diversity
It looks like realism to me. When I encounter those who focus on a desired outcome and then plan to deploy activity but ignore the actual problem I am saddened. A parallel case is the bad reputation of Wikipedia in academic circles; there are those who want to organize a PR-campaign to polish up the image, while in reality the quality of Wikipedia is very uneven, with articles ranging from very good to pretty horrible. It is possible to spend any amount of time, money and effort in activities that will not help the actual situation, or even make it worse. - Brya 06:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I know you probably thought you were making an analogy, but it really just seemed like you were changing the subject. There's nothing unrealistic that lowering the cost (in time) of something will cause more people to buy it (volunteer their time).
Talking about changing the topic! There are only a few cases where "lowering the cost (in time) of something will cause more people to buy it (volunteer their time)." will apply, as in "working with LiquidThreads costs 4× as long as the regular way, so I will only rarely bother". In most other cases the analogy is pointless.
Of course there is a real cost (in money) in contributing anything at an encyclopedic level, but there is not much that would reduce that cost. It might be possible to prevent the increase of cost added by the community. - Brya 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot we can do to reduce the cost of contributing. Basically, anything that makes it easier or faster, and anything that reduces wasted effort.
Well, a lot depends on what is meant by "contribute". The costs of contributing content at an encyclopedic level cannot be much influenced by anything done within Wikipedia. But, yes, the cost in time for a user working off a list of tasks-to-do, or of things-missing can probably be reduced. However, it is not unlikely that this will add to the real costs for those who belong to the first group. - Brya 05:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deploy activity? I've just asked a question: How are you going to get that native Hawaiian who is playing World of Warcraft to decide they'll play for 30 minutes less today, and contribute to Wikipedia? I challenge you to actually answer that question rather than deploring it. Or are you saying that right now, we don't need any more contributors (diverse or otherwise)?
As I pointed out several times already, it is the wrong question (to ask, to answer). Strategy is about finding the right questions. - Brya 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see "How do we get more people from more cultures to participate?" is the wrong question to ask when diversity and participation are two of the stated goals of the movement. Because that's what "How are you going to get that native Hawaiian who is playing World of Warcraft to decide they'll play for 30 minutes less today, and contribute to Wikipedia?" is really asking.
Maybe if you decide to focus on Hawaiians you might lose at the same time grip on Norwegians which is hopefully not the goal of Wikipedia and not meant by diversity. If Haiwaiians are happy playing more WoW and less contributing to WP (hypothetically of course), I am fine with it. Diversity in my opinion can only mean to be as open to all cultures as possible and not willingly and unwillingly hinder one group from contributing, so to speak staying neutral. I should not mean to focus on the trophies we not yet have collected. Or should it?
I don't think anyone was saying "let's reach out to one group and exclude everyone else". Really, the issue is that the vast majority of Wikimedia volunteers are young white males from English-speaking countries. The goal is to reach out / open up to a lot of different groups.
If I start a club tomorrow, and make it "open to all cultures as possible," that doesn't make it diverse. Diverse is about actual representation, not openness.
The Wikimedia Foundation has already targeted certain cultures/areas for development and are giving grants for development in those areas. So talking about whether particular groups should be targeted is moot: they already are.
My questions relate to how you get someone who is not a contributor to become one. Besides time-prioritization, there are also access factors: they've got to already be computer users. Then they've got to be internet users. Then wikipedia readers. Before those steps are taken, contribution is not possible.
Those who are already habitual internet users are more likely to time-prioritize Wikipedia contributions higer. I bet we could come up with a list of factors that make contribution more likely. Market research can do some pretty amazing things, like tell what occupations and hobbies make someone more likely to be a contributor. Even what sorts of products they own may predict contribution to Wikipedia.
To me the problem is simple (solution less so): We need more diversity and participation. This will require getting more contributors in groups that are underrepresented. That in turn requires getting people in said groups who are not currently contributing to contribute. These people already fill their day with other activities. We need to figure out how to get them to add Wikipedia to their lives. Adding 30 minutes to a 24 hour day formerly occupied by other things requires removing 30 minutes of another activity (whether that be spending less time doing something, or spending less time doing nothing doesn't matter...that 30 minutes has to come from somewhere).
The Wikimedia Foundation is targeting various groups through local chapters. I'm a member of Wikimedia Philippines. If the Wikimedia Foundation does research, and finds some ways to increase contribution, then gives that information to all the chapters, I highly doubt that Wikimedia Philippines efforts here will hamper the efforts of Wikimedia Norway.