Sister Projects?
Sister Projects?
Hi All,
I'd like to say that all of the discussion here is very interesting and I agree with all of the basic points enumerated as findings in this study. However, I was wondering if any consideration had been given to editor trends on sister projects? It would seem to me that while a lot of the fun work on Wikipedia (writing new articles) has been done, the sister projects are still "greenfields" where there is a lot of scope and potential for growth. I realise that Wikipedia is the main moneyspinner for the foundation, but if sister projects have better retention numbers and growth potential than Wikipedia (which, for everywhere but commons, is my non-scientific observation), surely it makes sense to put effort into supporting increases in contributors there? If a project like Wikibooks or Wikisource can grow to have even half the editor interest that Wikipedia has, then a loss of participants on Wikipedia, while still undesirable, is at least not as disastrous as it would be now.
Of course, my view of what's going on on other projects may be total bollocks, and if there's any evidence to show that sister project activity is also declining, please feel free to tell me to go jump!