|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Just creating a new section||1||21:26, 15 December 2011|
|how to cite/reference Former Contributors Survey Results||0||17:34, 25 April 2011|
|Getting some different stats||0||19:08, 20 March 2011|
|RE:Volunteers support||3||20:26, 9 December 2010|
|hey howie||0||16:09, 26 April 2010|
|survey||1||01:58, 9 December 2009|
Hi, I know the results on this page (Former Contributors Survey Results) are preliminary, but I was wondering how I might go about citing it in an academic article. Is there an official publication or author I can reference? Thanks for your help. (email is okay: email@example.com)
Howie, I'm trying to validate the explanation I proposed for the results of the "Editor Trends Survey" (the thread What happened in May 2007? - should have been April) but I don't know how to get through to the right person. What I believe is at that time the proportion of new editors who became fully active (ie 5 or 10 edits) changed significantly. To prove that I need a dump of the number of edits done by each user each month (or some slightly smaller interval) in the English wiki going back to the beginning. How do I go about getting that? Chris55 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As you asked a more elaborate answer, i will give it to you.
How should i react when i learn things directly or indirectly related to Strategic Planning discussions from something like the Signpost instead of hearing of those things here.
First example Wikimedia Five-Year Targets. I do think that someone from the Foundation should had the courtesy to drop a line about that document in Strategic Planning village pump as isn't it here that the "means" to achieve those objectives are discussed & formalized.
Second example Executive Summary/Trends/Strategies which i learned the very from existence from this issue of the Signpost. Does the person who posted this article even thought that there could interested editors in Strategic Planning wiki.
Like others wikis, Strategic Planning is two things contents & interactions. Contents are here, i admit, not that greatly organized and interactions here more than other wikis if you do not "actively" seek them, you will have neither comments nor feedbacks.
Lately the Foundation doesn't always put the relevant contents or links to them and interactions wise it is acting as if it want the posted contents buried & forgotten. Don't think for granted that volunteers will eventually "fix" the situation and connected the dots as at that game volunteers will tire first long before the Foundation.
Sorry for my average English.
This is a totally fair comment and we've unfortunately been lagging behind in connecting the dots on-wiki. As you've seen we've asked some of our new hires and contractors like Mani and Diederik to do their work publicly on this wiki, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily always clear what's going on, and yes, there's still syncing up to do on basic things like the five-year targets approved by the Board. We'll do better, I promise. We absolutely are not intending for this wiki to die, quite the opposite. I'll post a longer update to the village pump when I can.
Howie, can you use a bit of December to bring people here on the wiki up-to-speed on some of the ongoing projects as well?
Would something like a "What's New"/"Active Projects" page help? The goal of this page would be to capture the major projects that are currently happening on Strategy Wiki. This way, there would be one place for people to look to find updates on active projects.
Sorry to not reply sooner. I was caught in the snowstorm that hits Paris area yesterday.
Maybe in the form of issues posted in the Village pump. So anyone could add informations on missed events/proposals and comments on the new/ongoing ones. We can have a link on the main page pointing to the current issue & related discussion.
We need something that offers both flexibility & conviviality to entice readers/contributors to add their 2 cents to the thread.
Hey Howie, could we get one last look at the survey before you throw it up?
I promise not to raise so much of a stink that it becomes too long. But just want to be sure that the most important questions are there, and take one last look at the phrasing. Some of the stuff we had was sloppy.
(Just reposting this in case you miss it.)