IRC office hours/2010-03-31

    From Strategic Planning

    Philippe|Wiki: *** LOGGING ***

    [11:03pm] Philippe|Wiki: disclaimer, since we have a couple new folks: logs are publicly posted on the strategy wiki
    [11:04pm] privatemusings joined the chat room.
    [11:04pm] eekim: so we've had a good two months to discuss the work from the task forces and the strategy wiki as a whole
    [11:04pm] eekim: we need to start moving towards goals
    [11:04pm] eekim: i would define a good goal as having the following characteristics:
    [11:05pm] eekim: 1. it moves us toward our overall vision of the sum of all knowledge freely available for all
    [11:05pm] eekim: 2. it's measurable
    [11:05pm] Philippe|Wiki: eekim: for clarification, what do you mean by "goals"? Are you talking about goals for the movement, personal goals, and what's the context?
    [11:05pm] eekim: movement goals
    [11:05pm] darkfalls joined the chat room.
    [11:05pm] eekim: we should have this discussion on the wiki, but might as well kick off here
    [11:05pm] Natalie: Bowel movement.
    [11:06pm] Keegan: ...and there's Natalie
    [11:06pm] • Philippe|Wiki smacks Natalie. Already?
    [11:06pm] eekim: based on the work that's been done, what do y'all think should be goals for Wikimedia movement over the next five years
    [11:06pm] eekim: ?
    [11:07pm] Philippe|Wiki: I guess a general one is "do more of what we're doing. get bigger. grow the projects"?
    [11:07pm] Natalie: Harder.
    [11:07pm] eekim: okay, let's start with "grow the projects"
    [11:07pm] darkfalls: ...sustainable growth.
    [11:07pm] Philippe|Wiki: oooh,good clarification, darkfalls
    [11:07pm] eekim: do you mean grow the existing projects? or have more projects?
    [11:07pm] Kalambo: Much more friendlier wiki !
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: <shrug> I meant the existing ones, but I know there are some who say more.
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: Kalambo: really good point.
    [11:08pm] darkfalls: I'd rather growth of the existing ones.
    [11:08pm] eekim: thanks Kalambo; I'll queue these up for discussion
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: another from me... more ACCURATE projects.
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: big is good, big and accurate is better.
    [11:08pm] eekim: Philippe|Wiki: and by grow, do you mean number of pages? do you mean participants? do you mean readers?
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: yes
    [11:08pm] Philippe|Wiki: all that stuff
    [11:09pm] Philippe|Wiki: i want it all
    [11:09pm] darkfalls: accuracy is a problem.
    [11:09pm] eekim: okay, so we have five goals proposed so far:
    [11:09pm] eekim: 1. more pages
    [11:09pm] privatemusings left the chat room. (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 :[Firefox 3.6.2/20100316074819])
    [11:09pm] eekim: (or more content)
    [11:09pm] eekim: 2. more participants
    [11:09pm] eekim: 3. more readers
    [11:09pm] eekim: 4. "friendlier" wiki
    [11:09pm] eekim: 5. more accurate content
    [11:10pm] Keegan: The obvious: The strategic planning of the Wikimedia Foundation needs to focus on 1: The growth, development, and quality of hosted content 2: Providing proper resources for the projects, including the WMF being involved in development and quality environments 3: Provide offline resources when available to aid to the charitable goal
    [11:10pm] darkfalls: 2 and 3 are linked.
    [11:10pm] DragonFire_aw left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
    [11:10pm] darkfalls: Our readers are our participants.
    [11:10pm] Natalie: Wikipedia Forever.
    [11:10pm] Philippe|Wiki: Keegan: by offline, you mean.... books? Offline readers? all of that?
    [11:10pm] Keegan: Dvds, etc
    [11:11pm] Risker: I disagree, darkfalls
    [11:11pm] Keegan: darkfalls: we have all kinds of "participants
    [11:11pm] Keegan: "
    [11:11pm] eekim: for the sake of this discussion, let's avoid the word "participants" then
    [11:11pm] Risker: while our participants are often our readers, most readers do not participate
    [11:11pm] Keegan: The consumers, the editors, the subjects
    [11:11pm] eekim: we have readers, we have editors, and we have many other types of participants
    [11:11pm] darkfalls: Risker: I never said that
    [11:11pm] eekim: thank you keegan
    [11:11pm] Philippe|Wiki: Risker: yeah. that's a really valid point.
