From Strategic Planning


One aspect of participation that is often overlooked is the "feeling like work" issue. Lets take a hypothetical: an article is created about FireFox (forgive the computer references in my topics, it's what I love). I create an informative, neutral, detailed article about Firefox 1.0. Firefox 2.0 comes out and the wiki is changed to reflect 2.0. What about everything that was entered for 1.0? It's now gone? Lets say it's pushed into a separate article and a new 2.0 article takes its place. OK, that works, then I write a comparison of the two. I have to enter all the information a second time in a comparison format, even though it's already in the first two articles. OK... Everything's looking good. But then Firefox 3.0 comes out and now it starts all over - it's starting to feel like like work. (I won't take this too far don't worry) OK, so I then discover Opera! I contribute to it, create all the same types of articles for it as I did for firefox... but wait. I think it would be good to compare the two browsers... I now have to enter the same data a third time! And at that I can't do a comparison of *everything* maybe only the latest versions of the two.. doing a comparison of each version against each other version would be a massive undertaking. Now multiply that by the 5-8 historically major browsers... then by the hundreds of lesser known ones... it's just too much. Even for a large group to re-enter the same information over and over. It's also expensive for Wiki because the data is duplicated so often. It's exhausting as well for any user to try to keep up, no matter how much they'd like to contribute. And yes, they don't have to, others will add to it, etc but the larger the information sets the less likely anything will be done with it.

This is where Wiki can come in to improve both available information and the contributor experience. Through some mechanism like (which can be configured to allow "live" user input) or some other mechanism, allow the creation of data sets that can be referenced either directly into a wiki page or brought into a "live data session". The latter being where you add columns to the data set "live" without actually creating/storing/serving a page. Simply grab from independent datasets into a single livegrid and you can do whatever sort of comparisons/manipulations you want with the available data. This can also offload some of the work onto the user's system. Rico livegrid is not the best example of offloading as it's designed to retrieve on demand, but lets say you send out the data set(s) to a user first, any predefined or even custom user-created comparison/sorting algorithms can run on the user end once they have all the data.

User participation can also be increased in that incomplete data sets can be added to one very small piece of information at a time, and it's data not composition so if it is correct it stays, if it's incorrect someone will update it. No conflicts, quick simple edits, and the more datasets there are the more complex the information can become without the need to re-enter information. (see comparison of media players for an example of how this has becoming an issue)

Please forgive my enthusiasm and number of posts on this topic - I'm rather surprised myself. JMJimmy 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping new users away, core and causal alike

In my experience there's a simple trend in wiki: If an edit to an existing article is not "a perfect edit" the first time out, revert. This alienates casual contributors and those who may have become core contributors. The entire process of what Wiki used to be has been replaced with wikilawyering and attitudes/sentiment similar those expressed by Thekohser below. This is not to say that Thekohser is not also absolutely correct in that sentiment. There's a lot of point of view, poorly written content, and a lot of biases.

What I'm trying to get across is that the method that is being employed to combat these problems is what is driving away contributors. In Wiki as in life: it's far easier to tear something down for its flaws, destroy it, than to build something new and shape it over time. Wiki used to be a place where content was being entered fast and furious; with the attitude that over time, through revisions and collaboration from a multitude of people, content would be tweaked to the best it could be. This is what attracted users to it. They could take 30 seconds and make a small improvement here or there. They could take 5-10 minutes and write out the framework for an article. Not huge contributions, not complete articles, not thought out from every possible perception, not with the forced bias of an encyclopedia editor. It was simply a person adding their little bit to something larger. Someone could come along, read this 5-10 minute contribution and revise/improve it, or add to it.

What's it like now? It's like those who have the most time to spend here have declared certain articles as "perfect". They have their statue of David and anyone coming along trying to contribute is adding a clay mole to the tip of David's marble nose. There's no longer any opportunity for, admittedly poor content, to sit there and be improved upon. This mole of content must be immediately removed.

Would you want to contribute to a place that makes you feel like you're wasting your (very precious) time? That the small additions you hope others can improve will be erased instead of moulded?

