IRC office hours/2009-11-03

[2009-11-03 11::53:05] » cimon joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::53:12] » randmontoya left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::53:40] » randmontoya joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::54:28] » bodnotbod joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::54:35] » hejko left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::56:16] cimon: hoo-ah!

[2009-11-03 11::56:24] eekim: hi cimon

[2009-11-03 11::56:54] cary: let me get my lunch

[2009-11-03 11::57:15] eekim: hey cary!

[2009-11-03 11::57:20] cimon: Just anot reight at the top from me. I am suffering horrible connectivity problems so if I get into a convo and become unresponsive for minutes or more, please advise people of my current travails.

[2009-11-03 11::57:34] eekim: no problem, cimon

[2009-11-03 11::58:22] cary: and call 9-1-1

[2009-11-03 11::58:26] cimon: Really got ripped another one, sweating bullets an hour ago during the Board of Trustees meeting of Wikimedia Finland.

[2009-11-03 11::58:54] eekim: why?

[2009-11-03 11::59:18] cimon: I was disconnected right at the moment everybody was waiting on me.

[2009-11-03 11::59:23] randmontoya: Cimon, is WM FI going to join us in the fundraiser?

[2009-11-03 11::59:49] » Narodnik joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 11::59:52] cimon: and I didn't know it, just kept typing it in, thinking everybody was reading it, but just didn't have any comments...

[2009-11-03 12::00:16] eekim: ack

[2009-11-03 12::00:26] cimon: randmontoya, we aren't yet formally incorporated, but what do you mean?

[2009-11-03 12::00:27] eekim: i hate it when that happens

[2009-11-03 12::01:09] Narodnik: anything on the agenda?

[2009-11-03 12::01:31] » werdna joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::01:36] eekim: Narodnik, i'll do a quick update, then we'll hopefully engage with some of the questions/content on the wiki

[2009-11-03 12::01:44] Narodnik: great

[2009-11-03 12::02:05] eekim: a number of task forces have launched: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force

[2009-11-03 12::02:20] » engla joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::02:40] eekim: the selection committee is having trouble identifying fleshing out a few of them

[2009-11-03 12::03:38] geniice: hmm

[2009-11-03 12::03:46] eekim: according to Katie Filbert, who's facilitating the Arabic Task Force, we need to find some non-Egyptians to help flesh that Task Force out

[2009-11-03 12::04:12] » peteforsyth left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::04:24] cary: I know some non-egyptian arabic speakers...

[2009-11-03 12::04:40] eekim: cary, are they active in the community?

[2009-11-03 12::04:45] cary: Yes

[2009-11-03 12::04:56] geniice: I thought the egyptians were trying to argue that they didn't speak arabic

[2009-11-03 12::04:59] eekim: excellent, i'm going to hit you up after this

[2009-11-03 12::05:08] cary: geniice, that's not true.

[2009-11-03 12::06:14] » werdna_ joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::06:43] » werdna left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::06:52] » werdna_ is now known as werdna.

[2009-11-03 12::07:08] eekim: in other news, we've had a big spike in contributions over the past few weeks on the strategy wiki

[2009-11-03 12::07:39] Narodnik: eekim: do you think it has critical mass to achieve anything?

[2009-11-03 12::07:42] eekim: in particular, please look at the questions at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers

[2009-11-03 12::10:22] gopher65: Ok, that's really weird

[2009-11-03 12::10:28] » lyzzy joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::10:41] gopher65: Half of my sig tests (and accidents) are rendering green, and the other half are blue

[2009-11-03 12::11:02] eekim: gopher65, i think werdna's online; he can hopefully help you

[2009-11-03 12::11:12] gopher65: He has been, on the wiki;)

[2009-11-03 12::11:18] eekim: excellent

[2009-11-03 12::11:29] gopher65: But it's weird that *both* are showing up. One or the other I'd understand

[2009-11-03 12::11:48] lyzzy: hi

[2009-11-03 12::11:54] gopher65: But something's ****ed up if both colours are being randomly displayed by the same code

[2009-11-03 12::13:03] » ChrisiPK_ left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::13:12] eekim: what do people think about the questions on the wiki? http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers

[2009-11-03 12::13:15] geniice: eekim If you want more none pedia involvement you need to shorten that list of questions

[2009-11-03 12::13:38] bodnotbod: I use Firefox. Assuming you mean signatures on the wiki on talk pages, whether liquid threads or not, I haven't encountered any color problems.

