students do" refers to the Education Program,
note that boosting the number of active editors by those students
isn't its primary goal, and neither has WLM been focused on that
metric.
> This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: «[...] multimedia is where
> early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs like
> Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas where
> active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K from
> 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)».
Again, I'm not quite sure what "This" in "This is also acknowledged
later on" refers to. See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spike for
the meaning of "spike".



--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


tbayer at wikimedia

Aug 3, 2012, 3:10 PM

Post #38 of 41 (209 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, aude <aude.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
> >
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
> >
> > accompanied by a Q&A:
> >
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
> >
> > The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
> > Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
> > Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
> > meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
> > recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
> > difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
> >
> >
> Just a small point....
>
> I'm curious how the proposed $255,000 for Wikimania travel for staff,
> board, advisory board and volunteers compares with what was actually spent
> this year?
>

> In the 2011-2012 plan, I see that $96,000 was proposed. While the travel
> costs for SF staff to DC are much less, I find this too low and hard to
> believe. Some more details and breakdown by scholarships vs.
> staff/board/advisory board would be nice.
>
> I'm curious if we are planning a higher number of scholarships for
> volunteers for next year? (as the overall WMF budget increases) and how
> many staff are we planning to send next year?
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
> Note that some (or most) of these questions have now been addressed at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


werespielchequers at gmail

Aug 4, 2012, 2:00 AM

Post #39 of 41 (211 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:02:51 -0700
> From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual
> Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Message-ID:
> <CAPDdKA6rf5W1z6BXg-=
> E6sZp2021WQt845V7VLJXaBuPBnfVvg [at] mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <nemowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
> >
> >> Regarding the "normal levels", I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
> >> to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?
> >
> >
> > Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM
> situation.
> Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August
> 2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards
> trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to
> the interpretation "returning to normal levels".
>
> > Actually I was reading
> > <http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm>
> which
> > shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of
> > uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month.
> It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those
> with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it
> also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly
> supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to
> this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already
> cited below.
> >
> >
> >> Also, recently Lodewijk, with the help of WMF data analyst Erik
> >> Zachte, posted this interesting analysis:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/new-editors-thanks-to-wiki-loves-monuments/
> >>
> >> If I read it correctly, from the newbies among the WLM participants,
> >> 61 were still active in May 2012. This compares to altogether 7053
> >> active editors on Commons during that month (the latter number is from
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm ;
> >> note that a user who makes just one edit or one upload during a month
> >> falls below the threshold for the currently used active editors
> >> metric). But as the blog post notes, there are efforts underway to
> >> improve retention of new contributors in this year's WLM.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, I had indeed missed this post for some reason. 231 or 6,6 % with
> > some activity after the end and 61 very active editors
> That's not quite what the blog post said. 61 was the number of all
> *active* editors left during the latest month examined (May), and it
> doesn't say how the average number of edits is distributed among
> these. That being said, it's of course absolutely great that WLM
> appears to have brought in at least some very active contributors,
> among them one who has already done 20,000 edits so far.
> > seems to be better
> > than what the university students do?
> If "what the university students do" refers to the Education Program,
> note that boosting the number of active editors by those students
> isn't its primary goal, and neither has WLM been focused on that
> metric.
> > This is also acknowledged later on, at p. 25: ?[...] multimedia is where
> > early usability efforts (UploadWizard), especially alongside programs
> like
> > Wiki Loves Monuments, have paid off. (Commons is one of the few areas
> where
> > active editors are growing -- 25% year over year, with a spike to 9.37K
> from
> > 6.97K in September 2011 due to the WLM competition.)?.
> Again, I'm not quite sure what "This" in "This is also acknowledged
> later on" refers to. See e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spike for
> the meaning of "spike".
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>

As Wiki Loves Monuments is an annual competition involving the upload of
photographs in September, I would think we need a couple more Septembers
before we know how successful it is at acquiring a group of additional
regular participants.

However what we already know is that it is pretty successful at getting a
large amount of useful content.