Ideas to combat this issue: Require more than 1 user to make the same reversion for it to actually revert?

Not sure what would work but it needs to be harder to destroy than create. JMJimmy 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your thoughts here JMJimmy. You are raising some issues that are already starting to sound like a common theme. Definitely agree that it's a challenge to figure out how to combat this issue, but if it is true that this is one of the most common barriers to new and current contributors getting and staying engaged, it's certainly worth thinking about more. Laura231 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking Relevance

Wikipedia has this very interesting "relevance" policy. Whereby if someone deems an article not to be "relevant enough", the entire thing is deleted.

This to me is the ultimate example of the majority rules concept. Minority views or information about less popular subjects should be encouraged not removed. While I agree "Suzi's pet JoyJoy" doesn't need a wiki article, there's something to be said for the smaller bits of information.

In recent memory I was part of a battle over a specific article which was deleted. It was a small indie game, maybe a following of a core few hundred people, nothing huge. The article was created by the community, with citations, but nothing like an "official review" by a "major news outlet". The article was somewhat biased but as the wikilawyering began the concerns were addressed to the best of their abilities by the contributors. In the end it was deleted because it simply wasn't popular enough. Meanwhile, another game like the Grand Theft Auto series has no fewer than 14 wiki articles about it. Most entries, while overly well cited, don't contain anything very "relevant". "Liberty City Stories" vs "Vice City Stories", there's nothing particularly special about either. Sure the original, GTA3 have very notable aspects to them, and San Andreas is relevant because of the "Hot Sex" mini-game and the social discussion it started, but not only does San Andreas have an article but so does the hot sex mini game. Almost all these articles have to say about them is that "the game was popular" while another is deleted because it was not.

The point is, Wiki should really look at treating these issues with the view that "minorities" (be that articles, view points, etc) must not only be protected but actively encouraged, otherwise they will be (and are being) drown out by the "majority". JMJimmy 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point, too. It makes me think of the Wikimedia Foundation's vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Without opening a debate about what "knowledge" is and whether info on the indie game counted, I wonder if there is a tension here between quality and breadth of content? Laura231 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've long considered the concept of knowledge. In my opinion, Wiki does not represent knowledge, and that's ok. Wiki represents information. As you state, without debating what knowledge is or delving too theoretically into knowledge vs information, I believe knowledge is evidence, information is the observations we make. I think a true human knowledge project is needed, but Wiki isn't that, nor do I think it should be. The tension between quality and breadth is there without question, but it's also more than that. It's the age old hierarchies problem. One group decides it's more important than another, the other feels their contributions aren't valued and that creates resentment. Breadth should no longer be an issue, if an obscure topic is added, so be it. The bandwidth consumption & storage space should be minimal in comparison to the overall size/consumption of all Wiki articles. The main consideration as I can see it is search. Indexing and searching Wiki becomes a monumental undertaking to get people to the information they want. On the opposite end, article bloat, like GTA series is a problem. Popular items get so much information that it requires being split across so many articles and where can you draw the line of what is valid information about something relevant and what is just too detailed? I think the idea below of multiple "wikis" is the way to go. But more than a dozen. I think streamlining Wikipedia to a summary and categories of further information, similar to what is being done already, is a great direction. Think of this: Wikipedia as an extensive "category" system, so extensive that it needs to be searched. Once you find a category you're given a description and a set of resources for more detailed information. For each aspect of information there is an individual wiki. Definition: "Wiktionary", Translations: "Wiklefish" (you heard it here first! :), Thesaurus: "Wikaurus", Media: "Wikimedia", etc. Essentially you take the typical category hierarchy and flip it on it's head. As I think of this I think I'm going to add a new section... see below JMJimmy 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flip the hierarchy

As I typed my reply to Laura231 (and got further and further away from what she'd originally said it occurred to me. Typically we organize information via a central point and branch out. This creates two problems. #1) How many "base" categories do you need? Computers->Internet->Wikipedia->Subject makes sense... Internet->Wikipedia->Computers->Subject also makes sense, do you need both trees intersecting? #2) What if something is appropriate to multiple categories? Think of Mac vs PC menu systems... Edit->Preferences on Mac makes sense, you want to edit your preferences. But so does Tools->Options when the Edit menu is about modifying the content not the program. So, bringing this back to Wiki, what if you flip the hierarchy it on it's head?

