Growth vs. maintenance

[Robert Rohde]

I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now.  As I reflect
on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that
the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned.  (I'm going to
frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though
I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.)  It's a
qualitative sense that the community is less active and excited about
what they are doing today than they used to be.  Some data supports
this, like the declines in editor activity and administrator
attrition, though I think I perceive it most directly as a change in
the experience of being in the community.

At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
job.  What now?

Most of our processes and policies have changed little in years.  Most
of the recent software changes are small and evolutionary rather than
revolutionary.  Compared to the days when parser functions, templates,
cite, and other things were being introduced, it is rare to see
changes that excite people and grow to be widely used.  There are
perhaps a few such things still promised on the horizon (e.g. open
street maps), but mostly it seems like we've become satisfied with
what we have and are slow to change.  In the editing community, we see
a growing interest in removing redlinks on the theory that if it
hasn't been started yet how interesting can it really be, or worse
deleting stubs and other incomplete articles because no one seems
interested in finishing them.  At the Foundation level, we see efforts
to leverage Wikipedia with third party deals (e.g. Orange) and
important incremental improvements (e.g. Usability), but it is rare to
even consider whole new projects or have anyone articulate a grand new
vision.

I'm wondering what people think about this.  On the one hand we could
simply accept it.  We've already created a world changing
encyclopedia.  We can embrace Wikipedia for what it is and accept that
maintaining it will not be as exciting as building it.  That's the
direction I think we've implicitly been following, by inertia if no
other reason.  We allow the policies, processes, and structures we
have now to become entrenched, and focus on ensuring that the work
which already exists will persist into the future.  That would still
be a great achievement, but it is not sexy, and I think we would
continue to see a slowing and contraction in the community.  Filling
in details and improving prose, isn't going to easily attract
volunteers.

On the other hand, I think we could try to recapture some of the
vision and fire of our initial growth.  Push for new tools (e.g.
string functions, data storage mechanisms, new communication tools)
and new projects (e.g. directory services, almanacs).  There any many
risks with innovating.  It could backfire and damage what we have, but
on the other hand having new things to do and a fresh vision could
bring new energy to the community.

Personally, I look at Wikimedia and think there is still a lot of room
for expansion, innovation, and growth, but I also think we've become
resistant to it.

I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive
the same trends, and what they think about the balance between
innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the
processes and products that we already have.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Amir E. Aharoni]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 23:36, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:

> I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now.  As I reflect
> on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that
> the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned.  (I'm going to
> frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though
> I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.)
>

If you miss the excitement, learn the Sakha language, or at least Russian.
Many small wikis in African and post-Soviet languages are mostly abandoned,
but the small group of editors of the Wikipedia in Sakha are very excited.

At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
> own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
> become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
> job.  What now?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog

I find it pretty exciting.

I don't see a big difference between writing new articles and improving
existing ones.

--
אָמִיר אֱלִישָע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni

http://aharoni.wordpress.com

"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Bod Notbod]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:

> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
> own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
> become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
> job.  What now?

Are you already on

http://strategy.wikimedia.org

?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robert Rohde]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:
>
>> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
>> own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
>> become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
>> job.  What now?
>
> Are you already on
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org

I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired
to make a proposal.  My impression though, and correct me if I
overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has
generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has
been very little discussion of general philosophy.  Should we be
innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities?
Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing
positions and projects?  One position or the other might be implicit
in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which
general path people might want to emphasize.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Michael Snow-3]

Robert Rohde wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...> wrote:
>  
>> Are you already on
>>
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org
>>    
> I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired
> to make a proposal.  My impression though, and correct me if I
> overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has
> generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has
> been very little discussion of general philosophy.