[2009-11-03 12::13:43] GerardM-: eekim Martin Benjamin may be interested

[2009-11-03 12::14:06] werdna: gopher65: I'm here, actually

[2009-11-03 12::14:11] eekim: GerardM-, great! what's his username?

[2009-11-03 12::14:35] GerardM-: malangali

[2009-11-03 12::14:51] werdna: gopher65: I am not clear that it's strictly a LiquidThreads issue, I think it's a general parser problem, but I may be wrong :)

[2009-11-03 12::14:56] » ChrisiPK_ joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::15:20] geniice: eekim because there are too many of them and not all of them are relivant to say commons

[2009-11-03 12::15:21] GerardM-: this guy you mentioned ... he is a LOT catholic

[2009-11-03 12::16:20] eekim: geniice: don't you think there are non-pedia project people who are interested in the higher level questions? not just those specific to projects?

[2009-11-03 12::16:32] werdna: that's a lot of questions, maybe it makes sense to identify some very very critical ones and put them on the main page

[2009-11-03 12::17:25] eekim: in any case, for project-specific questions, start with: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Expanding_Content_Task_Force

[2009-11-03 12::18:18] geniice: eekim I'm sure there are but why should commons care about "What has the impact of policy proliferation had on the quality of articles and article contributions?"

[2009-11-03 12::18:48] eekim: you're right; there are clearly lots of pedia-specific questions

[2009-11-03 12::18:50] GerardM-: no the guy you pointed out

[2009-11-03 12::19:06] eekim: GerardM-: oh, you mean Cristian?

[2009-11-03 12::19:08] » quanticle joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::19:17] werdna: eekim: just the table of contents of that page is a little frightening :)

[2009-11-03 12::19:48] eekim: that's fair

[2009-11-03 12::20:32] GerardM-: geniice is that not a problem of the English WIkipedia ? and is it not the copycats that are the problem in the others ?

[2009-11-03 12::21:35] geniice: IT's an issue on in? Commons? Commons probably has some policy and one day I plan to find out what it is but it isn't generaly an issue. Commons is also not know for it's articles

[2009-11-03 12::22:03] » Prodego joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::22:25] werdna: eekim: well, the actual layout beyond the TOC is quite good. I think mostly you want to (1) divide them by where people are interested. Primarily that should be by project, byut also by other areas.

[2009-11-03 12::22:35] bodnotbod: My trouble with the questions isn't so much the number but more how to answer them. Personally, unless they're answered in the data already provided to strategy I don't know how to get info.

[2009-11-03 12::23:03] cimon: GerardM-, what do you mean by copycats, I really am interested... ?

[2009-11-03 12::23:05] werdna: i.e. Questions relating to English Wikipedia Articles. Questions related to imprioving global reach. Questions related to expanding our coverage of media files. Questions relating to allowing our community to scale.

[2009-11-03 12::23:12] eekim: werdna, that's a good suggestion. each question + discussion is its own page, so we can make multiple entrypoints

[2009-11-03 12::23:31] werdna: I know you've done that to an extent, but you still have e.g. GLAM questions in the bit about improving article quality.

[2009-11-03 12::23:32] GerardM-: there are people who want to implement the full English policies on inmature Wikipedias

[2009-11-03 12::23:56] eekim: bodnotbod: make sure you're capturing a list of the information you'd like to have

[2009-11-03 12::24:05] cimon: GerardM-, and you want to implement the full localisation of all messages...

[2009-11-03 12::24:09] eekim: then we can try to get folks to help find that information

[2009-11-03 12::24:09] bodnotbod: OK, eekim.