Wikipedia becomes the place to find the subject you are looking for. Gives a brief description of it to help you identify the subject and no further content. All other content is then pushed into separate Wikis. From there, link to ways of looking at or interpreting the subject. Definition, similar concepts, translations, technical information, statistics, media, learning, etc. whatever is appropriate for that subject. This would allow you to search Wiki for general terms without getting bogged down in keywords from lengthy unrelated articles, and as you progressed down the tree having narrower and narrower focus at each level that a branch in the tree is required you can search again for more specific information, unencumbered by the rest of Wikipedia, you are now only searching that subject's wiki in the category chosen.

So how does this relate to participation? We can allow our natural hierarchy to take effect. Each wiki can develop it's own internal hierarchy while being subject to the overall guidelines set forth for Wiki. Additional detail, subjects, and areas of interest can be explored and added to the sum of information without encumbering any one article with an over abundance of information. This allows fewer conflicts to take place because the volume of information can continue to grow, while the highest quality remains at the forefront. Information of lesser importance can be pushed further down the tree instead of being removed. The more important the information, the more attention it is likely to get, the further up the tree it naturally gets added.

The technical aspects of maintenance can become a lot easier as well. Separate Wikis means there's a logical split for searching/indexing, storage, etc. Even better, internal links can evolve. When in a category for say "Browsers" and you create an internal link for "Images". As it stands now, a user finds it difficult to internal link to a specific page about "internet images" because the standard would be to link "images" to the general article about images, not one specifically about images on browsers. It could also allow for targeting across Wikis since there would be a logical target. It should also eliminate the need for disambiguation pages. The search becomes a disambiguation for everything... results would be: "Subject -> start of description", so there's no confusion.

The major con to this approach is that searching would be limited to the subject and short description. You may need to do 2-3 searches (1 at each "level" of wiki) to find what you want. That said, people in the business of searching can do that for Wiki. JMJimmy 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is a three edged sword

A core component of wiki's issues surrounds this concept, or the mis-understanding of it. The current Wiki philosophy is one of "our side" "their side" and "the truth" is somewhere in between. The concept of a three edged sword: "Our side" "Their side" and "The truth" is a very subtle and very different way of looking at conflict. Wiki's approach is to allow those two sides to work back and forth to come to something "in the middle" that resembles the middle ground which can be accepted as close enough to the truth.

Problem 1: If either "side" is "larger" the middle ground is more likely to shift closer to its position. I put larger in quotes because it does not necessarily mean more people, simply put: it means more force. If a user on one side has more time to put toward an issue or is more passionate or less willing to compromise etc.

Problem 2: The truth may not have anything to do with either side's position. Think of an example: side 1: "The world is flat and at the centre of the universe!" side 2: "The world is round and circles the sun". The truth is, well, complicated. The earth is not fully round, it's actually slightly oval and has peaks and valleys so it's a geometrical shape that closely resembles a sphere... but not quite... and while we do circle the sun we're also in constant motion with the direction of our galaxy which is also moving in relationship to other gravitational bodies... etc etc etc etc... I hope you get my point. We may never know the full truth, and the truth as our sides see it now may not be the actual truth.

So what's the point of all of this? In my opinion, Wiki needs to look at revising it's "middle ground" approach and consider embracing each side. This is not to say a neutral tone should be abandoned, that is a must for all sides, but don't delete something because it has a bias, word it neutrally and make a point of exploring the biases around a conflict.