That is, if anything, an unfortunate myopia that arises out of the
submissions. As was noted during the board meeting prior to Wikimania (I
believe you can find the comment in the minutes), a lot of the proposals
there are not particularly strategic in nature. While we don't want to
simply discard ideas that might have value, we will be focusing more on
these kinds of fundamental questions as the process moves forward. Any
help in framing these issues, and identifying which proposals really
grapple with them, would be appreciated.
>   Should we be
> innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities?
> Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing
> positions and projects?  One position or the other might be implicit
> in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which
> general path people might want to emphasize.
>  
I'm glad you're helping to start the discussion. I encourage people to
continue it, both here and on the strategic planning wiki.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fowler, John]

Hi all,

While specific proposals have indeed been solicited (largely focusing on individual projects), task forces focusing on larger strategic issues have been formed in the past few weeks. These task forces are deliberating on key issues that affect the Wikimedia community broadly. You can find a list of these task forces at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force.

Robert, your comments seem very aligned with the "Enhance community health and culture task force," which you can access at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Enhance_community_health_and_culture_task_force. Your comments and input there would be much appreciated.

Best,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Rohde [mailto:rarohde@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:
>
>> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
>> own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
>> become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
>> job.  What now?
>
> Are you already on
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org

I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired
to make a proposal.  My impression though, and correct me if I
overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has
generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has
been very little discussion of general philosophy.  Should we be
innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities?
Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing
positions and projects?  One position or the other might be implicit
in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which
general path people might want to emphasize.

-Robert Rohde


___________________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
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Bod Notbod]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:

> I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired
> to make a proposal.  My impression though, and correct me if I
> overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has
> generally been framed in terms of individual projects,

A lot of the proposals are flawed precisely because of that. It's no
surprise because many editors focus on one project. That's certainly
true of me.

Nevertheless I've tried to make a proposal that could encompass all projects:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Reward_editors

Of course I'm inclined to "big up" my own idea. But there's 500
proposals so I hope there'll be a fairly large number that would work
across all the projects.

You said yourself:

" (I'm going to frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English
Wikipedia, though
I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) "

OK. But what about the less mature ones? Huge opportunities there. *I*
can't add to anything that isn't in English. But I could conceivably
have an idea that would help. I mean, I doubt it in my case, but it's
plausible that an English speaker could have an idea that would impact
across the less mature projects. Strategy is your chance to come up
with an idea there. You don't even need an idea of your own, you could
build on one you find in the proposals and be a part of the process.

> but there has
> been very little discussion of general philosophy.  Should we be
> innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities?
> Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing
> positions and projects?  One position or the other might be implicit
> in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which
> general path people might want to emphasize.

Take a look at:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers

I'm sure you'll find those questions you're asking reflected there.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Eugene Eric Kim]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...> wrote:
> Take a look at:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers
>
> I'm sure you'll find those questions you're asking reflected there.

Let me echo what Michael, John, and Bod have already stated. The
majority of proposals certainly reflect a somewhat narrow point of
view. The challenge right now is getting everyone to think at a
higher-level. The questions above are a starting point, and we'd like
to see as many people as possible to contribute to those.

=Eugene

--
======================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/
======================================================================

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Let me try to reformulate it in a different way.

The statement is that in Wikimedia we have (i) low signal-to-noise ratio;
(ii) noise grows faster than signal, to the point that signals may become
unnoticeable.

Any strategy to overcome this would either emphasize increasing signal or
lowering noise, or both.

The message of Robert was about the strategies to increase the signal.

Do I understand it correctly?

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:

[snipping lots of good stuff, which however would make this message
rather long if kept]

I think it has much to do with size. Not just size of encyclopedia,
but even more size of the volunteer group. When that group gets too
small, people get disinterested, but when the group gets too big, the
same thing happens. The optimum may be with a group of regulars
(meaning people doing edits daily or at least weekly) of about 20
people, you know everybody, and if you keep your eyes open, you know
what they are working on too. If someone new comes along, they are
welcomed, and if it appears that that's a "good" person (meaning that
they stay and make good edits), that gets you happy, excited.

Now compare that with the situation at the English or German or Dutch
Wikipedia. There's no way of keeping an overview of that. When I came
to Wikipedia (here speaks the real oldtimer), I spend an hour at the
end of the day to look through what the other Wikipedians were working
on, and then helped or corrected them a bit, or did some work on my
own. Nowadays, the English Wikipedia has about 80 edits _per minute_.
One can become a regular with some existing busy, well-meaning
regulars not even having noticed you. All in all, the project has
become unpersonal. Wikipedia regulars are as unable to see what the
Wikipedia is doing or influence it as the average Joe on the internet.