[2009-11-03 12::24:16] quanticle: So, quick question: How "high-level" is this conversation to be? I have some ideas about scalability, but I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to discuss details at this preliminary stage.

[2009-11-03 12::24:23] GerardM-: and the worst thing are the polcy wonks of the en.wp who insist that their policies have to be translated in every language

[2009-11-03 12::24:41] cimon: GerardM-, That is just not accurate.

[2009-11-03 12::24:42] GerardM-: cimon I do

[2009-11-03 12::24:57] eekim: quanticle: ultimately, the recommendations should be high-level

[2009-11-03 12::25:04] cimon: GerardM-, show me one instance of a person who wants all policies translated to all languages?

[2009-11-03 12::25:05] werdna: eekim: oh, I forgot (2), which is prioritisation

[2009-11-03 12::25:11] eekim: however, the details are certainly critical in fleshing out those high-level suggestions

[2009-11-03 12::25:20] werdna: what is THE MOST important question about improiving GLAM co-operation?

[2009-11-03 12::25:33] gopher65: "[14:14] <werdna> gopher65: I am not clear that it's strictly a LiquidThreads issue, I think it's a general parser problem, but I may be wrong :)"

[2009-11-03 12::25:34] GerardM-: quanticle scalability of what ?

[2009-11-03 12::25:46] gopher65: I assumed it was a liquidthreads problem because I'd never encountered it before today

[2009-11-03 12::25:50] eekim: for example, we certainly care about scalability, especially if 1. we plan on reaching many more users; 2. we plan on converting more readers to editors; 3. we plan on supporting more multimedia

[2009-11-03 12::26:00] werdna: gopher65: that's a fair assumption to make :)

[2009-11-03 12::26:02] quanticle: eekim: Well, have we looked at the underlying technology platform for Wikipedia? Fundamentally, I'm not sure that the Apache/PHP infrastructure can be modified to grow much more.

[2009-11-03 12::26:08] gopher65: I just went around to other wikimedia sites, and suddenly, for the first time, I'm having the same problems there too

[2009-11-03 12::26:09] werdna: but I'm not sure

[2009-11-03 12::26:09] eekim: so we need to understand what the scalability implications are, and we have to figure out how to resource ourselves and prepare

[2009-11-03 12::26:21] gopher65: So I'm wondering: was there a change to media wiki in the past day that could have caused this?

[2009-11-03 12::26:33] quanticle: GerardM-: Scalability of Wikipedia to handle 1 x 10^9+ pageviews per month.

[2009-11-03 12::26:39] werdna: gopher65: can we chat in #mediawiki or #wikimedia-tech so as not to flood this channel?

[2009-11-03 12::26:39] gopher65: (I updated my signature everywhere, so it won't affect me anyway)

[2009-11-03 12::26:56] werdna: quanticle: You should speak to the tech team about that.

[2009-11-03 12::26:59] eekim: quanticle: i suspect mark and others have an answer to that

[2009-11-03 12::27:04] GerardM-: professor Tannenbaum is working on distributed MediaWiki

[2009-11-03 12::27:16] Prodego: distributed mediawiki

[2009-11-03 12::27:17] GerardM-: the one of minix fame

[2009-11-03 12::27:19] werdna: My understanding is that we are not hitting scalining limits.

[2009-11-03 12::27:20] Prodego: why would you want to do that

[2009-11-03 12::27:22] quanticle: Ah. Really? That's cool.

[2009-11-03 12::27:22] werdna: scaling*

[2009-11-03 12::27:29] eekim: that's my understanding as well

[2009-11-03 12::27:47] » Juandev left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::28:04] eekim: the bigger challenge is being proactive about scalability in preparation for possible major changes

[2009-11-03 12::28:06] cimon: GerardM-, ROTFLMAO

[2009-11-03 12::28:09] eekim: such as a spike in editing

[2009-11-03 12::28:15] quanticle: So the limits were hitting are social, rather than technological? That's both relieving and troubling. Social systems can be much more difficult to get right than technological systems.