Example: Earth_(Planet) ..facts section.. "The earth is x meters around the equator with 2km dips between 10 degrees and 12 degrees and 47 and 48 degrees along the latitudinal plane." (or something like that :) - Opinions Held section "Some believe the earth is flat" "Some believe the earth is round"

This way people of each side can have their opinions, the entire article remains balanced, and facts as well as opinions can be recorded without the need for constant conflict. JMJimmy 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about ideas similar to your proposal at the end of your post a lot, Jimmy. When the line between fact and opinion is blurry, but we demand only fact on Wikipedia, some thorny issues pop up. The idea of an "opinion" section is something that appeals to me--some type of forum in which people can discuss their beliefs/perspectives, and not just hidden in a talk page, among disputes about what a page should or should not contain. Are there any examples of projects that sucessfully combine a fact base with a forum for discussion? --JohnF 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong questions?

It sounds to me like some of the proposed questions are off in the wrong direction, because certain assumptions are being implicitly made. For example, I would first want to define what is meant by:

  • community engagement (Is the "community" the rabble of editor-geeks, or the order of magnitude larger reader base? How do we measure "engagement"?)
  • content creation (Much of the content currently created is biased, point-of-view, poorly-written garbage. Is that the sort of content creation we are eager to duplicate and multiply?)
  • new segments of users (If we are unclear about who the current users are ...and again, we need to define "user" as either the editors, the readers, or both... how are we supposed to identify "new" segments?)
  • perception that their contribution is valuable (Are we only looking to modify perceptions, or actually change the inherent value of work? One involves marketing and communication, the other involves much more than that and would be quite a bit more challenging.)
  • lower technical barriers (Who decided that this will be good for Wikimedia projects. Right now, I suspect technical barriers are filtering out about 60% of the increased garbage that otherwise would be strewn on Wikimedian shores.)

I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I earnestly believe that the Wikimedia stakeholders have no real interest or ability to imagine anything negative or detrimental about Wikimedia's previous contribution to society, so it is sort of like a summit of fossil fuel producers getting together to find new and better ways to produce more such fuels for even greater consumption demands, not really considering that (taken to the current, prevailing logical conclusion) what they're doing just may destroy the human species one day. -- Thekohser 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Kohser, much appreciated. Serita 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see these (quite helpful) comments. I have similar questions about basic assumptions of the breakdown into topics to date - be bold in modifying any aspect of the conversation to help make your points. Sj 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What could Wikimedia do to lower technical barriers for new contributors?

  • We can look into Special:Log and find out what edits new contributors do after the first login. It should be possible to group the edits. How much wiki-knowledge do these groups need? Is it possible to lower the needed wiki-knowledge? For example: What knowledge is needed to correct misspellings? Find the edit-button (top or right side), find the misspelled word, find the save-page-button. Are all the infos at the edit-page really needed for correcting misspellings? Should they get another position? Is it possible to distinguish the edit-page between the edit-groups (correcting misspellings, type in code for a picture, weblink, source) --Goldzahn 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wonder if Erik Z has done any stats analysis on what the first edited pages tend to be, and whether they cluster at all; or the type of edit. -- Philippe 21:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be contacting Google to see if you can appropriate the document editing portion of Google Wave or develop something similar. It's far less complex than wiki notation. Also much of what is done in wiki notation can now be done via something like FCKeditor. While not the best example (bloated & poorly coded), it demonstrates that wiki templates can now be created and used through a simple GUI without wiki notation. -> if you click the templates button (top row, to the right of preview). Simply create the "Wiki" style templates in this and everything becomes point and click with graphic representations for everything so anyone who is familiar with a word processor can edit a wiki. JMJimmy 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I have found at [1] a wiki that uses FCKeditor. The table-icon, for example, opens a template for an easy table. I don´t know, does the new skin vektor will have this? --Goldzahn 03:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways could Wikipedia attract new participants that participate in traditional or non-traditional roles?

  • The most traditional role is that of a reader. I guess that in small wikimedia-projekts there are low numbers of readers. How could we attract more readers e.g. in the Tok Pisin language or in wikinews, wikibooks? In the long run, more readers means more editors. --Goldzahn 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answers to some of this questions

I just opened an account with the hope I can maybe be of some help. I was once a quite active Wikipedia editor but eventually left (never completely) disillusioned. I have my reasons (which I think are shared by others to large extent) but always felt they were ignored by a too homogeneous core.

