Talk:Question of the week/Archives/2009-12-21

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg
This page uses the LiquidThreads discussion system. Try discussing in sandbox. Click "Start a new discussion" to begin a new discussion on this page.

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Is this week a failure?218:45, 21 December 2009
European Union003:48, 19 December 2009
Figures for France, Britain & Germany003:32, 19 December 2009
Please revise the graph and maybe the text as well.218:03, 16 December 2009
Why are the number of users _and_ rank the criteria for a need in participation?021:59, 15 December 2009
Iran020:23, 15 December 2009
Query319:16, 15 December 2009
France009:28, 15 December 2009

Is this week a failure?

I apologize to resort to a such provocative title but i really think that this week question doesn't receive a beginning of answer.

Instead this week, we discussed near exclusively around the diagnosis meaning the numbers and the graphic and whatever statistics are the most relevant.

KrebMarkt16:59, 20 December 2009

I agree that this week's been a bit of a dud. I think we got off track initially by posting a graphic that confused, but it is disappointing that there hasn't been a lot of discussion on the substance of the question.

One thing I think about when I look at this graphic is that even within markets where Wikimedia is very popular (e.g., U.S.A and Germany), there are a lot of people who are online who are not visiting the site. Why is that? Thinking about Wikimedia's future audience, could Wikimedia hope to increase its market share in these places, and, if so, by what factor? What would need to be done to achieve that? Clearly there are different answers for different places, but maybe there are some common themes?

208.17.119.6018:43, 21 December 2009
 

Oops...wasn't logged in when I made that last comment.

Laura23118:45, 21 December 2009
 

European Union

Why not have a big figure for the EU as a whole instead of singling out Britain France and Germany while removing the 24 other EU countries ? Teofilo 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Teofilo03:48, 19 December 2009

Figures for France, Britain & Germany

According to internetworldstats.com, Internet User Statistics & Population for the 27 European Union member states, updated for September 30, 2009, the connected population is

France 43,100,000 69.3 % of population
United Kingdom 46,684,000 76.4 % of population
Germany 54,229,000 65.9 % of population

The figures on File:Question_of_the_week_12-14.png mention 48 million online people for the UK and 62 million for Germany in 2008. These figures neither match the 38 million e-marketer figure for Britain in 2008 mentioned on this page nor the 46 million e-marketer Germany 2008 figure or the 37 million Nielsen "active internet home users" June 2009 figure for Germany here.

For France, File:Question_of_the_week_12-14.png says 31 million, but Nielsen had 34.85 million in January 2008 and 40.13 million people in November 2008.

Which figures are reliable ? Teofilo 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Teofilo03:32, 19 December 2009

Please revise the graph and maybe the text as well.

The graph needs to clearly state what a "current user" is. That would presumably either be a reader, in which case it needs to state how "current reader" is defined (a unique visitor during a week or a month, for example), or an editor, in which case the number for the U.S. is clearly wrong (60 million people are not now currently editing; it's quite unlikely that 60 million people have cumulatively edited the English version of Wikipedia). [In Wikipedia, the term "user" is traditionally used for an editor, not a reader, by the way.]

Related to this, the text above the graph says The following graph shows that there are some key countries with a large online populations where Wikipedia still has significant room to increase the number of users and active participants. The graph could not possible be showing both, since it presents only two figures for each country, a "potential" and an "actual". The "actual" could be either "users" (readers?) or editors ("active participants"), but it can't be both. So unless the graph is significantly changed by adding a third figure for each country, the text also needs to be changed.

John Broughton17:11, 16 December 2009

Both fair points, John. I'll ping Bridgespan about updating the graph.

Eekim17:36, 16 December 2009
 

Thanks for raising these issues with the graphic and text, John, we will revise to clarify. Our intent was just to focus on readers/visitors - probably confusing to use the term "users" given traditional terminology

Laura231 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Laura23118:03, 16 December 2009
 

Why are the number of users _and_ rank the criteria for a need in participation?

I find the "question of the week" weirdly formulated. The assumption that the rank that Wikipedia has in a country determines that the number of users needs to be increased seems to make no sense in some countries, France being a definite example of that. If you look at the French numbers (Médiamétrie) Wikipedia ranks 9, with 15 million unique visitors (a little less than 50% of the online population). Even with Comscore numbers, Wikipedia in France has a reach of 30% of the online population, same as the US.

In the end, I think the criteria for deciding which of the countries are in need of "tactics to increase the number of users" should be decided on different numbers. I am no statistician, but I'm thinking that a ratio online population/total population(in age of writing on wp) should be the first criteria, and the second should be the percentage of online users reached by Wikipedia.

With such numbers, one could then decide whether tactics need to include a better online communication, for example, or on the contrary find ways to reach a public offline.

Ranking, as I see it, bears little relevance to the topic at hand. If Wikipedia is number 98 in a country, but reaches 98% of the online population (while the other 97 websites reach 100% of the population), I hardly see how we can increase participation :). Delphine (notafish) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Delphine (notafish)21:59, 15 December 2009

Users in Iran (and elsewhere) are often forced to use proxies or the tor network to access our wikis. In general, this means they are using very slow connections. We should endeavour to create a use mode for small pipes - both for browsing and for editing (small css, no js, tiny or no images...).

 — Mike.lifeguard | @meta20:23, 15 December 2009

Did anyone bothered to contact concerned wikipedia project for inputs?

KrebMarkt08:05, 15 December 2009

I dropped a line in the French wikipedia.

KrebMarkt09:07, 15 December 2009

We have consistently asked users here to report back to their wikis and help to make sure people there know what is going on. In addition, I've been to every wiki at some point during this process and asked them to be involved.

~Philippe (WMF)15:15, 15 December 2009
 

Far from my eyes, far from my heart.

You did what you could no complain here.

My question was related to the question of the week about the statistics & ranking provided. Do we have contacted concerned wikis by this question and for this question. I guess my first post was not precise enough, sorry.

KrebMarkt19:16, 15 December 2009
 
 

According to Mediametrie//NetRatings, Wikipedia ranks between number 7 and 12 in Médiamétrie/Netratings’ ranking of the most visited websites since September 2006.

wikipedia.org’s audience in France in October 2009 amounted to 15.3 million unique visitors. This figure corresponds to the number of unduplicated unique users. With this audience wikipedia.org ranks number 9 in Médiamétrie/ Netratings’ ranking of the most visited websites for October 2009.

44% of Internet users (11+, home and work locations) visited Wikipedia in October.

Wikipedia's unique visitors in France grew by 13% year-on-year in October 2009.

Year Unique visitors Growth rate
october 2009 15 313 000 13.71%
october 2008 13 467 000 36.90%
october 2007 9 837 000 55.72%
october 2006 6 317 000
~Pyb09:28, 15 December 2009