[2009-11-03 12::28:32] werdna: quanticle: yes, that's about right :)

[2009-11-03 12::28:38] cimon: ROTFLMAOPIMP even

[2009-11-03 12::28:53] werdna: I'm hoping that LiquidThreads will be a big part of making our community scae again, assuming I can get it right :)

[2009-11-03 12::28:59] eekim: at the same time, our tools can help us address social systems

[2009-11-03 12::29:04] » Juandev joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::29:07] eekim: yes, werdna, absolutely

[2009-11-03 12::29:26] geniice: well we could always adopt Hudong's social networking aproach although trying to challange facebook is not om my todo list

[2009-11-03 12::29:31] Prodego: werdna: don't scale it in to youtube comments...

[2009-11-03 12::29:37] werdna: Prodego: hehe

[2009-11-03 12::30:13] quanticle: eekim: I'm not sure that there's much that we can do to handle massive surges in editing or usage over a short period of time, given the limited resources of the Wikimedia Foundation. We may just have to say that Wikipedia is not a safety critical system, so some level of degradation in those scenarios is acceptable.

[2009-11-03 12::30:25] eekim: although that's a fair question: should we think about integrating more social networking features into mediawiki?

[2009-11-03 12::30:37] werdna: I would say yes

[2009-11-03 12::30:37] eekim: quanticle: that's why we're developing a five year plan :-)

[2009-11-03 12::30:40] bodnotbod: I'm hoping the task force I'm on will look at 'social networking' style features that will make the site more "sticky" as webmasters say in their disgusting parlance. And also proposals to make editing more rewarding (without spending money).

[2009-11-03 12::30:47] werdna: not tagging photos, status updates, whatever.

[2009-11-03 12::30:48] geniice: werdna yuck. I refuse to use facebook untill it becomes less ppoulart

[2009-11-03 12::31:03] eekim: if the Foundation needs to raise more resources, it needs to start preparing for that now

[2009-11-03 12::31:23] werdna: But avatars, profiles, private messages, groups, contact lists, etc are all fantastic improvements

[2009-11-03 12::31:36] Prodego: strikes out avatars

[2009-11-03 12::32:08] eekim: one question i think that needs answering is, how should wikimedia test potential improvements?

[2009-11-03 12::32:10] quanticle: I'm not sure about having more social media features in Wikipedia. Lets not forget, social media (as a wide scale phenomenon) is still very new. No doubt, it will be around (in some form) in 5 years, but the exact form is still very much unknown.

[2009-11-03 12::32:34] eekim: for example, presumably, social media features will help participation, etc. but we shouldn't just guess. we should have a way of experimenting and seeing if this is actually the case.

[2009-11-03 12::32:36] bodnotbod: Social networking is addressed by these proposals, none of which inspire me much, but they could be built upon: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_for_new_social_features

[2009-11-03 12::32:37] GerardM-: eekim we are going to host a lot of video... so things will become more visible when they go wrong

[2009-11-03 12::32:47] Prodego: eekim: they might just distract people instead

[2009-11-03 12::32:51] cimon: quanticle, are money resources really starving the ability to expand technical hard iron supply?

[2009-11-03 12::32:56] quanticle: isn't sure about allowing avatars on Wikipedia - its an encyclopedia, not a forum.

[2009-11-03 12::33:05] eekim: Prodego, sure, that's a possibility. again, that's why we need to have an infrastructure to test changes

[2009-11-03 12::33:37] » Keegan joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::33:39] GerardM-: as to video ... we do not support subtitles

[2009-11-03 12::34:09] quanticle: cimon: I'm saying that, if there's some major event, and usage grows by a significant (>100%) amount over a short period of time, it might not be possible to handle the surge in a totally graceful fashion.

[2009-11-03 12::34:21] eekim: GerardM-, so there's a higher-level question

[2009-11-03 12::34:24] cimon: This is all hugely unfocused... Wikimedia will never be a social networking, that is just pie in the sky.

