Open main menu


Pine cones, male and female.jpg
Talk page archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Welcome. Please press the "New section" button at the top of the page to leave a new message.

Contents

Motivations for editing WikipediaEdit

Hi Pine, you had asked about Motivations for editing Wikipedia. I have collected graphs about that at de:user:Atlasowa/editor motivation, because it's an important question and almost everyone thinks about this at some time. Here are some answers:

 
Q5a. Percent who started contributing to Wikipedia due to the following reasons. (n=4,930) meta:Editor_Survey_2011/Editing_Activities.
 
"Reasons for continuing to contribute", WP Editor Survey April 2011
 
"The motivations of highly active Wikipedians", Wikimania 2012 talk
 
Q7c. Percent who believe they might become less active due to the listed reasons (n=4,930) meta:Editor_Survey_2011/Editing_Activities.
 
(Q25. Below is a list of levels of engagement editors have with Wikipedia. Please select ALL that apply; (base = 5805) "Levels of engagement for Wikipedia editors", (WMF Blog: Highlights from the December 2011 Wikipedia Editors Survey, May 25, 2012)
 
"What might make you contribute more?" Arabic Wikipedia Reader Survey 2012
 
"What stopped you from editing Wikipedia?" Philippines Wikipedia Reader Survey January 2012 (see also [1])
 
QD3b. What prompted you to set up a user account? n=6378. (RETROACTIVE justification!) (WMF Blog: Highlights from the December 2011 Wikipedia Editors Survey, May 10, 2012)
 
"Why create an account on Wikipedia?" (IMMEDIATE survey on the page that new users "land" after they have created their new accounts.) Results of the account creation survey, January/February 2011. This data has been gathered as part of the Account Creation Improvement Project
60% of editors whose edits had been reverted without any explanation said that this made them less likely to edit, while only 9% of editors whose edits had been reverted with explanation felt less inclined to edit. (Video by Barry Newstead (WMF) watch )
 
41% is the mean number of test editors who contributed after being reverted and warned. 9% is the mean percent of test editors who contributed after being reverted with no message" (Wikimania 2012 talk "Welcome to Wikipedia, now please go away: improving how we communicate with new editors". Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk, commons:File:Template_A-B_testing_presentation_deck.pdf)
 
B3. Have you EVER edited Wikipedia (for instance, fixed a mistake or changed spelling)? (Base: 4000) Results of Readers Survey 2011 (Only 6% of Wikipedia readers overall indicate that they have ever edited Wikipedia content. In the US: 31%; Germany: 12%; UK: 9% [2]).
 
B5. Why don't you edit Wikipedia? (Base: 3461) Readers Survey 2011: Reasons for not editing
 
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT FIRST MOTIVATED YOU TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA? page 235 and detailed on following pages
 
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT FIRST MOTIVATED YOU TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA? per country
 
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT THINGS MIGHT HELP YOU CONTRIBUTE MORE? page 214 and detailed on following pages

HTH, best --Atlasowa (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk to us about talkingEdit

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-09Edit

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2019Edit

WikiCup 2019 March newsletterEdit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  •   MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  •   Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  •   Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  •   Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Tech News: 2019-10Edit

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9Edit

 
Come document women's history in Washington state!
Women’s History Wikithon
 
Washington State History Museum in Tacoma, WA
FREE. Please register in advance. Includes museum admission and snacks; please bring a sack lunch plus a laptop.

Scholars and interested citizens are invited to come together for an afternoon of collaboration to create or improve Wikipedia pages related to Washington State’s suffrage history. Learn from seasoned “Wikipedians” how to edit wiki pages, and work in small groups with women’s history experts. Honor Women’s History Month by updating our reference materials to reflect the dedicated work of Washington’s women suffragists. Bring a brown bag lunch, we’ll provide snacks. Hosted by Washington State Historical Society.

Women's Suffrage Centennial Program, Washington State Historical Society -> Events & Programs
To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1Edit

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete!Edit

Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.

The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!

Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:

  • People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
  • Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
  • There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and commentsEdit

I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.

I have three specific requests for feedback:

1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.

2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.

3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.

Closing commentsEdit

Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.

Yours in service,

--Pine 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2019Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2019-11Edit

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6Edit

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12Edit

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletterEdit

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter
 

Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles.