    [11:11pm] Kalambo: Sorry to dive in , but I never had any thought of clicking that edit button until my friend welcomed me to join wikipedia , I would recommend if we could make design much more friendly so all our reader will be editor , atleast gradually
    [11:11pm] darkfalls: perhaps, I should add "to an extent"
    [11:12pm] Philippe|Wiki: Kalambo: have you looked at the new vector interface, by any chance? The "Beta" stuff?
    [11:12pm] eekim: Kalambo, okay, so one way we could refine a goal is to focus on "new editors"
    [11:12pm] Keegan: Kalambo: I understand that, I never edited until the .css in '04 on en.wp made it easy for me
    [11:12pm] darkfalls: new editors. And making sure these editors have an incentive to stay on the project.
    [11:12pm] • Keegan is computer dumb
    [11:12pm] eekim: Keegan, did you pull those three items from somewhere, or are those your proposals?
    [11:12pm] Keegan: My brain
    [11:12pm] Kalambo: Philippe|Wiki : Yes , I did , but It still wouldn't encourage our visitors to edit , would it ?
    [11:13pm] darkfalls: Keegan: That's a very unreliable source
    [11:13pm] Philippe|Wiki: Kalambo: I think so. I think it removes clutter and makes it quite a bit easier, especially once you hit the "edit" button.
    [11:13pm] Keegan: eekim: That's natural customer relations
    [11:13pm] Philippe|Wiki: but maybe i'm crazy, Kalambo, that's entirely possible
    [11:13pm] Keegan: HR, really
    [11:14pm] Keegan: Unhappy customers, unhappy employees, unhappy dealers. Or happy ones. *shrug*
    [11:14pm] darkfalls: Philippe|Wiki: Personally, I don't like vector, but that's only because none of my javascript stuff works
    [11:14pm] DragonFire_aw joined the chat room.
    [11:14pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: +1
    [11:14pm] Philippe|Wiki: But that's not the skin's fault
    [11:14pm] • darkfalls agrees with Keegan mostly.
    [11:14pm] Kalambo: eekim : Yep , we should focus on new editors ,too . I was in wikiHow for a bit of time and we had a discussion on wikipedia once , and this what most of the editor said , they get lost in Wikipedia and feel its really complex
    [11:15pm] eekim: okay, so a quick observation
    [11:15pm] darkfalls: I said it before, and will repeat it. We need incentives so that editors will continue editing.
    [11:15pm] eekim: we have a lot of goals that are about "more"
    [11:15pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: what kind of incentives?
    [11:15pm] darkfalls: I don't have the vaguest clue
    [11:15pm] Philippe|Wiki: heh
    [11:15pm] darkfalls: but our editors are dropping like flies.
    [11:15pm] Keegan: darkfalls: I disagree with that concept
    [11:15pm] Kalambo: *What if we conduct contests ?*
    [11:15pm] eekim: more new users, more (and better) content, more readers, etc.
    [11:15pm] Keegan: I don't think doing things for incentives is a valid method of motivation
    [11:15pm] eekim: i think more readers is obvious
    [11:16pm] eekim: why do we need more new users? what impact would that have?
    [11:16pm] Kalambo: Keegan , darkfalls : Incentives in form of some contest ?
    [11:16pm] darkfalls: Keegan: Incentives may be the wrong word. Foster a better environment for editing.
    [11:16pm] mikelifeguard: darkfalls: Instead of incentives to stay, can we remove the barriers? Hostile community atmosphere is the strongest reason for leaving I've seen among my friends who have departed Wikimedia projects.
    [11:16pm] Philippe|Wiki: eekim: more users = more of the wisdom of the crowds, right? (if you buy the crowdsourcing thing)
    [11:16pm] mikelifeguard: Nobody wants to work unless it is enjoyable
    [11:16pm] darkfalls: mikelifeguard: Said it right above you
    [11:16pm] Risker: WMF projects have never had more readers than they do today; the percentage of readers participating has dropped as the number of readers has climbed
    [11:16pm] Keegan: I don't think of incentives in general, Kalambo. But really I'm an outlier in that school of thought
    [11:17pm] darkfalls: "Foster a better environment for editing."
    [11:17pm] Keegan: So don't mind me, most organizations have a reward system of some sort, whether it's a gold star or a raise.
    [11:17pm] cimon joined the chat room.
    [11:17pm] Kalambo: How long will these discussions last ?
