2015[edit]

Effecting real change[edit]

Hi – we met at the 'London conference' (I still can't bear to use its real name) in August. I was banned at the time, but I am back, incredibly. A number of us are working to make the place better – my concern is to get back some of the specialist editors in philosophy after the upheavals of 2007-9. I actually think the place is better in some ways than then, but the main problem is the tumbleweeds. I can't believe I made some major changes to a flagship article, with significant changes suggested on the talk page, and nothing has happened. There are about two editors interested in that article, despite it being one of the most prominent subjects in the history of philosophy.

Anyway, some of those of us who are interested in change see it only coming from the direction of the WMF, but we have a concern that the WMF is only a 'technology' organisation, and is spending a fortune on attracting new non-specialist editors, when some of us think that only makes the problem worse, and that the focus should be on making the quality better. That means establishing quality metrics, working out what makes articles better, working out what type of editor brings this about, and so on.

I assume that Lila Tretikoff is simply working to generic objectives set out by the WMF board, and that in order to achieve real change we would have to influence the board. Is that correct? And if so, how would we set about this? Peter Damian (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a good article about the kind of thing some people are worried about. Wikimedia raises a lot of money from people who like the idea of promoting knowledge. Wikipedia has a duty to those donors, and to its readers. It's not just about 'the community'. Why can't it also be about knowledge? Peter Damian (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, while the WMF may be able to effect a particular real change, it is not necessarily either the source or enabler of it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Rich is right. Most change does not require such centralized support, and experiments happen faster without it. Once you've found something that works, if you want to develop that into a global campaign you may find central publicity, coordination, and reimbursement of overhead to be helpful. Promoting knowledge, curating and improving it, are all key to success of the projects - but the essential parts of this are owned and prioritized by the project communities. The WMF and other structured organizations primarily support that work, and develop related features and services on request. Where the WMF has tried to address perceived needs with no active community-run initiative, that has not always worked out well.

One way to guide change: consolidate ideas for change into concise priorities. Indicate which groups support those priorities, and what is needed to realize them. Test small experiments to verify ideas for what might be effective. Run your own banner and outreach campaigns. Encourage other community groups to repeat those experiments.

If you run into a challenge that requires a centralized group of staff or partners, you can directly engage staff to help. Propose ideas directly to community tech teams, and as feature requests. Apply for project grants. Even changes to WMF strategy can be raised directly with staff, who ask for public feedback at least once a year (for instance on the annual plan, which will be posted for public comment this coming week).

Strategic ideas are also worth discussing publicly with the board, who directly influence that scale of WMF effort. But that is not the only way to realize change. – SJ + 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.I have a very simple ambition: to improve the flagship philosophy articles on Wikipedia from their current dire state. The current 'community' on Wikipedia does not have the ability or probably the interest in doing that. First question: would the WMF be able to help me achieve this outcome? Ideas for realising it: develop quality metrics, monitor quality, try and find out who is adding value, find ways of attracting them to Wikipedia etc. The problem is that there were quite a few people involved in my subject area before 2008, but they have now left.

" Test small experiments to verify ideas for what might be effective." One idea is for me to develop the Free will article into something comparable to the quality of a professionally produced encyclopedia article. I will then pay, out of my own pocket, the costs of reviewing the article, by a professional. Anthonyhcole is proposing something similar for medical articles. This would be a lot of work for me, and I would only do it if there were some indication of interest from the WMF.

"Propose ideas directly to community tech teams, and as feature requests" As I said above, it's not the technology that's the problem. It's the wasting away of volunteers, for many reasons that I won't go into here. Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Vote Sj for trustee! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I second that. (Hi Bish!)

Peter, if you can get one of our philosophy articles up to perfect, and then get it endorsed by independent (I don't think you, the author, should be selecting or paying the reviewer/s - but let's discuss that elsewhere), named, recognised experts, a WMF community tech team will knock up a badge or button for the top of the article linking the reader to the endorsed version (and a nice diff, so the reader can easily see the difference between the endorsed and the current versions). When that time comes, ping me and anyone else who supports the idea and we'll put together a request for that feature.

Regarding quality measurement, I think it's time for us to initiate a WikiProject aimed at that. I'm running out the door for the day now, but will open that discussion on your talk page either tonight or tomorrow (Perth time). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Thanks for all your work as a trustee through your term. Having had fingers in pies but not for your benefit I thought you should have your own one. :) Greg Kaye 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, Greg, and most tastily appreciated. Wishing you a lovely northern summer. – SJ + 03:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find someone or something to verify my account's contribution to this project[edit]

Hello SJ:

As both of us have contributed to this project for more than 10 years, I felt more confident to converse with you on this issue. My first edit according to my contribution history was 5 June 2002. So if I am asked for that history, can I quote that history ? After many years of wikimedia project which branches out of wikipedia, is my contribution history here still accountable as a record of my work ? This question is important as a proof. --- Ktsquare (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktsquare, you can certainly quote it as a record of your work. Why not? Warmly, – SJ + 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]