What kind of users (i.e. core vs. one-time) does Wikimedia most want to attract and why?

(From the viewpoint of Wikipedia mainly) Both types are much needed. Every core user was once a one-time user that got hooked (unless he/she is a paid corporative/lobby/government agent), so in order to keep a sufficiently large, stable and renewed core, loads of "one-timers", or rather occasional editors, are needed.

There is also another intermediate category, that at least when I was most active, was the most important one: regular editors that were not still in the core. I understand for "core" here people who has been editing for many years and participating in other affairs as well, people who might be considered for sysop or other responsabilities. Hence people who have been editing, more or less intensely, for one or two years are regulars but not core yet.

Regulars are in fact (or at least used to be) the backbone of the Wiki and it's probably at that stage when most people get disillusioned as they get to learn more and more of the backstage reality of the Wiki, as they see their contributions being challenged and often destroyed in ideological battles they are not really prepared nor often even willing to fight, at least not to the length it would be needed to have a chance.

So we need to attract one-timers, allow them to become regulars and make sure that regulars have not too many reasons to give up when they begin getting familiar with the backstage reality. That way we will get enough good core contributors. It's easier said than done, I know.

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?

a) Elitism, a closed project that has lost its freshness and attractive democratic (participative) unique quality. b) There is a theoretical risk of chaos and implosion but with the usual auto-regulating mechanisms this is in fact minimal or zero. Hence I think it should be good.

I insist anyhow that what we most want are not so much one-timers but in fact regulars, people with some basic experience but still fresh and enthusiastic. One-timers are, in principle, the future regulars, and regulars are potentially the future core.

What has caused the slowing growth trend in new content creation and peaking of number of contributors?

Things like:

  • Article ownership (you know: someone(s) take control of an article and doesn't really allow anyone to expand, refine, etc., specially if they have some sort of ideological clash). This has not only pushed many back but also a very apparent decrease in the informative quality of way too many articles.
  • Wikilawyering. One can really loss loads of positive energy once the "legal" conflicts begin.
  • Wikibureaucracy. Needs no explanation, right?
  • Hypocrisy: I have always been critical of the abuse of courtesy rules like "assume good will" (even when it's apparent that the other part has none?). I'm much more for the pragmatic rule of "a spade is a spade": I believe that allows for a much more direct and honest discussion. Do we want hypocritical cheaters or honest even if blunt contributors with some thick skin? I'm definitively for the second: honest discussion is always better than courteous one. I don't mean allowing blatant insults and stalking but clearly people should feel free to express normally.
  • Favoring large ethnicities. I was member (technically I still am) of the Countering Systematic Bias Project but sadly it was too ill populated and too powerless to counter anything. But I realized that all kind of minorities were being discriminated against (and for what I know the trend has only worsened in the last years) in favor of the dominant ethnicities with a state, official status, greater control/presence at the media and simply greater numbers (in reality and normally in Wikipedia as well). This obviously must have caused a terrible loss of diversity of contributors: I have witnessed myself how the Basque WikiProject (that I helped to create) members one by one felt that their positions were not considered. Most of them must have left annoyed and disillusioned by this dynamic.
But I have seen much of the same happening in regard to other non-dominant ethnicities, like Palestinians or Irish. My impression is that this woeful trend is generalized at least in what regards to minorities in the Western bloc.
  • Wikipedia may be just too big to stay fresh. I have the impression that if, instead of just one Wikipedia (at least in English), there would be seven or twelf, with independent internal dynamics and even policies, the result would be healthier for all. This may sound extreme but the fact that Wikipedia is so powerful in informative value can cause excessive internal competitivity among contributors and, worse, even among real powers such as corporations, lobbies and governments (who can easily pay one or more people to take care of their business in Wikipedia). If that power would be split in many smaller units there would be more competence for audiences, what should be healthy for each of the "wikipedias", and also make them less attractive for organized manipulation (the rentability of such efforts would be much smaller).
Regardless of what you may think of this "extremist" idea of mine. It is clear that Wikipedia has a problem of overgrowth and excessive power. I believe it was Franklin who said that "powers corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Naturally the grassroots, the real backbone of Wikipedia (and by extension all Wikimedia) will notice that corruption and stagnation and abandon.
So I really think that if we want to save the Wiki it has to be scaled down, either by division or by whichever other means. You cannot just be so influential and remain participative. And if you are not participative, you get no regular contributors - or they quit easily. And if you get few regular, fresh and honest, contributors, quality decreases.