    [11:17pm] cimon: poop
    [11:17pm] Philippe|Wiki: Kalambo: tonight, we'll be heree for another 45 minutes or so
    [11:17pm] eekim: Kalambo, an hour
    [11:17pm] darkfalls: hey cimon
    [11:17pm] Kalambo: Oh , I will be back in a few minutes ( important call )
    [11:18pm] Philippe|Wiki: (btw, apologies if i get knocked offline, we're in a crazy wind storm here and my cable modem tends to cop an attitude when that happens)
    [11:18pm] Keegan: Why has the en.wp killed all of its social network building projects eventually?
    [11:18pm] Philippe|Wiki: :[citation needed]
    [11:18pm] Risker: because they become mini-fiefdoms, Keegan
    [11:18pm] mikelifeguard: Keegan: because it isn't a social network!
    [11:18pm] darkfalls: we are not myspace.
    [11:18pm] darkfalls: But.
    [11:18pm] Philippe|Wiki: should we be?
    [11:18pm] • mikelifeguard wonders who came up with that ridiculous concept
    [11:18pm] Keegan: No
    [11:19pm] Keegan: We shouldn't
    [11:19pm] Philippe|Wiki: what lessons can we learn from them? and from Facebook?
    [11:19pm] darkfalls: Philippe|Wiki: Personally, I feel that's a bad direction to take.
    [11:19pm] eekim: Philippe|Wiki: more might equal better, but how much more? do we know that more editors would make English Wikipedia better? or should we focus instead on taking the editors we have right now and making them better?
    [11:19pm] Keegan: One of the reasons I'm opposed to the instant messaging idea
    [11:19pm] Keegan: And liquid threads, really
    [11:19pm] Keegan: I like usability except for that
    [11:19pm] darkfalls: eekim: We need to attract the right type of editor in my opinion.
    [11:19pm] cimon: there definitely is a culture of welcoming people that is missing, but we don't need enablers and facilitators to fight their corners in drama.
    [11:19pm] Keegan: I think we should retreat from facebook and myspace
    [11:19pm] Philippe|Wiki: eekim: well, we've been working on a "more" tack from day 1, right? we know that when we get more, some of them "fit" and that's good.
    [11:20pm] eekim: darkfalls, and how would you define "right type of editor"?
    [11:20pm] darkfalls: the type that believes in the aims of the project.
    [11:20pm] darkfalls: essentially, who believes in providing knowledge
    [11:20pm] cimon: the problem is we don't agree on the aims
    [11:20pm] Keegan: Wikimedia projects are working environments, for leisure by volunteers
    [11:20pm] cimon: except in the very most general terms
    [11:21pm] Keegan: We need to keep that attraction in mind
    [11:21pm] darkfalls: cimon: That is general
    [11:21pm] Philippe|Wiki: fair point, cimon
    [11:21pm] eekim: there are wikipedians who are obsessed with certain topics and don't necessarily care about the bigger vision. but, they create high quality content about topics they care about. don't we want those types of editors too?
    [11:21pm] Keegan: eekim yes we do
    [11:22pm] Risker: well....bluntly, not the obsessive ones
    [11:22pm] Keegan: I talked with a lady the other day who emailed about a university project on Virtual Organizations
    [11:22pm] darkfalls: agreed.
    [11:22pm] Keegan: Hang on, I'm getting to something
    [11:22pm] darkfalls: Risker: agree with that too
    [11:22pm] eekim: Risker, say more
    [11:22pm] Keegan: As I described to her
    [11:23pm] darkfalls: eekim: If people are obsessed with certain topics, they will have strong point of views about them.
    [11:23pm] darkfalls: as a generalisation.
    [11:23pm] darkfalls: Keegan: Type faster.
    [11:23pm] darkfalls:
    [11:23pm] eekim:
    [11:23pm] Keegan: What we want on Wikimedia projects are users that are interested in the overall concept of the project, whether it be images, encyclopedia, dictionary
    [11:23pm] Keegan: etc
    [11:23pm] Keegan: Wikia operates for people that want to focus on just one topic
    [11:23pm] Risker: editors who are obsessive about a particular subject, as opposed to merely being very knowledgeable or strongly interested, have a tendency to take over a subject area to its detriment
    [11:24pm] Philippe|Wiki: what if the one topic is encyclopedic?
    [11:24pm] eekim: darkfalls, instead of "not attracting" those types, shouldn't we attract a diverse set of views, so they can counterbalance each other?
    [11:24pm] Keegan: Philippe|Wiki: Fine, but they have to realize that there is a larger community involved in the process
    [11:24pm] eekim: keegan, why?