[2009-11-03 12::34:25] bodnotbod: I think any social networking features must have a direct favourable impact on content. I wouledn't want people just spending all day off-topic socialising on the servers. It should inspire contributions, not become an unrelated chit-chat.

[2009-11-03 12::34:32] eekim: should wikimedia adopt tools that are not already localized?

[2009-11-03 12::34:42] Prodego: the wikimedia stes could be a lot 'cooler' looking, and cleaner to use its looked the same and been the same for several years now. I think that would bring much more than any sort of social networking features. Certainly private messages and similar could be part of that.

[2009-11-03 12::34:54] geniice: quanticle Hudong is bigger than en. While it has serious copyvio issues it does appear to have some good dieas

[2009-11-03 12::35:09] eekim: cimon: wikia has implemented some social networking capabilities, and they've seen measurable improvements in participatoin

[2009-11-03 12::35:23] cimon: quanticle, Are you saying we don't have the resources to be more than adequately over and over robust?

[2009-11-03 12::35:24] GerardM-: in the mediawikiwave extension we have both real time collaborative editing AND realtext editing

[2009-11-03 12::35:30] quanticle: eekim: We are a community, but the foundation of the community is not (or, rather, should not be) individual egos. It should be the fact that we're all adding knowledge to and otherwise improving the shared venture that is Wkipedia.

[2009-11-03 12::35:32] werdna: Well, you have to understand why people contribute.

[2009-11-03 12::35:39] GerardM-: the coordination is helped with social structures

[2009-11-03 12::35:45] lyzzy: and they have a cool wysiwyg-editor

[2009-11-03 12::35:45] geniice: Prodego changeing to look for looking "cooler" is kinda dicey. At this point people associate monobook with looking factual

[2009-11-03 12::35:51] werdna: I contend that a very good reason that people stick around is because they enjoy participating in the community

[2009-11-03 12::36:03] Keegan: bodnotbod is right, that's why enwiki killed Esperanza

[2009-11-03 12::36:35] GerardM-: I know from the Wikivoices experience that it would be really important to integrate effort from multiple people

[2009-11-03 12::36:37] eekim: quanticle: This is my point. Your hypothesis is that social networking features might discourage shared knowledge. Others might disagree. Either way, we should be able to _test_ these ideas.

[2009-11-03 12::36:46] Keegan: We don't need private message options, we have email

[2009-11-03 12::36:47] GerardM-: they actually WORK together on articles

[2009-11-03 12::36:48] geniice: Hey if it gets us people who will improve our chess opening articles

[2009-11-03 12::37:02] Keegan: If it is on-wiki, it needs to be transparent

[2009-11-03 12::37:13] werdna: Keegan: what's the difference? I don't understand.

[2009-11-03 12::37:15] eekim: werdna: I'm going to start sounding like an echo. :-) That's a fair contention. But do we have a mechanism to actually test that contention?

[2009-11-03 12::37:24] » Dedalus_ left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::37:28] Keegan: If you're going to say it onwiki, say it

[2009-11-03 12::37:47] eekim: in general, i think one of our challenges is in the decision-making process

[2009-11-03 12::37:53] quanticle: The question, in my opinion, should not be about participation, per se. Wikipedia has plenty of participation. It will not die from lack of participation. No, the real question should be about content. In other words, is the "participation" that we are engendering translating into new content or improved versions of existing content?

[2009-11-03 12::37:55] eekim: everyone has opinions, and everyone argues for them, which is good

[2009-11-03 12::38:01] werdna: eekim: Yes, it's definitely something we'd like to test, if anybody knows how we can do it.

[2009-11-03 12::38:05] eekim: but do we have an opportunity to be more data-driven?

[2009-11-03 12::38:15] Prodego: geniice: people hate change, but a spiffy and easy to use interface is ultimately what draws them in

[2009-11-03 12::38:16] werdna: eekim: Definitely agree tht decision-making is a big problem.

