Participation Request for Input/ko

In other languages: English (en) 日本語 (ja) 한국어 (ko) português (pt) | Add translation [edit]

커뮤니티 입력 요청

제발 토론면을 사용하여 당신의 아래 질문에관한 입력을 포함하세요: 참여에 관한 현실기지를 건설함에 있어 여기에 자료와 상황의 현재 이해간의 약간의 제일 큰 차이(우리가 확인한)있습니다.

이들 질문들은 참여 섹션에 적용됩니다.

자료가 있으세요?

• The most robust data exists on Wikipedia, and we have one data point on Wikibooks, but who are the participants of the other Wikimedia Projects?

• What are proven ways for increasing community engagement across Wikimedia projects? What strategies have been successfully used to drive new content creation?
• How have other mass collaboration portals (i.e. epicurious, yelp, facebook) reached out to new segments of users? Do these other examples hold any relevance for Wikimedia?

의견이 있으세요?

• How could Wikimedia increase editors' perception that their contribution is valuable?
• What could Wikimedia do to lower technical barriers for new contributors?
• In what ways could Wikimedia projects attract new participants that participate in traditional or non-traditional roles?
• What partnerships could Wikimedia projects form to attract new participants?
• What kind of users (i.e. core vs. one-time) does Wikimedia most want to attract and why?
• What would it take if Wikimedia were to focus on:

• a) expanding the number of "core participants"?

or

• b) encouraging more novice or one-time users?

무엇이 계속되나요(WIGO)?

초기의 분석에 기초하여 그것은 위키피디어인의 수명은 약 5-6년후부터 기여자가 떠나는 것으로 보입니다. 그러나 물론 n년된 기관은 최대 수명은 최대 n년입니다.:위키피디어는 6년되었습니다....

• What has caused the slowing growth trend in new content creation and peaking of number of contributors?
  • The number of articles that should exist is presumably finite: Is the growth in new content simply a result of asymptotically approaching that limit?
    • How does the number of articles compare to previous encyclopedias? How many searches don't hit an article (for reasons other than spelling?) If not many, then wikipedia is only missing things that no one would ever read.
  • Are there identifiable barriers to engagement for existing participants that have lead to this apparent limit?

• Will the other Wikipedias behave similarly, if somewhat time-lagged?
  • Is the Russian Wikipedia on a different path ?

그 의미는 무엇인가요?

활발한 기여자별 문건의 비율은 증가하는 것처럼 보입니다.:

• Is the reason known?
  • A likely cause is that wikipedia has attracted and differentially retained highly competent people, whose high rate of productivity is simply apparent is these statistics.
    • In a stable state, we should expect numbers of articles edited to follow a 1 / n² function. If so, this is normal, rather than a sign of a change,
  • Is there any evidence of bullying, as opposed to simple higher productivity?
  • What effect has this example of w:Lotka's law had on the Wikipedia community?
    • Users: Have they experienced enhanced, or decreased value from Wikipedia?
    • Editors: Is the increase in articles to which each active editor contributes

• How is article quality affected by a smaller cohort of active contributors?
  • Are they behaving like a random sample of experts, raising quality? or a biased sample from this population, skewing quality and validity?