    [11:24pm] Risker: eekim, that would be what has happened in the nationalism wars we see on enwp now
    [11:24pm] darkfalls: eekim: But the thing is, the diverse set of views leads to conflict between these editors.
    [11:24pm] darkfalls: thus, a combative environment.
    [11:24pm] • Keegan shares a brain with Risker
    [11:25pm] darkfalls: people who rarely agree do not have an understanding of each other
    [11:25pm] Keegan: For example, if Wookiepedia has a blow up over something Star w
    [11:25pm] Keegan: Wars related
    [11:25pm] Keegan: That small, internal group can take care of it
    [11:25pm] eekim: the beauty of wikis in general and wikipedia in particular is that it helps people with strong, opposing views come to a shared understanding
    [11:25pm] darkfalls: but they don't.
    [11:25pm] Keegan: If that happens on a WMF project, the eyes come from above
    [11:25pm] darkfalls: many of them don't.
    [11:26pm] eekim: darkfalls, citation needed
    [11:26pm] eekim: i think you're right
    [11:26pm] Keegan: And the vested contributors consider themselves the experts and react to outside influence/judgment
    [11:26pm] eekim: i think in the early days, people valued NPOV much more than they do now
    [11:26pm] darkfalls: thus the cases arbcom have to deal with regarding Palestine/Israel articles
    [11:26pm] • darkfalls points to Risker
    [11:26pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: let's face it, there's no way that wasn't going to go to Arbcom.
    [11:26pm] eekim: i think NPOV is lost in the pages and pages and pages of policies
    [11:26pm] darkfalls: Philippe|Wiki: I know. it was an example of a heated topic
    [11:26pm] Philippe|Wiki: We do have a certain amount of reality about the world in which we live.
    [11:27pm] • cimon for one would love to see all of wikia content fold into wikipedia, but accepts that people on wikipedia don't want wikipedia to turn into everything something...
    [11:27pm] Risker: eekim, actually I think the :[citation needed] should be directed to your comment that those with strong opposing views come to a shared understanding on wikis
    [11:27pm] eekim: rather than build more doors and bureaucracy to battle this, i wonder if we can leverage other things to encourage editors to approach this as a way to develop shared understanding
    [11:27pm] Keegan: Sure, Palestine/Israel will go to Arbcom
    [11:27pm] darkfalls: cimon: so essentially, broaden our scope?
    [11:27pm] Keegan: But let's look at the irony of Wikimania being held in Gdansk/Danzig
    [11:27pm] eekim: Risker, fair enough
    [11:27pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: we're gonna need more mops
    [11:28pm] cimon: not really, just let people be people, if the want to maintain trivia, let them.
    [11:28pm] cimon: but of course that isn't a real solution, because there is no guarantee of quality then...
    [11:28pm] cimon: I don't relly have an answer.
    [11:29pm] Philippe|Wiki: ah, and there it is, cimon
    [11:29pm] eekim: there are plenty of pages where conflict resolves itself -- no arbcom necessary. isn't that evidence that people are coming to shared understanding?
    [11:29pm] Philippe|Wiki: do more eyes = higher quality?
    [11:29pm] cimon: we are doing the bumble-bees flight.
    [11:29pm] Philippe|Wiki: eekim: I would postulate that arbcom is part of the "wiki" ecosystem that leads to shared understanding.... why separate it?
    [11:29pm] Keegan: Quality can't be controlled with a bottom up model, IMO
    [11:29pm] Keegan: So that just kinda happens
    [11:30pm] darkfalls: Philippe|Wiki: I disagree.
    [11:30pm] darkfalls: Arbcom doesn't foster understanding any more than a court does.
    [11:30pm] eekim: Philippe|Wiki, the claim was that wikis (the tool) + NPOV lead to greater shared understanding
    [11:30pm] darkfalls: excuse the metaphor
    [11:30pm] Philippe|Wiki: Courts have fostered a lot of understanding over the years
    [11:30pm] Keegan: It was a good one, darkfalls
    [11:30pm] Philippe|Wiki: it sometimes just takes time
    [11:30pm] Keegan: Hence the five year model
    [11:30pm] eekim: i'm not suggesting that arbcom is bad (nor am i suggesting that it's good)
    [11:31pm] Keegan: Five years ago I was editing the Ryan Adams article as an IP
    [11:31pm] cimon: NPOV didn't used to be shackled by UNDUE
    [11:31pm] Risker: speaking as an arbitrator, I'm pretty certain arbcoms don't foster understanding, they mostly swing a big stick
    [11:31pm] darkfalls: eekim: It's not bad or good. It's necessary.
