Talk:Reach/en

Strategic Questions

1. How will Wikimedia expand its reach from current ~1/20th of global population to reach its vision of “every single human being”?

   Approximately 3.5 billion people can read a Wikipedia with over one hundred thousand articles in their own language, approximately 4.8 billion people can read a Wikipedia with over ten thousand articles in their own language. (On the presumption of access to a computer with internet connection.)

2. How can/should Wikimedia prioritize different reach populations?
3. What initiatives can Wikimedia undertake to extend their reach? How should they prioritize these initiatives?

networking and outreach projects

have more conferences such as wikimania. possibly more resources generated for people who otherwise cannot afford it are able to attend. Unsigned comment by user:Jamiejojesus

I would like Wikipedia be the most important knowledge based site on the web ,as it is nearly is at the moment . But it should be at the cutting edge of newness ,it should have places in it where kids can learn that their minds and ideas can be just as important as the higher educated bunch that now barter among themselves about what words to use ,because the computer is a thing of the children who use it now like we older learnt to use a pencil . There should be no laws written in stone when it comes to learning to use the web for imparting information,information can be given in so many ways and the computer and wikipedia can use all the tools at it's disposal to make that knowledge accessible to all and at no cost other than what we now pay for the priviledge . It's uniqueness can be used in ways to teach us about the differing minds that come together to teach each other about what it means to be human because wikipedia is the one true democratic device and site where everyone can take part even if it is for a moment ,because it also teaches us about different ways of looking at a problem and learning that giving way is human . Sorry i am in danger of sounding pompous ,but it's great that i have that chance and have used it . Unsigned comment by user:86.163.121.229

Targets

Every single human being is a fluffy aspirational target, and I think we might want to refine it, especially if we are then going to collect statistics on it. I'm happy to include 8 year olds but not two year olds. Would "every single potentially literate human being" be better? WereSpielChequers 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What languages do we need to cover?

If we want to cover everyone we need analysis of the gaps - it doesn't greatly matter what the subdivision is between Spanish, English, French and German speakers as we are catering for all those languages. What we need is analysis of those who don't speak any language that we cover, and those whose native language we don't cover. Then we need a hierarchy, and it will be very different depending on how we define it. It is fairly obvious that we exclude those too young to speak, but should we prioritise languages spoken by people who already have Internet access? Should we prioritise languages spoken by people who don't speak a language that we already cater for?

My suggestion is that we combine pragmatism with idealism by prioritising new language pedias on a hierarchy of:

1. Languages with largest number of internet users who are not fluent in a language that we currently have a pedia for (subject to a minimum viability threshold).
2. Languages with largest number of literate people who are not fluent in a language that we currently have a pedia for (subject to a minimum viability threshold).
3. Languages with largest number of native speakers of that language (subject to a minimum viability threshold).

But make exceptions for languages where a group of potential editors approaches us and requests an exception. WereSpielChequers 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all you comments. Check out the regional analysis section under reach. This is an attempt to look at the gaps between the number of language speakers, the number of internet users and the state of the language WikipediasSarah476 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I've checked that, hence my comments. So far we are just looking at the largest languages, but if we are aiming for everyone to have all knowledge in their native tongue we need to extend the list - even if it gets grouped - x thousand languages with 10,000 to 99,000 speakers etc. Ultimately I fear we might need to temper idealism with realism and set a threshold such as must have a written language and more than 100 literate speakers. But I think we need to evaluate the size of the project, especially when we go into New Guinea languages. WereSpielChequers 19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)