It also means that there are more and more conflicts. One will react
quite differently if the person with whom one is cooperating for quite
a while does something to a page one considers detrimental than when
someone that one just might have heard of a few times does the same.
Not to mention that most conflicts come into existence because _two_
problematic characters come into collission. And the number of such
pairs (and thus the possibility of conflict) grows quadratically with
the number of Wikipedians.

--
André Engels, andreengels@...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Goodman]

The usual solution to this in organizations and in human society more
generally  is compartmentalization with the concomitant development of
formal and informal links between the compartments.

At some stage, there also develops a need for centralized direction,
to keep the compartments from fragmenting and diverging too far. The
modern solution to this is some sort of federalism., As most of us are
accustomed to such societies, Wikipedia can be expected to naturally
develop in this direction. I think some such concept is underlying
most of the realistic proposals.



David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:
>
> [snipping lots of good stuff, which however would make this message
> rather long if kept]
>
> I think it has much to do with size. Not just size of encyclopedia,
> but even more size of the volunteer group. When that group gets too
> small, people get disinterested, but when the group gets too big, the
> same thing happens. The optimum may be with a group of regulars
> (meaning people doing edits daily or at least weekly) of about 20
> people, you know everybody, and if you keep your eyes open, you know
> what they are working on too. If someone new comes along, they are
> welcomed, and if it appears that that's a "good" person (meaning that
> they stay and make good edits), that gets you happy, excited.
>
> Now compare that with the situation at the English or German or Dutch
> Wikipedia. There's no way of keeping an overview of that. When I came
> to Wikipedia (here speaks the real oldtimer), I spend an hour at the
> end of the day to look through what the other Wikipedians were working
> on, and then helped or corrected them a bit, or did some work on my
> own. Nowadays, the English Wikipedia has about 80 edits _per minute_.
> One can become a regular with some existing busy, well-meaning
> regulars not even having noticed you. All in all, the project has
> become unpersonal. Wikipedia regulars are as unable to see what the
> Wikipedia is doing or influence it as the average Joe on the internet.
>
> It also means that there are more and more conflicts. One will react
> quite differently if the person with whom one is cooperating for quite
> a while does something to a page one considers detrimental than when
> someone that one just might have heard of a few times does the same.
> Not to mention that most conflicts come into existence because _two_
> problematic characters come into collission. And the number of such
> pairs (and thus the possibility of conflict) grows quadratically with
> the number of Wikipedians.
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Renata St]

I think is is most excellent write-up of my thoughts. Wikipedia is no longer
"new and exciting"... Internet's attention span is short & people are
looking for something more exciting to do. (that and all the community
behavior / communication issues that drive newbies away).

What to do about it?

a) Revolutionary software update
b) Friendlier community
c) Emphasize "we are not done yet - not even close"

Renata


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> wrote:

> I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now.  As I reflect
> on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that
> the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned.  (I'm going to
> frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though
> I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.)  It's a
> qualitative sense that the community is less active and excited about
> what they are doing today than they used to be.  Some data supports
> this, like the declines in editor activity and administrator
> attrition, though I think I perceive it most directly as a change in
> the experience of being in the community.
>
> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
> own success.  We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
> become a household name, and created a top web destination.  Great
> job.  What now?
>
> Most of our processes and policies have changed little in years.  Most
> of the recent software changes are small and evolutionary rather than
> revolutionary.  Compared to the days when parser functions, templates,
> cite, and other things were being introduced, it is rare to see
> changes that excite people and grow to be widely used.  There are
> perhaps a few such things still promised on the horizon (e.g. open
> street maps), but mostly it seems like we've become satisfied with
> what we have and are slow to change.  In the editing community, we see
> a growing interest in removing redlinks on the theory that if it
> hasn't been started yet how interesting can it really be, or worse
> deleting stubs and other incomplete articles because no one seems
> interested in finishing them.  At the Foundation level, we see efforts
> to leverage Wikipedia with third party deals (e.g. Orange) and
> important incremental improvements (e.g. Usability), but it is rare to
> even consider whole new projects or have anyone articulate a grand new
> vision.
>
> I'm wondering what people think about this.  On the one hand we could
> simply accept it.  We've already created a world changing
> encyclopedia.  We can embrace Wikipedia for what it is and accept that
> maintaining it will not be as exciting as building it.  That's the
> direction I think we've implicitly been following, by inertia if no
> other reason.  We allow the policies, processes, and structures we
> have now to become entrenched, and focus on ensuring that the work
> which already exists will persist into the future.  That would still
> be a great achievement, but it is not sexy, and I think we would
> continue to see a slowing and contraction in the community.  Filling
> in details and improving prose, isn't going to easily attract
> volunteers.
>
> On the other hand, I think we could try to recapture some of the
> vision and fire of our initial growth.  Push for new tools (e.g.
> string functions, data storage mechanisms, new communication tools)
> and new projects (e.g. directory services, almanacs).  There any many
> risks with innovating.  It could backfire and damage what we have, but
> on the other hand having new things to do and a fresh vision could
> bring new energy to the community.
>
> Personally, I look at Wikimedia and think there is still a lot of room
> for expansion, innovation, and growth, but I also think we've become
> resistant to it.
>
> I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive
> the same trends, and what they think about the balance between
> innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the
> processes and products that we already have.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

But Renata how do you mandate a friendlier community?

How about, on the sidebar, we have a link for "Report Abuse".
Right now don't we sort of leave it up to each policeman to instruct the victim in how to report that they're being abused?  I still see the project as being too much of "The Fox Guarding the Chickens" for my taste.  There are too many people who want to join the police force because they want control and power.

Will



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> I think is is most excellent write-up of my thoughts. Wikipedia is no
> longer
> "new and exciting"... Internet's attention span is short & people are
> looking for something more exciting to do. (that and all the community
> behavior / communication issues that drive newbies away).
>
> What to do about it?
>
> a) Revolutionary software update
> b) Friendlier community
> c) Emphasize "we are not done yet - not even close"
>
> Renata
>

To realize that (almost) all articles about computer games, anime series
and Hollywood stars have been written. We just need to do a different
work.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 11/6/2009 3:10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
putevod@... writes:


> To realize that (almost) all articles about computer games, anime series
> and Hollywood stars have been written. We just need to do a different
> work.>>

I would say that most articles about Hollywood stars have been written, but
for example we have no articles on many B stars even if IMDb shows they had
20 or more items credited.

In addition, we have few articles on movies.  Sure we have the
blockbusters, but when you think that Hollywood puts out something like a hundred movies
a year (or more) we have only scratched the surface.  One hundred times 100
years of output.

On the nobility front, I constantly encounter gaps in our lists of "Lord of
such-and-such" (a place or title or designation).  This is more true for
the oldest parts of lines.  With a name like Yaroslav, I'm sure you see a lot
of gaps in the details of the Kievan and Polish rulers from a thousand years
ago.

On biography, comparing the DNB with what we have, there are plenty of
gaps.  And that was just the more comprehensive biography of English-language
people, without mentioning much on the rest of the world.  And mostly focused
on the British at that.

So that's just a few areas that need improvement if we're trying to be
comprehensive and not just current.

Will Johnson

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
It is a sad day when a "report abuse" button is equated with being more
friendly. When we want to become more friendly we have to encourage those
who want to be more frienldy and give them the tools to be more friendly and
at the same time the people who are effectively unfriendly to the newbies to
the people who do their best and chop of heads and are proud off it should
be relegated to the sidelines as a nuisance.

We do not need a police force, we do not want a police force we need social
workers, friendly counsellors who make life easy, friendly and collaborative
for us all.