    [11:31pm] Kalambo: what is arbcom ?
    [11:31pm] darkfalls: and what Risker said
    [11:31pm] darkfalls:
    [11:31pm] Philippe|Wiki: Kalambo: the Arbcom is the English wikipedia's arbitration committee
    [11:31pm] Philippe|Wiki: i'll send you a link
    [11:31pm] darkfalls: Kalambo: Arbitration Committee
    [11:31pm] darkfalls: :[:[WP:ARB]]
    [11:31pm] Philippe|Wiki:
    [11:31pm] darkfalls: in enwiki
    [11:32pm] Kalambo: Thank you !
    [11:32pm] Philippe|Wiki: lots of other wikis have them, but english wikipedias is arguably the most active.
    [11:32pm] Risker: Kalambo, it is the arbitration committee, which on larger projects is usually the last step in behavioural dispute resolution
    [11:32pm] Kalambo: Risker : Oh !
    [11:32pm] Natalie: ArbCom sucks.
    [11:32pm] eekim: which projects besides en.wp have arbcom?
    [11:32pm] darkfalls: Natalie: shush dearie
    [11:32pm] Natalie: The German Wikipedia had one until they found sense.
    [11:33pm] Natalie: The English Wikinews has one (lawl).
    [11:33pm] Risker: that's just because we won't let you keep your toys
    [11:33pm] Philippe|Wiki: EN wikinews; Russian WP... those are off the top of my head
    [11:33pm] cimon: BTW, the Mother Theresa article used to be a huge pot of grief. Currently it is pretty good, but if she was an obscure person it wouldn't be. There are plenty of Swedish nobles that have articles that have no connection to the freshest research.
    [11:33pm] Natalie: I think the Russians and Italians might as well.
    [11:33pm] Natalie: There's a page on Meta, surely.
    [11:33pm] Natalie:
    [11:33pm] eekim: so of the top 10 wps, only english and italian
    [11:33pm] eekim: thx, Natalie
    [11:34pm] darkfalls: cimon: That's just systematic bias
    [11:34pm] Natalie: That page is out-of-date.
    [11:34pm] darkfalls: we focus on things most interesting to us.
    [11:34pm] Philippe|Wiki: OK, so Cz, De, EN, FN, FR, Croation, nl, pt, po, ru, uk...
    [11:34pm] cimon: darkfalls, yes, but language does play a part.
    [11:34pm] eekim: nope, that's definitely out of date
    [11:34pm] Natalie: Philippe|Wiki: Your language --> language code skills are impressive.
    [11:34pm] Philippe|Wiki: Natalie: I do my damnedest
    [11:35pm] Natalie: Is this the part of the evening where I threaten to decapitate people?
    [11:35pm] Philippe|Wiki: I'd rather you didn't.
    [11:35pm] eekim: arbcom is a whole topic in and of itself
    [11:35pm] Keegan: Yeah
    [11:35pm] eekim: getting back to goals...
    [11:35pm] darkfalls: ok.
    [11:35pm] • Natalie gives Keegan head.
    [11:35pm] Keegan: Sure, let's talk about my task force!
    [11:35pm] Natalie: Err.
    [11:35pm] Philippe|Wiki: Natalie... really. Stop.
    [11:35pm] Natalie: You know what I mean.
    [11:35pm] Philippe|Wiki: Open meeting.
    [11:35pm] darkfalls: Keegan: urgh..
    [11:35pm] Kalambo: This is not much related to strategies but do we have a WYSIWYG Editor ( just curious)
    [11:35pm] cimon: Natalie, try defenestration first, if that doesn't help...
    [11:35pm] eekim: so i noted that the two criteria for good goals were measurability and relevance to the vision
    [11:36pm] darkfalls: that BLP taskforce that noone knows about
    [11:36pm] eekim: there's a page on strategy called Theory of Change
    [11:36pm] Keegan: s/b/
    [11:36pm] Risker: eekim, of the five you indicated at the beginning, I'd say #5 is the one that is of greatest value
    [11:36pm] eekim: Risker, more accurate content?
    [11:36pm] Risker: yes
    [11:36pm] darkfalls: yes
    [11:36pm] eekim: okay, great
    [11:36pm] darkfalls: I would agree with Risker
    [11:36pm] eekim: perfect place to start
    [11:36pm] Philippe|Wiki:
    [11:36pm] eekim: so in our discussion, we were essentially postulating a theory of change
    [11:37pm] eekim: for example, the theory might be that more eyeballs equals higher quality content
    [11:37pm] eekim: or more accurate content
    [11:37pm] darkfalls: essentially, we need to know what makes content accurate.