[2009-11-03 12::38:22] Prodego: easy to use being the key thing

[2009-11-03 12::38:37] Keegan: eekim: being more data driven means more participants on other language wikis

[2009-11-03 12::38:40] cimon: eekim, wikia is a non-serious site, and not bieng focused is good for them. Wikimedia is a serious site, and becoming unravelled would not be a productivity boost.

[2009-11-03 12::38:43] geniice: if we wanted easy to use we wouldn't have moved away from classic

[2009-11-03 12::38:44] werdna: eekim: We're just using SecurePoll, a software-based voting mechanism, for our first on-wiki decision.

[2009-11-03 12::38:55] bodnotbod: Two social features that have occurred to me are 1) being able to message a group of users easily, for example all users who edited an article 2) A 'follow' feature which shows you chosen users' recent changes.

[2009-11-03 12::39:04] werdna: hopefully we can start using it for big decisions

[2009-11-03 12::39:19] quanticle: eekim: I agree that these ideas about social media should be tested. I, however, disagree that we should be the ones doing the _testing_. Why not have an API and allow people to write extensions to integrate Wikipedia with social media as they see fit?

[2009-11-03 12::39:26] eekim: cimon: lots of enterprises are adopting social media tools for serious work

[2009-11-03 12::39:59] cimon: social media != social networking

[2009-11-03 12::40:06] eekim: greater emphasis on APIs

[2009-11-03 12::40:11] lyzzy: eekim: teh problem is that test-wikis won't work, wekipedians don't want to leave their known area

[2009-11-03 12::40:14] eekim: so what resources would be required? what would be the benefits?

[2009-11-03 12::40:20] quanticle: Theoretically, Wikis themselves are social media.

[2009-11-03 12::40:41] eekim: lyzzy: you don't necessarily need test wikis. you could modify the existing infrastructure to launch small tests within the main projects

[2009-11-03 12::41:11] quanticle: eekim: Also, granted, I don't know *that* much about the Wikipedia API, so what I'm describing might already be there.

[2009-11-03 12::41:11] cimon: social networking = dating online | social media = editing together (to crassly simplify)

[2009-11-03 12::41:16] werdna: eekim: An example (for LiquidThreads) is the concept that it can be manually turned on per page.

[2009-11-03 12::41:29] eekim: werdna, absolutely

[2009-11-03 12::41:46] quanticle: werdna: What is/are LiquidThreads?

[2009-11-03 12::42:14] werdna: quanticle: It's a new discussion system that is being gradually deployed on Wikimedia sites (currently it's used oin some pages on the strategy wiki)

[2009-11-03 12::42:15] Keegan: agrees with cimon

[2009-11-03 12::42:28] werdna: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Village_pump

[2009-11-03 12::42:34] Emufarmers: de-friends Keegan.

[2009-11-03 12::43:12] GerardM-: the social network side will make a big difference in other wikipedias.. it is great when the en.wp does not have it

[2009-11-03 12::43:23] eekim: the point of strategic planning is not so much to debate feature possibilities

[2009-11-03 12::43:27] GerardM-: I do not care but do not squish it for others

[2009-11-03 12::43:33] quanticle: werdna: Do you have a link to a page that uses it? I'm interested in seeing what it looks like.

[2009-11-03 12::43:47] eekim: the point is to take a step back, consider our higher-level goals, and come up with _thoughtful_ ways to moving forward toward our higher purpose

[2009-11-03 12::43:47] werdna: I quanticle I just sent you one

[2009-11-03 12::44:03] Keegan: Emufarmers: lies

[2009-11-03 12::44:06] eekim: i think someone said this earlier, but i'll repeat it

[2009-11-03 12::44:34] quanticle: We also need to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't like other sites. Whatever changes we make must be able to scale to at least an order of magnitude beyond their test implementations.

[2009-11-03 12::44:39] GerardM-: most Wikipedias are lonely ... sw.wikipedia is three four people

[2009-11-03 12::44:46] eekim: how can we discuss and decide on those goals in a useful way?