What are the key barriers to engagement for existing participants?

See previous section.

It looks like the ratio of articles per active contributor is growing (...) How are articles' quality affected by a smaller cohort of active contributors?

For what I have seen, often the loss of quality and NPOV. Articles, specially when dealing with controversial issues, are more POV. This is in itself a great loss of informative quality. It should affect more "humanities" than "sciences", and, for instance, modern history more than ancient one. But in general there is that danger of losing diversity in favor of one-sided versions.


Sorry to deal only with Wikipedia but there is where my experience is and anyhow Wikipedia is the main pillar of Wikimedia, with little doubt. Hope this helps. --Sugaar 05:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar, thank you for engaging in this. Your voice, and that of folks like you, is so incredibly critical to this process. Your thoughts above are very good ones, and I'm going to ruminate on them and hopefully generate a coherent set of thoughts, but you've made points that are going to take me a couple of days. We'll find ways to work them into our thinking, and I hope you'll continue to be a part of this process. -- Philippe 05:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks, Philippe. I'm not sure I can really engage much more in depth (I have been disconnected for too long, only making minor edits and some complaints at talk pages) but I really hope my meditations are of help. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is, at least conceptually, too good to let it fall. It may also be too big not to fall as well.
Regardless of my disappointment at so many issues (per above) I really believe in the essentials, the spirit, of the project. But I suspect something so big, with so many policies and technicalities, with so much bureaucracy, so terribly global and without "healthy competence" cannot really survive its own success.
So when I read about this crossroads, I thought I had to at least put my two cents in it. I hope this meditation exercise produce the best results possible. It's what all good will users (even the mere passive end users - what I'm mostly nowadays) probably want. --Sugaar 07:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here are really interesting. It would be great to hear from others who are in the same boat, to figure out what could be done to retain (or re-gain folks who've already left) the community. Laura231 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. If it's not to turn into some sort of total perspective vortex then ways need to be found to sum, distill, and improve the quality of knowledge shared, and created paths and structures within it. The mechanisms by which Wikipedia ensures that the quality of articles is improved through the editing process works for some articles, some of the time. Participating in writing an article which is declining in quality is very demotivating, and trying to structure sets of articles is enough to do most peoples' head in.
The mechanism of "wikiprojects" sonds great in principle but in fact many wikiprojects are basically defunct. Something that does what a wikiproject tries to do, consistently and well, would make being a contributor a much more worthwhile experience.--Travelplanner 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions tab

As I pondered these issues further, I thought of [insert brand name] Answers and how that is one aspect of Wiki that is missing. Something like Wiki Answers allows individuals to ask specific questions and get answers. However, with Wikipedia, if there's missing information or something is not clear to someone who doesn't know about the subject there's no easy mechanism in place to ask these questions. The Talk page is a place where this could take place, but it's not the best user interface for it and not many people read the talk pages. I think one or two tabs: "Ask a question" and "(##) Unanswered Questions" would be a very good way to increase interaction. Allow individuals to ask a question (using the "Add topic" as a template?) then anyone can come along, read the "unanswered questions" and try to improve the article itself to answer those questions. This type of mechanism would have two effects: 1) Enables users who don't know about a subject to interact with articles they might not otherwise. 2) Gives contributors smaller, more manageable, areas of focus when contributing. JMJimmy 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting... I think perhaps you should consider submitting a proposal.  :-) -- Philippe 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You know that there are automated editors, called robots, that do a lot of edits. (en:Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits) --Goldzahn 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]