    [11:37pm] eekim: if that's your theory, then the goal of more readers + making it easier to edit ties into that theory of change
    [11:37pm] eekim: darkfalls, yes
    [11:37pm] Keegan: ...
    [11:37pm] Keegan: Is there a degree for that?
    [11:37pm] • Keegan nm
    [11:38pm] darkfalls: Keegan: Stop abusing full stops.
    [11:38pm] eekim: we don't have to have a fully fleshed out theory
    [11:38pm] eekim: but we can work off of some basic principles that we do know
    [11:38pm] eekim: i think we all agree (?) that making it easier to edit will improve the quality of the content
    [11:39pm] eekim: (do we?)
    [11:39pm] • Kalambo agrees
    [11:39pm] darkfalls: making it easier to edit
    [11:39pm] Philippe|Wiki: will improve the NUMBER of edits. Theoretically, I think that will lead to quality of content
    [11:39pm] darkfalls: attract both good editors and bad editors.
    [11:39pm] darkfalls: so not necessarily.
    [11:39pm] eekim: darkfalls, okay, so there's an uncertainty there
    [11:39pm] eekim: so we either resolve the uncertainty, or we make our best guess
    [11:40pm] Keegan: Hang on, because I'm confused
    [11:40pm] eekim: it's okay to be wrong; we're not going to get everything right
    [11:40pm] eekim: Keegan, shoot
    [11:40pm] Keegan: How can you make it easier to edit than the "edit" tab?
    [11:40pm] Natalie: omg threats
    [11:40pm] darkfalls: lol
    [11:40pm] Keegan: I mean, it's edit
    [11:40pm] eekim: we can make the edit button bigger
    [11:40pm] Keegan: Discussion is discussion
    [11:40pm] eekim: we can change the color
    [11:40pm] eekim: and we can do A/B testing to see what results in more edits
    [11:40pm] darkfalls: Keegan: We can replace edit with images of cats.
    [11:40pm] Keegan: Okay, here's another theory I have
    [11:41pm] Kalambo: Yes , I know a few people who never noticed we had an *edit button*
    [11:41pm] Keegan: Wikipedia's userbase is between 15-25 and 40-55
    [11:41pm] Philippe|Wiki: i'm just curious, has anyone done any systematic study about the number of bad edits reverted by automated tools (bots) vs humans? MZ?
    [11:41pm] eekim: good question, Philippe|Wiki
    [11:41pm] • darkfalls pokes Natalie
    [11:41pm] darkfalls: make yourself useful!
    [11:41pm] Keegan: Those users have grown up computer savvy, either with the www or USENET/BBS
    [11:41pm] Kalambo: lol
    [11:42pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: I figured Natalie has "MZ" as a stalkword
    [11:42pm] Natalie: Philippe|Wiki: I don't know of any.
    [11:42pm] Natalie: I do.
    [11:42pm] Keegan: The only userbase we lack is the 25-40
    [11:42pm] Natalie: Automated tools get tricky. You have Twinkle and the like and then you have ClueBot and the like.
    [11:42pm] darkfalls: Keegan: why 40?
    [11:42pm] eekim: Keegan, where are you pulling those numbers?
    [11:42pm] Natalie: And then there's the AbuseFilter, which is stopping a good number of edits.
    [11:42pm] darkfalls: yes I don't know either
    [11:42pm] darkfalls: lol
    [11:42pm] Keegan: Experience.
    [11:42pm] Natalie: A lot of good edits, I'm sure.
    [11:42pm] Keegan: My brain, again
    [11:42pm] eekim:
    [11:42pm] darkfalls: your flawed brain*
    [11:42pm] eekim: i don't think they're right
    [11:43pm] eekim: but i think i see where you're going, and it's a good place
    [11:43pm] Keegan: Myself, being 28, am an outlier
    [11:43pm] Philippe|Wiki: Natalie: I'm just curious whether our ability to revert bad stuff is increasing at a rate greater than the increase in new users.... or whatever i mean.
    [11:43pm] Philippe|Wiki: you follow, i'm sure.
    [11:43pm] eekim: according to UNU-MERIT, we have a lot of users between 18-30
    [11:43pm] eekim: by users, i mean editors
    [11:43pm] eekim: i don't know the other segments off the top of my head
    [11:43pm] darkfalls: people in their 40s are still working.