March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short versionEdit

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is some feedback on Scene 3, sources. I'm preferring to answer here vice at Google Docs with my other online identity.
  • Why say "generally" at the first bullet (reliable, verifiable, independent)? The exceptions are so fleeting (e.g. a company naming a new CEO or a BLP referring to subject's preferred gender or religious identification) that I don't think we need to confuse new editors with this. In other words, the 'should' in "sources should..." gives us enough wiggle room.
  • "Academic textbooks" might be better phrased "Recognized standard textbooks" (following WP:MEDRS) so as not to suggest only academic topics are worthwhile. E.g. a textbook for chefs would be just fine to cite information on kitchen work.
  • Might want to call out (briefly) especially high requirements for BLPs and MEDRS.
  • The grouping of poor secondary sources could be better. I'd create one subgroup for all the self-published sources, to include self-published books, social media, business' own websites and press releases, blogs, and blog-like online media (forbes.com/sites for example), and unreferreed/unreviewed research. The common element here is no editorial review by another party. Again we have an exception that probably would just be confusing to mention to beginners: blogs by recognized experts.
  • You didn't mention that sources need not be online. This is a common misconception and I'd be super happy to have more editors going out to physical books and archives to retrieve stuff that routine Google-fu doesn't find.
Good work so far. This is a tricky subject to cover succinctly because there are so many legalistic exceptions-to-exceptions and so forth. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-13Edit

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: March 2019Edit

Tech News: 2019-14Edit

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PMEdit

 
For more info see
the meetup page
for Art+Feminism
.
Wikipedia’s gender trouble is well-documented. In a 2011 survey, the Wikimedia Foundation found that less than 10% of its contributors were women. While the reasons for the gender gap are up for debate, the practical effect of this disparity is not: content is skewed by the lack of representation from women.

Let’s change that.

To help change this, the Jacob Lawrence Gallery is continuing a series of Edit-a-thons to improve Wikipedia's coverage of womxn and gender non-binary artists of color.

Childcare, snacks from local businesses, and editing tutorials will be provided.

All you need to bring is your laptop, power cord, and ideas. No previous Wikipedia experience required!

Everyone is welcome. Access to UW wifi will be provided for non-UW affiliated participants.

Please create a Wikipedia account before the event.

RSVP through this Facebook event link.

When: Saturday, Apr. 6, 2019, 1–5 PM
Where: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Art Building #132, 1915 NE Chelan Ln, Seattle, WA 98105
Event Sponsors: Jacob Lawrence Gallery, School of Art + Art History + Design
Event Page: Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon
Parking: Free parking is normally available on campus after 12pm on Saturdays.

05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Bring your idea for Wikimedia in Education to life! Launch of the Wikimedia Education GreenhouseEdit

Apply for Education Greenhouse


Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupe wikimedia.org

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-15Edit

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2019Edit





Headlines
  • Albania report: WikiFilmat SQ - new articles about the Albanian movie industry!
  • Armenia report: Art+Feminism+GLAM, Collaboration with Hovhannes Toumanian museum
  • Australia report: Art+Feminism 2019 in Australia
  • Brazil report: The GLAM at USP Museum of Veterinary Anatomy: a history of learnings and improvements
  • Colombia report: Moving GLAM institutions inside and outside Colombia
  • Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice
  • France report: Wiki day at the Institut national d'histoire de l'art; Age of wiki at the Musée Saint-Raymond
  • India report: Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust content donation to Wikimedia
  • Italy report: Italian librarians in Milan
  • Macedonia report: WikiLeague: Edit-a-thon on German Literature
  • Netherlands report: WikiconNL, International Womens Day and working together with Amnesty, Field study Dutch Libraries and Wikimedia
  • Serbia report: Spring residences and a wiki competition
  • Sweden report: UNESCO; Working life museums; Swedish Performing Arts Agency shares historic music; Upload of glass plates photographs
  • UK report: Wiki-people and Wiki-museum-data
  • USA report: Women's History Month and The Met has two Wikimedians in the house
  • Wikidata report: Go Siobhan!
  • WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons; Bengali Wikisource case study
  • Calendar: April's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2019-16Edit

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Pine".