Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-08-26

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-08-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration (1,815 bytes · 💬)

• It's all very simple. Not taking an administrative action is considered an action. Therefore, before taking any administrative action (including taking an action that is not an action), you should consult with all the administrators who did not take action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• It could be simpler even if people would talk to a user before reporting the one to enforcement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that Gerda Arendt is the type of editor who always places a higher priority on kindness, communication and one-on-one dispute resolution before frequent ANI complaints and quick application of the block hammer. We would be better off with more active editors sharing those attitudes of hers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Gerda Arendt: I concur with your thinking. Too much block first, talk second these days,. Should be talk first and then block (the latter being only if disruption persists after discussing the issue(s) properly). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Out to stud, please call later (2,592 bytes · 💬)

This published with "Albert Reiss in front of the Metropolitan Opera House stage entrance" and "Gilbert Duprez as Gaston in Giuseppe Verdi's Jérusalem" miscredited. You really need to watch the attributions. "created by ???" is not an attribution, that's the bot's default text; nor am I generally the sole creator of 19th-century works. There may be others. I don't have that much time for Wikipedia at the moment, but attribution is one of the basic requirements of having a featured content report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was afraid this would happen. A hatnote with "#" in it can't make it to Featured Article status. So I invite anyone who might be interested to evaluate my solution to the American Pharaoh problem. I'm so glad I forgot to remove the TV section from my newspaper that I had taken to the mountains last year, and found it this year, or I might never have known about Bob Bradley. And if the information about Bob Bradley is insufficient, I'm sure more can be found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Edvard Munch got Madonna Ciccone's hair color wrong but otherwise that's amazing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• …and thanks to you I now know that the Egyptian national football team had six managers in the 1953-54 season. At the same time. The halftime changing room pep talk must have been absolute hell for the players. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nice to see that I'm not the only person that thinks Inception is the best movie ever.--Eat me, I'm a red bean (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors (25,007 bytes · 💬)

• It's an interesting trend. Do you know why the August figures will take so long? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
  
  • I'm assuming it will be a month after July came out, though that may have been delayed for extra scrutiny as several people were cautious about the upturn. ϢereSpielChequers 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• This is great! ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 03:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Meme of decline

• There are many ways to criticize this metric, and clearly the 100+ edits a month statistic is an imperfect way to measure the count of "really useful editors", paraphrasing Thomas the Tank Engine. But it is a useful metric, and I see no evidence that the ranks of disruptive or obsessive editors racking up 100 edits or more a month is increasing at the expense of genuine content creators. This data calls the "Wikipedia editor count is plunging!!" meme into question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It hasn't just been a meme. The raw figures had been falling for some time, and while part of the decline was due to the edit filters, and part to increasing speed of vandalism reversion, a lot of people believe that most or all of the decline was "real". Yes there will be a time in the distant future when edit count on individual language projects will be as useful an indicator as tonnage of horse shit removed now is of London traffic. If and when editing of infoboxes moves to Wikidata then inevitably the edit count on individual language wikipedias will dip, just as the change to a hub and spoke system for intrawikis lost us lots of perfectly good bot edits. If we ever reduced the default from four warnings to three before we blocked vandalism only accounts, then we would not only lose more good edits than bad (one rollback and one userpage warning for each lost vandalism) but our cherished and longstanding metric of editors doing 5 or more edits in the month would take a knock. By the mid twentieth century the AIs could have taken over this site and be generating each language version of an article from a common core except only where the local language community had opted for local human control of an article of special cultural significance to their language. I'd like to see us measure something more nuanced such as unique hours in which a volunteer saves an edit. But as long as we treat it as an indicator, and remember that what it indicate does change over time, then I think these statistics are worth collecting and monitoring. ϢereSpielChequers 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits per article, Wikipedians per article

A nice piece: the downward trend had been showing signs of reversing for a while.

One thing to bear in mind though is that the number of edits per article has clearly declined. In March 2007 there were 4.8 million edits spread across 1.6 million articles (about 3 edits per article). In March 2015, there were 3.1 million edits spread across 4.8 million articles (about 0.6 edits per article).

So articles as a whole are stabilising. In some cases, this may be because they have matured and become really good (I believe featured articles for example generally see fewer edits) or "good enough", in other cases it may just be a question of fatigue on the part of editors who used to fight over content – then you get articles that look like abandoned battlefields (I can think of a few).

In addition, new articles added see fewer edits than they used to in the past – possibly because they are in niche topics, with shorter content and fewer people interested in them.

What has also sharply declined, of course, is the number of highly active Wikipedians per article. This has potential implications for quality control. For example, hundreds of thousands of articles are on no active editor's watchlist. Andreas JN466 14:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, I'd agree there has been a fall in edits per article, though I'd point out that part of that will be the things that contributed to the overall fall in the number of edits. Edit filters, faster vandalism reversion, the revised intrawiki system etc. To some extent improved edit filters and pending changes can also compensate for the decline in watchlisting, my own watchlisting picks up rather less vandalism than it once did. I suspect we are also filling in the gaps with lots of uncontentious articles that rarely change, it would be interesting to do stats on the proportion of contentious articles at any time - my suspicion is that the number of disputed articles grows far more slowly than the number of articles. But I do agree that there is a problem, and my preference is that at some point we introduce flagged revisions as it works on DE wiki. That way we can be sure that every edit by an IP or newbie is looked at by at least one regular. ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I interpret this low-edits-per-article-overall aspect of the statistics very pessimistically. And indeed, I interpret the recent unmistakeably-upward trend in active editors extremely pessimistically.

the pessimist's guide to uptrending very-active-editors , coupled with flatlined-edits-per-article