    [11:44pm] Keegan: Where I am going with that, eekim, is that you have a dichotomy of online experience
    [11:44pm] eekim: darkfalls, that may be true. the reality might be that we'll always lack people from 30-50 because they have less time -- work, kids, etc.
    [11:44pm] Philippe|Wiki:
    [11:44pm] eekim: but that doesn't mean we couldn't do much better
    [11:44pm] eekim: Keegan, keep going
    [11:44pm] eekim: thx, Philippe|Wiki
    [11:45pm] Keegan: Growing up with forums and myspace and all that is not the same as being older and wiser in the sense of the pre-www generation
    [11:45pm] Keegan: It makes conflict resolution much more difficult
    [11:45pm] darkfalls: eekim: In my opinion, we're lacking in anyone above 30. Because they are not accustomed to Wikipedia or technology.
    [11:45pm] darkfalls: to the extent of under 30s
    [11:45pm] eekim: darkfalls, and is it a good thing to have more editors in their 30s?
    [11:45pm] darkfalls: lacking in anyone above 50 i mean.
    [11:45pm] Keegan: darkfalls: There's more than you'd think, but they are gnomish to an extent
    [11:45pm] eekim: (probably tied to Keegan's point)
    [11:45pm] darkfalls: eekim: They have more expertise.
    [11:46pm] eekim: okay, great
    [11:46pm] eekim: so we can start refining our theory of change
    [11:46pm] darkfalls: we are lacking expert editors.
    [11:46pm] eekim: older = more expertise. so more older contributors would lead to better quality articles. hence one goal might be to focus on an older demographic.
    [11:46pm] Keegan: Welll
    [11:46pm] Keegan: Not quite
    [11:47pm] eekim: having older contributors might also improve the "friendliness" of the community, or at least improve conflict resolution. maybe.
    [11:47pm] Keegan: It deals more with personal interaction, IMO
    [11:47pm] darkfalls: maturity being a key aspect.
    [11:47pm] Keegan: That part
    [11:47pm] darkfalls: Keegan: Older people are less likely to vandalise, would you agree?
    [11:47pm] Keegan: Sure
    [11:47pm] Keegan: But
    [11:48pm] Kalambo left the chat room. (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 :[Firefox 3.5.7/20100106054534])
    [11:48pm] Keegan: Younger contributors are more eager to plow through backlogs and such
    [11:48pm] darkfalls: they are also more mature and level-headed. (As a generalisation)
    [11:48pm] • werdna invades
    [11:48pm] darkfalls: Keegan: Sure. Content vs. administration
    [11:48pm] eekim: howdy werdna!
    [11:48pm] Risker: darkfalls, older editors are less likely to vandalise but also often quite heavy-handed
    [11:48pm] Keegan: ^that
    [11:48pm] darkfalls: Risker: Personal experience
    [11:48pm] darkfalls: ?
    [11:48pm] • darkfalls hides
    [11:49pm] Risker: darkfalls, yes, from Arbcom cases
    [11:49pm] Keegan: Nah, good joke, but I know Risker's point
    [11:49pm] darkfalls: hehe..
    [11:49pm] eekim: so now we have some questions which will help us refine our theory of change. either we'll find data to back up contentions or we won't. in the latter case, we'll just have to guess. that's why it's a "theory."
    [11:49pm] Keegan: Older folk have more difficulty in compromising, it's...more important to be right, in a way
    [11:50pm] Keegan: There's no data
    [11:50pm] darkfalls: But they will also be more mature.
    [11:50pm] eekim: i hope folks get how the goals relate to the vision (via a Theory of Change), and how we can work off of what we know to converge on some good goals
    [11:50pm] Keegan: Or stubborn
    [11:51pm] eekim: we've got about 10 minutes left before office hours are over
    [11:51pm] eekim: i'm going to summarize our discussion on strategy wiki
    [11:51pm] Philippe|Wiki: (and the log will go up, of course)
    [11:51pm] eekim: i hope all of you will come back tomorrow and continue the discussion and help refine
    [11:51pm] werdna: While I'm here, anybody want to stab me about LiquidThreads issues?
    [11:51pm] darkfalls: Philippe|Wiki: we might need to delete Natalie
    [11:51pm] eekim: i also hope you'll recruit good people to participate in those discussions
    [11:51pm] werdna: Also, I've been working on an FAQ for Wikimedians
    [11:51pm] Philippe|Wiki: darkfalls: we don't delete. We just spank.
