Article in Signpost about Wikipedia workshop in Namibia

[Kingsindian]

An interesting article in the Signpost about a Wikipedia workshop in Namibia.

Some quotes:

Alas, before my car left town editing dropped to zero, and no single edit has been performed on Wp/hz ever since. Which is, in a nutshell, the story of all my outreach in Namibia. Operation successful, patient dead: A well-run workshop resulted in exactly zero new editors, zero subsequent edits, zero subsequent picture uploads. What I did get, however, were several sms from attendees, asking to have such an enjoyable workshop again soon!

Building on anecdotal evidence, outreach workshops have not been successful anywhere. Some simple number crunching gives you one idea why: English Wikipedia has attracted about 3K very active editors (100+edits/month) and some 30K active editors (5+edits/month), out of 1.5 billion speakers of that language. Per million speakers, this is about 2 very active and 20 active editors. Proportionally, Somalia has more doctors than the world has active Wikipedians. There are more professional chess players in the world than very active Wikipedians. Wikipedia is a hobby of a tiny minority.

Punchline:

I am convinced by now that recruiting Wikipedia editors by offering a workshop nearby is a terribly ineffective measure. We always easily get funding for such initiatives, and we might do them for the publicity. But to increase our editor base there is hardly any method less successful than running workshops.

I have little knowledge of the whole business of workshops, but it's almost as if publicity is a goal in itself for the WMF, and the volunteer base isn't even an afterthought? Perhaps that's too cynical, I don't know.

[HRIP7]

I have little knowledge of the whole business of workshops, but it's almost as if publicity is a goal in itself for the WMF, and the volunteer base isn't even an afterthought? Perhaps that's too cynical, I don't know.

This Signpost op-ed is useful, especially in combination with the argument made by Tim and others on Jimbotalk that WMF could make better use of its money by funding volunteers' access to paywalled sources and online libraries ... you know, stuff that would actually support content generation.

Basically, my feeling is the WMF has never really given a shit about volunteers, or content. It took them years to take on responsibilities for child protection, for example, and it was very much near the bottom of their list of priorities (or rather near the top of their list of responsibilities to shirk for as long as possible). It's always been about money, page views, political influence and empire building rather than education.

The roots of that mindset go way back to Wales' Bomis days, where Bomis was looking for any way to build traffic – be it soft porn or a free encyclopedia.

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things. It's not without significance that, as mentioned in this week's Signpost, the WMF never formally acknowledged the volunteer community's open letter about Superprotect.

[Cedric]

Basically, my feeling is the WMF has never really given a shit about volunteers, or content. It took them years to take on responsibilities for child protection, for example, and it was very much near the bottom of their list of priorities (or rather near the top of their list of responsibilities to shirk for as long as possible). It's always been about money, page views, political influence and empire building rather than education.

Exactly. Also known as "pumping the numbers." In this respect, the WMF is no different from any major news media corporation. Indeed, it is clear from a number of its annual reports that the WMF views such organizations, rather than EB, as its major competition. "WP:NOTNEWSPAPER" and Teh Communitah be damned.

[Kingsindian]

According to the latest WMF audit report (via Eric Barbour on the WS forum), the WMF spent $11 million in 2016 in grants and awards (probably to chapters). It is quite a big increase from 2015, where it only spent $4.5 million. "Salaries and wages" remains the biggest category of spending, by far.

I have no idea what this money is spent on. There should be more focus on this in the "Money Trail" subforum. This is a seriously large amount of money.

[Johnny Au]

Apparently, for lesser-spoken languages, bots are needed to create a large number of articles in very little time. For example, Cebuano and Waray-Waray are nowhere in the top 50 most spoken languages in the world, yet are among the top ten in article count (Cebuano having the third most). However, the Cebuano Wikipedia primarily consists of perma-stubs (especially for geographical articles simply stating that it exists without any significance).

[Poetlister]

Apparently, for lesser-spoken languages, bots are needed to create a large number of articles in very little time. For example, Cebuano and Waray-Waray are nowhere in the top 50 most spoken languages in the world, yet are among the top ten in article count (Cebuano having the third most). However, the Cebuano Wikipedia primarily consists of perma-stubs (especially for geographical articles simply stating that it exists without any significance).

We've discussed this before.

[Anthonyhcole]

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things.

This is very much needed. Perhaps a Wikipedia editors and writers association rather than "union" which word might scare a few.

[Poetlister]

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things.

This is very much needed. Perhaps a Wikipedia editors and writers association rather than "union" which word might scare a few.

The Randians wouldn't wantto join a union. And any association would rapidly tear itself to bits.

[Randy from Boise]

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things.

This is very much needed. Perhaps a Wikipedia editors and writers association rather than "union" which word might scare a few.

The Randians wouldn't wantto join a union. And any association would rapidly tear itself to bits.

The real hardcore content people are apolitical in terms of wikipolitics and work alone or in tiny groups of likeminded people.

It'd be like herding cats.

tim

[Earthy Astringent]

I have little knowledge of the whole business of workshops, but it's almost as if publicity is a goal in itself for the WMF, and the volunteer base isn't even an afterthought? Perhaps that's too cynical, I don't know.

This Signpost op-ed is useful, especially in combination with the argument made by Tim and others on Jimbotalk that WMF could make better use of its money by funding volunteers' access to paywalled sources and online libraries ... you know, stuff that would actually support content generation.

Basically, my feeling is the WMF has never really given a shit about volunteers, or content. It took them years to take on responsibilities for child protection, for example, and it was very much near the bottom of their list of priorities (or rather near the top of their list of responsibilities to shirk for as long as possible). It's always been about money, page views, political influence and empire building rather than education.

The roots of that mindset go way back to Wales' Bomis days, where Bomis was looking for any way to build traffic – be it soft porn or a free encyclopedia.

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things. It's not without significance that, as mentioned in this week's Signpost, the WMF never formally acknowledged the volunteer community's open letter about Superprotect.

Well look at what the cat dragged in.

[Anthonyhcole]

I suspect the one possible Wikipedia development that scares Wales more than anything is that volunteers could unionise and demand things.

This is very much needed. Perhaps a Wikipedia editors and writers association rather than "union" which word might scare a few.

The Randians wouldn't wantto join a union. And any association would rapidly tear itself to bits.

The real hardcore content people are apolitical in terms of wikipolitics and work alone or in tiny groups of likeminded people.

It'd be like herding cats.

tim

I'm not so sure. Chapters manage to survive.

[Poetlister]

I'm not so sure. Chapters manage to survive.

Chapters don't consist of groups of people editing in solidarity, more of people who go to pubs for social meet-ups. Yes, WMUK has editathons, but most of those involved aren't WMUK members, just people roped in for one event and usually never heard from again.