Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-05-06/News and notes

Discuss this story

"The current two-year terms for these trustee positions ends on 1 September" should read "The current two-year terms for these trustee positions end..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs)
(FDC) "in-person attendance at two to three meetings a year in San Francisco" - note that the meetings aren't necessarily in San Francisco - e.g. the last one was adjacent to the chapters meeting in Milan. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Wikimania 2014) "This will be the first time a major wiki event has been held in the UK" - except for GLAM-WIKI 2010, EduWiki Conference 2012 and GLAM-WIKI 2013. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike and Anthony, thanks to both of you for spotting these. Let me know if my fixes aren't ok. Tony (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ting Chen resigned, effective May 5th. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the predicted number of 2014 attendees based on? Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes. And 2013. I asked that question already. Tony (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. I can't seem to see it :). Ironholds (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now I'm prompted to look here for his response. Mmmm ... mmmm! Any stats people around? There are two issues, IMO: first, the unbroken line should turn into a dotted line to indicate prediction; second, the method of "software" prediction should appear somewhere ... at worst in a footnote, but briefly in the caption would be better. Or the predictive part removed altogether. Rcs, could you dot the line and add to the caption? Tony (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely stats-y over here. I'd strongly suggest removing or at least adding a caution to that graph; if it's based solely on the rate of increase of attendance, it's not going to be at all accurate. Reasons:

Attendance is not influenced solely by popularity. Other factors are invariably going to include geographical location (if we hold it in Australia, for example, we're likely to price a lot of people from Europe or North America out), scholarship numbers and the value of those scholarships, appeal of the core city and appeal of the core bid. These are not constants, and they are not things that can be guaranteed to increase at the same rate.
Even if popularity is the only factor, I don't understand the statement that Wikimania will continue to gain popularity. In terms of the exposure of the event, sure, we get press coverage every year. This has been happening for quite a while, now. In terms of the exposure of the movement: our reader numbers are growing, certainly, but it's worth noting that the increase has actually been retarded over the last couple of years compared to the rate we were going at before. That can't be guaranteed to keep going up at the same rate. In terms of editors, our community is actually shrinking, year-on-year; same problem.
You're inevitably going to run into a hard ceiling; if we set up an event for 1,500 people and 2,000 ask for tickets, that's fine. That's great. But 500 are going to lose out. If Wikimanias continue to be organised in the same way, we've got a practical limit on the number of attendees (and I'd argue that more attendees would alter the culture substantially).
There is probably an argument to be made for non-Wikimedians attending, and bypassing the popularity problem that way: researchers, for example, or government organisations. But again, this is something that is going to vary a lot depending on location and the roots the movement has in that location. Ironholds (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and Monmouth "successful"? I guess if you mean in terms of inserting advertising for tourism boards into the encyclopedia and backroom payoffs for chapter board members. It's amazing that WMF would allow yet another program like those two to be formed. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By any metric I've seen, Monmouth was highly successful. Gibraltar, if you'll take another look at the article, has a different qualifier ("controversial"). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Advertising value for Monmouth alone has been estimated at £2.12 million". Successful at exploiting the encyclopedia for commercial gain, yes. Monmouth may not have been the main focus of the scandal, but it was every bit as corrupt. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we may have to come to terms with varying degrees of exploitation. I'll take a Monmouth-like project where historical objects get QR codes (and yes, the resulting publicity that leads to revenue for them) over the ridiculous companies peddling Wikipedia content for financial gain like Books LLC. Where's the backlash against them? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why would there be backlash against something that's explicitly allowed by our license and mission? Our content is licensed for any use, even commercial. That's completely different from someone looking to corrupt our content for commercial gain. Gigs (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]