    [11:51pm] Keegan: Werdna: Yes. But you know I hate them.
    [11:51pm] darkfalls: werdna: Keegan doesn't like it.
    [11:51pm] Keegan: It's cool, we can still be friends
    [11:52pm] werdna: If there's stuff that confused you that isn't here, you should add it!
    [11:52pm] eekim: werdna, i think the latest deployment was a huge improvement
    [11:52pm] eekim: there are some stylistic things i'm not crazy about, but in terms of usability, i think it's much better
    [11:52pm] Keegan: Nah, I just hate it as a Wikimedian. As a piece of software development, it's cool.
    [11:53pm] darkfalls: werdna: Is there any way to opt out of the vector skin?
    [11:53pm] darkfalls: I like the current one.
    [11:53pm] werdna: darkfalls: change your skin in your preferences
    [11:53pm] darkfalls:
    [11:53pm] darkfalls: thanks
    [11:53pm] Keegan: Now if only werdna would do that patch...
    [11:53pm] werdna: eekim: I guess Howie and I will have a design session
    [11:54pm] eekim: werdna
    [11:54pm] werdna: Keegan: will follow up about that in private, let's not turn this into 'werdna's office hours'
    [11:54pm] eekim: 's okay, werdna. strategy has been a liquidthreads testbed, and it's worth taking some time to discuss it
    [11:54pm] werdna: eekim: Keegan's other question was unrelated to lqt
    [11:55pm] werdna: abusefilter log suppression
    [11:55pm] eekim: ah... got it
    [11:55pm] • Natalie abuses werdna.
    [11:55pm] eekim: one goal i'd like to see for future versions of LQT is, how can we encourage people to summarize threads?
    [11:55pm] Natalie: Make the summarize link bigger!
    [11:55pm] Natalie: And more colorful!
    [11:55pm] Natalie: That solves all problems.
    [11:55pm] eekim: freakin' brilliant ideas
    [11:55pm] Philippe|Wiki: I think some of that will happen environmentally. For instance, if LQT were on ANI, on enwp, I can see lots of folks summarizing with Yes check.svg Done
    [11:56pm] darkfalls: Natalie needs to be smaller, and less colorful.
    [11:56pm] Philippe|Wiki: Natalie is pretty small.
    [11:56pm] Natalie: That would create more problems, darkfalls.
    [11:56pm] darkfalls: Natalie: sure it will
    [11:56pm] Keegan: darkfalls: You haven't seen his shoelaces
    [11:56pm] Keegan: Okay, I think we're devolving
    [11:56pm] eekim: Philippe|Wiki, it's possible. are there changes to the tool or design that could help as well, regardless of the pre-existing community?
    [11:56pm] eekim: thx, Keegan
    [11:57pm] Philippe|Wiki: I'm not sure that "Summarize" is the best language to use... but I don't have a better suggestions.
    [11:57pm] Natalie: Speaking of exercises in futility, what's that BLP task force doing?
    [11:57pm] Natalie: "Resolve"
    [11:57pm] cimon: Natalie, pick on somebody your own size ( /me volunteers)
    [11:57pm] • Keegan volunteers
    [11:57pm] • Natalie mounts cimon and rides him around the room.
    [11:57pm] Keegan: Is this going into public or private log?
    [11:57pm] darkfalls: Natalie: Nothing as usual
    [11:57pm] Natalie: Keegan: Speaking of exercises in futility, what's that BLP task force doing?
    [11:58pm] Philippe|Wiki: it's public until I close it
    [11:58pm] Keegan: Great
    [11:58pm] Natalie: 8=========D
    [11:58pm] eekim: few more minutes, folks
    [11:58pm] Natalie: Natalie: Please behave.
    [11:58pm] Philippe|Wiki: Natalie: Really now.
    [11:58pm] darkfalls: okay, let's get back on topic.
    [11:58pm] • werdna has already been involuntarily volunteered for Natalie's punching bag.
    [11:58pm] Keegan: Gimme a sec...
    [11:58pm] Philippe|Wiki: Yeah, listen to what Natalie said
    [11:58pm] cimon: <3
    [11:58pm] Natalie: <3
    [11:58pm] eekim: okay, i think it's time to call it a night
    [11:58pm] werdna: So is there anything else about LiquidThreads that people can think of that should be documented?
    [11:59pm] werdna: I know it far too well
    [11:59pm] Natalie: werdna: How to turn it off?
    [11:59pm] Philippe|Wiki: aw, well.... **** LOG OVER ***