[2009-11-03 12::45:17] » JC left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::45:21] eekim: quanticle: yes. but there are plenty of other sites that have similar challenges and are already doing this. so part of what we need to do in strategic planning is study those models and see what we can borrow

[2009-11-03 12::46:56] quanticle: I don't know about content quality, but, as far as participation goes, why not have a contest to see who can write the best plugin for Wikipedia using the existing API? This will motivate developers (who may not have thought about Wikipedia as a programming target), and would also possibly highlight shortcomings in the API that need to be corrected.

[2009-11-03 12::47:02] bodnotbod: If strategy results in such an influx of editors that WMF needs lots more hardware, I regard that as a win.

[2009-11-03 12::47:05] cimon: eekim, the implications of increasing the social networking side is pretty clear in the history of the article of some element or another (I think Mercury); two teenage Japanese schoolgirls were sending messages in class to each other, by editing the wikipedia article...

[2009-11-03 12::47:32] werdna: what, it gives them somewhere more appropriate to send their messages?

[2009-11-03 12::47:54] eekim: quanticle: another possible recommendation

[2009-11-03 12::48:05] » Birger left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::48:15] eekim: cimon: so we need to be more precise in what we mean when we say "social networking" or "social media"

[2009-11-03 12::48:29] cimon: werdna, as long as we aren't a company, we need to discourage drain of resources to idle chit-chat.

[2009-11-03 12::48:39] quanticle: cimon: As werdna is saying, if we're going to have Japanese schoolgirls sending messages to one another via Wikipedia, would you rather they edit articles to do it, or have a separate channel?

[2009-11-03 12::49:06] cimon: quanticle, the question is who pays for the separate channel?

[2009-11-03 12::49:20] eekim: cimon: the data does not back up that claim

[2009-11-03 12::49:59] cimon: eekim, Because they need high power intellectual readiness.

[2009-11-03 12::50:26] quanticle: cimon: If those two girls hang out on Wikipedia and turn into eventual contributors, isn't that a net win?

[2009-11-03 12::50:44] GerardM-: if the idle chit chat gets us more contributors, if the idle chit chat gets us people who edit together, then it is well worth it

[2009-11-03 12::51:01] eekim: exactly

[2009-11-03 12::51:03] cimon: if the idle chit chat drains donors, we fail.

[2009-11-03 12::51:11] werdna: I think teenage schoolgirls will communicate generally on facebook, not wikipedia

[2009-11-03 12::51:28] cimon: the idle chit chat will show we have jiumped the shark.

[2009-11-03 12::51:44] Keegan: Wanna bet?

[2009-11-03 12::51:50] cary: The term "Jumped the shark" has jumped the shark

[2009-11-03 12::51:57] quanticle: This isn't an abstarct question. I wasn't a frequent editor on Wikipedia until I started hanging out in #wikipedia. Once I got more involved in the community, my contributions increased dramatically.

[2009-11-03 12::52:08] eekim: keegan: yes, i do want to bet. and i want to have systems in place to see who wins. :-)

[2009-11-03 12::52:10] Keegan: I once saw the article on Israel replaced for 45 minutes by two kids in a computer lab chatting

[2009-11-03 12::52:27] cimon: quanticle, the issue is what the character of the community is.

[2009-11-03 12::52:27] eekim: quanticle: very good point

[2009-11-03 12::52:29] Keegan: Do you really want to just give them another way to do it, this time "properly", on Wikipedia?

[2009-11-03 12::52:29] werdna: I really don't think there's a substantial resource drain from idle chit-chat

[2009-11-03 12::52:48] Keegan: They need to be using the other social features of other websites

[2009-11-03 12::52:54] » Juandev left the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::52:56] GerardM-: what does it mean "jump the shark" ?

[2009-11-03 12::52:57] eekim: what we want is to encourage people to come to wikimedia sites and stay there

[2009-11-03 12::53:01] cimon: The character of the community is serious and focused on creation of articles, not on social networking. Esperanza got booted for due reason.