If as a non-participant I could suggest one change it would be to allow
people to upload images at any time of year and submit them to the contest
in September. Aside from the advantages of potentially turning an annual
event into a hobby, there are monuments where we want images of the light
at different times of the year, or that are best seen after the leaves have
fallen.

WSC
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jayen466 at gmail

Aug 4, 2012, 8:36 AM

Post #40 of 41 (201 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> Of course, here the term "high quality" does not necessarily mean,
> say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured
> articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but
> instead refers to comparisons with average contributions.
>
> Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more
> thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for
> example I'm aware of
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/
> . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar
> methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about
> Wikipedia in the academic literature.
>


It certainly does have limitations. Let's look at what it says:

---o0o---

In the Wikipedia Education Program, professors assign their students to
edit Wikipedia articles as a grade for class, assisted by volunteer
Wikipedia Ambassadors. In fall 2011, 55 courses participated in the program
in the United States, with students editing articles on the English
Wikipedia. On average, these students added 1855 bytes of content that
stayed on Wikipedia, compared to only 491 for a randomly chosen sample of
new users who joined English Wikipedia in September 2011. These numbers
establish that students who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program
contribute significantly more quality content that stays on Wikipedia than
other new users.

---o0o---

Apart from John's very salient question about how the random sample of
editors was selected, another very obvious issue is the traffic the edited
pages attract. A random sample of users might include contributors to very
popular and heavily edited pages, while students' edits are more likely to
be to specialised pages on scholarly niche topics that get very few views,
and attract few edits.

Content on little watched pages always stays longer than content on highly
watched pages with a high edit turnover. This is quite irrespective of edit
quality. Just look at some Wikipedia pages on Indian villages ... their
content is crap, with outstanding long-term stability. :)

So until the analysis also factors in page viewing statistics and average
edits per month on each page, the variables are hopelessly confounded, and
the conclusions are nothing but wishful thinking (not to say lying with
statistics).

In other words, it's impossible to conclude that content staying on
Wikipedia is a reflection of edit quality, rather than a reflection of said
content being on a very obscure page that no one reads or edits.

If the Foundation has an interest in producing meaningful statistical
analyses, I would suggest actually employing a statistician who can give
such posts a look-over and point out the obvious fallacies.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Education_Program_evaluation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 12:26 AM

Post #41 of 41 (152 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation [In reply to]

Tilman Bayer, 08/04/2012 12:02 AM:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>> Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
>>
>>> Regarding the "normal levels", I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
>>> to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?
>>
>>
>> Yes and it shows that there's still an increase over the pre-WLM situation.
> Given the size of the normal monthly fluctuations (e.g. July-August
> 2011: +0.3K, August-October 2011: +0.2K), and the overall upwards
> trend during 2011-12, I find it hard to understand the objections to
> the interpretation "returning to normal levels".

I wasn't objecting to it, I only asked where to find the data. :-)
To me, it seems to have stabilized on a slightly higher level.

>
>> Actually I was reading
>> <http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm> which
>> shows the numbers better but still doesn't have the total number of
>> uploaders/ussers with at least one edit in a given month.
> It does show the number of users with at least one upload, and those
> with at least one mainspace edit (look further down). As an aside, it
> also contains numbers for uploads made using UploadWizard, strongly
> supporting the statement that much of the 2011-12 growth was due to
> this usability improvement, cf. the statement on slide 25 you already
> cited below.

Ah, thank you, I forgot the Commons-specific part of the page: that's
what I was looking for, with the 22642 uploaders number. :-)
<http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#uploader_activity_levels>
To me, this table shows that uploaders were stabilized (for a few
months) at about:
* 15k total / 0k with UW "before the UploadWizard";
* 16k / 9k after it;
* 18k / 13k after WLM.
Which would show a progressive switch to UW (also by very active
uploaders), boosted by WLM, and a stable increase of uploaders after UW+WLM.
This poor man reading of the tables doesn't provide reliable
indications, of course; I do have a slightly different opinion than the
one the annual plan seems to be implying (speaking of WLM "only" as one
of the short-term activity boosters), but the conclusion is the same:
WLM and UW had a wonderful synergy and are the way to go (with the
mobile app this year).

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.