Thanks,
    from Paris, GerardM

2009/11/5 <wjhonson@...>

> But Renata how do you mandate a friendlier community?
>
> How about, on the sidebar, we have a link for "Report Abuse".
> Right now don't we sort of leave it up to each policeman to instruct the
> victim in how to report that they're being abused?  I still see the project
> as being too much of "The Fox Guarding the Chickens" for my taste.  There
> are too many people who want to join the police force because they want
> control and power.
>
> Will
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

Right Gerard, I agree with you completely.
Now how do you actually do it?  That's the biggest problem.
We can talk about needing to be more friendly.  Not just to the newbies by the way.
I remember having been on the project for over a year when I got my first 3RR.
I'd never heard of it before, had no idea what it meant, no idea what to do about it, or how to complain that I was being treated unfairly in the situation.  (Turns out later, the victimizers were sock puppets and collaborators in abusing others.)

What actual specific things would you implement to make the project friendlier?

Will Johnson




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Renata St]

>
> What actual specific things would you implement to make the project
> friendlier?
>

Say:

1. Welcome new users (re-launch "kindness campaign" - the other day I
welcomed a couple new users with 20+ edits since 2007) - more personalized,
the better.

2. Have at least 2-3 hour delay on speedy deletes. No deletion until user's
concerns on talk have been answered.

3. No blocking without min 2 warnings (except for known persistent vandals).
Seen some users blocked with 1 or no warnings at all.

4. Go easy on the reverts, especially marking them "vandalism". Good faith
edits -> try to incorporate them somewhere.
    4a. 1RR for established users.

5. Go easy on templated warnings. Personalize as much as possible.

6. Make dispute resolution quicker & simplier. How? Um... Just by being more
decisive. Block/Don't block/Revert/Protect/War/Parole/etc. and move on. The
lingering, the wiki-law-ering, the appeals create all the drama.

In other words, more tolerance to innocent newbies & less for trolls,
pov-pushers, etc.

That could be a start.

Renata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

How about this one.  Every arrest (read block for 24 hours or longer) must be approved by an "Admin Supervisor" (let's just call it for now).  That Admin Supervisor, must use a Real Name and be Verified.

That by itself, would greatly cut down on the policing actions of those who are, shall we say, less scrupulous than others.  Of course we'd still need a way to ensure that the Verified admin, is not the same person as a sock running the blocks, and is impartial, unbiased and uninvolved.

No block may be longer than 24 hours without the approval of the community-at-large, no matter what the infraction.  Otherwise, we need a system of judges and juries who are *not* the same persons as the police and prison wardens.  What we have now, essentially allows a single person, or a single group of "friends" to be police, prosecutor, jury, judge, bailiff, and warden.  That in my opinion is what drives away a significant number of good prospects and it should stop.

We should not be requiring individuals to know ninety six rules just to thwart policemen who think they want to harass the person out of the project.  Don't think it doesn't happen.  It happens all the time.  We need an Office of the Editor Advocate, and have it be obvious to all editors how to reach it.

Will Johnson




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Philippe Beaudette-2]

<koff koff> Strategy Wiki <koff>

All joking aside, there's a whole task force for community health  
dealing with exactly these issues.

It's at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Enhance_community_health_and_culture_task_force

I know they'd love your input...

Philippe


On Nov 7, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Renata St wrote:

>>
>> What actual specific things would you implement to make the project
>> friendlier?
>>
>
> Say:
>
> 1. Welcome new users (re-launch "kindness campaign" - the other day I
> welcomed a couple new users with 20+ edits since 2007) - more  
> personalized,
> the better.
>
> 2. Have at least 2-3 hour delay on speedy deletes. No deletion until  
> user's
> concerns on talk have been answered.
>
> 3. No blocking without min 2 warnings (except for known persistent  
> vandals).
> Seen some users blocked with 1 or no warnings at all.
>
> 4. Go easy on the reverts, especially marking them "vandalism". Good  
> faith
> edits -> try to incorporate them somewhere.
>    4a. 1RR for established users.
>
> 5. Go easy on templated warnings. Personalize as much as possible.
>
> 6. Make dispute resolution quicker & simplier. How? Um... Just by  
> being more
> decisive. Block/Don't block/Revert/Protect/War/Parole/etc. and move  
> on. The
> lingering, the wiki-law-ering, the appeals create all the drama.
>
> In other words, more tolerance to innocent newbies & less for trolls,
> pov-pushers, etc.
>
> That could be a start.
>
> Renata
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation

philippe@...

mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l