[2009-11-03 12::53:11] eekim: GerardM-, it's an American cultural reference

[2009-11-03 12::53:18] » Juandev joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::53:24] werdna: As eekim says, I'd like to see how many people who talk on Wikipedia actually edit :)

[2009-11-03 12::53:25] eekim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

[2009-11-03 12::53:35] GerardM-: cimon, our community does not exist in many of our wikipedias ...

[2009-11-03 12::53:46] werdna: are the extra contributors worth the trivial resource cost?

[2009-11-03 12::53:48] cimon: that is a bizarre statemnt

[2009-11-03 12::53:52] » JC joined the chat room.

[2009-11-03 12::53:54] Keegan: doesn't edit much

[2009-11-03 12::54:04] cary: Keegan helps a lot.

[2009-11-03 12::54:10] bodnotbod: I agree we shouldn't try to be a conduit for chat unrelated to the projects. We don't want to encourage The Japanese Schoolgirls. However, I think we can create ways for editors to bond *around* the idea of creating content.

[2009-11-03 12::54:12] cary: But he is not scalable.

[2009-11-03 12::54:26] quanticle: eekim: At the same time, I do understand cimon's contention. Other sites want people to come and stay there because that way they earn more money (via advertising). Wikipedia doesn't have ads, so having lots of people hanging around and not contributing isn't helpful for us.

[2009-11-03 12::54:36] Keegan: True, I am an anomaly

[2009-11-03 12::54:44] cimon: editing is not the only thing that is focused on creating of articles and the quality within.

[2009-11-03 12::54:58] GerardM-: so we do not grow gardens

[2009-11-03 12::55:15] Keegan: Walled ones, at that

[2009-11-03 12::55:21] GerardM-: we are sparse in our environment ... but we need the mechanisms

[2009-11-03 12::55:26] cary: Bah, fundraiser meeting in 5 minutes

[2009-11-03 12::55:28] werdna: There are also arguments that idle chit-chat fosters a sense of community, which a "serious" community may not have.

[2009-11-03 12::55:29] eekim: quanticle: that's right. our goal, ultimately, is to make the world's knowledgable freely shareable

[2009-11-03 12::55:44] cimon: So justify esperanza for me?

[2009-11-03 12::55:44] eekim: everything we do should be with that intention in mind

[2009-11-03 12::55:58] GerardM-: we have communities that spend their time on IRC skype ...

[2009-11-03 12::56:00] werdna: If the community has a serious character, then people are more likely to policy wonk, and more likely to spend their time taking themselves far too seriously

[2009-11-03 12::56:04] GerardM-: there are better tools

[2009-11-03 12::56:05] eekim: werdna: yes

[2009-11-03 12::56:25] GerardM-: werdna yes

[2009-11-03 12::57:13] werdna: If people actually communicate with one another, and yes, if SlimVirgin tells James Forrester how her mother is in a private message, then maybe we wouldn't have such a hostile character.

[2009-11-03 12::57:22] eekim: :-)

[2009-11-03 12::57:28] cimon: werdna, we are a *serious* community, no scare quotes needed, and a sense of community is bad.

[2009-11-03 12::57:45] eekim: please engage with the questions on the wiki and encourage others to as well!

[2009-11-03 12::57:50] quanticle: werdna: I'm not sure I buy that Wikipedia has a "hostile character".

[2009-11-03 12::58:13] Prodego: quanticle: it is certainly difficult to get in to

[2009-11-03 12::58:13] werdna: thanks eekim

[2009-11-03 12::58:14] Keegan: <werdna>There are also arguments that idle chit-chat fosters a sense of community, which a "serious" community may not have. <~This is why serious professionals often times have trouble adapting to Wikipedia

[2009-11-03 12::58:14] eekim: quanticle: so this is a good question to explore on strategy: How can we measure "hostility"?

[2009-11-03 12::58:18] Prodego: that you could say is hostile

[2009-11-03 12::59:14] eekim: okay, everyone, thanks again for a great discussion

[2009-11-03 12::59:37] » You left the room.