First things first: when you see that the average article is getting less than one edit per month, to me that doesn't indicate that wikipedia finally has all the articles we need and all those existing articles are complete barring addition of rare ongoing news-events, as clicking Special:Random twenty times in a row will clearly demonstrate is utterly false. To me, that stat indicates that we have hundreds of thousands of articles edited solely by one or two humans. There was recently a sock-investigation, where several hundred sock-usernames were shaking down good-faith-but-COI-encumbered wikipedians for cash off-wiki, in exchange for "rescuing" specific COI-encumbered-on-wiki-articles, usually by storing the advertorial-puffery at some little-used existing-redirect-location in mainspace, and also usually by unattributed-copyvio. The result of this scheme: "new" article is created (usually a spelling-variation or existing long-stable redirect), edited less than ten times to insert puffery by an SPA, and then the SPA evaporates, and the COI-encumbered editor makes one or two changes per year. Articles like that are, by definition, low-edits-per-article, which get approximately one edit every few months. Now, clearly throwaway-SPA-usernames, and one-article-focus COI editors, obviously aren't increasing the active-100+edits-per-month category. But they *are* very much decreasing the average-edits-per-article statistic. Which leads us to, second things second: why does that seemingly-unrelated issue, low-edit-count SPA and COI editors creating and WP:OWNing low-traffic articles, make me distrust the recent uptrend in very active editors? For one simple reason: anecdotal evidence.  ;-)     Okay, okay, not just that. But there is anecdotal evidence, to my eyes at least, that disclosed-paid-COI-editing has been exponentially increasing the past three years, and that undisclosed-paid-editing has been *rapidly* increasing the past few years, often by staffers, but sometimes (and increasingly often) by quasi-professionals that specialize in paid-wikipedia-edits (overt or covert). If this anecdotal evidence of highly-active paid-editor-population, is taken at face value, it is still just anecdotal evidence. But logically, if you combine the statistical trend, that we have a lot of unwatched articles, and a metric truckload of articles edited by just one of two people ever, PLUS we also have anecdotal evidence of highly active highly organized paid editing increasing, the conclusion one might draw, varies depending on whether one is an optimist or a pessimist about humanity. One possible conclusion: suddenly, wikipedia is once again a warm and fuzzy place where lovers of knowledge can convene in beautiful harmony. I'm not seeing beautiful harmony at AfD. I'm not seeing it at AfC. I'm never really expecting to see it at the dramah-boards, either. But worst of all, I don't see it on article-talkpages any more: they are either silent, because nobody is there, or they are silent, because they are the DMZ of a contentious article with wiki-gangs waging wars of attrition, or they are noisy with a wiki-gang battle gone hot temporarily ("to the wiki-mattresses" said Don Wiki-Corleone). All too often, the talkpage is silent, because an article filled with puffery was created in one fell swoop, and then left in mainspace unmolested for years and years, or at least, months and months. Anyways, I would be delighted if the uptrend was a legit indicator that, despite the harsh wiki-culture, gradually the general public is learning to love wikipedia for itself, and there is a growing awareness that to improve wikipedia, average citizen-volunteers will need to roll up their sleeves, learn the bazillion wiki-policies by heart, and cite every sentence fragment they include to seven different mainstream wiki-reliable publications lest their contribution be insta-deleted. I fear it is vastly more likely that, rather than a growing movement to *save* wikipedia from degradation, which is causing an unexpected influx of citizen-volunteers, there is instead a steadily-growing hardening of public opinion that wikipedia is a horrible nasty place to contribute as a beginner, because everything is deleted, and everyone speaks in crazy wiki-jargon, that invariably translates into You Cannot Do That Here So Obey Or Be Blocked. Thus, a more pessimistic conclusion: what we instead are witnessing, is the crass commercially-driven influx of a mob of paid editors, who are here to make an off-wiki buck here on-wiki, and are thus willing to suffer the revert-first-ask-questions-never wikiculture, and the byzantine bureaucracy, because they are being paid in cold hard coinage for the frustrating and difficult work they do: getting around the wiki-policies and finding the quiet corners of the 'pedia to add puffery unmolested by the wiki-cops.

Now, for reasons methinks are obvious, I would very much like to be proven wrong, about the pessimistic conclusion being the more plausible one. But, since I see zero mentions of "paid*" nor "disclos*" nor "sock*" in the statistics being offered here, nobody seems to be *trying* to disprove me, and I'm not sure whether that is because my fears are implausible and my anecdotal evidence flawed, or because other people are more optimistic about humanity than myself, and have not considered the alternative explanation for the uptrend. Questions: what percentage of the uptrend is paid editing by disclosed paid editors? What is the estimated ratio of disclosed-paid-editor-count, to undisclosed-paid-editor-count? Have those figures changed since 2013, when the current uptrend kinda-sorta-began? Those are my pessimistic questions. I realize that the wiki-stats available won't have my answers, since to get exacting answers would require analysis of every single edit by unbiased neutral humans. (Catch-22! those are the people we want *making* new edits ... not spending time analyzing *past* edits.)

But I do think that some of the figures we have could be analyzed, to detect agenda-and-promotional-and-battleground-type editing, in a specific fashion. For instance, of the July-uptick, how much or how little of that uptick is related to the 381-strong sockfarm just revealed? We know the sock-list now, so this should be a straightforward SQL query, for somebody with backend-privs. As another idea, more likely to give us rough answers of the kind we're looking for: what if we picked a random sampling of 1000 edits from the June'15 dataset, and analyzed those alone (e.g. by publishing the list of the 1000 randomly-selected edits here on-wiki then crowd-source analyzing them all in divide-and-conquer-fashion). We could categorize them into sourced-improvement, quasi-sourced-quasi-improvement, neutral-grammar-or-similar-tweak, unsourced-addition-factual-looking, unsourced-addition-promotional-looking, quasi-sourced-addition-agenda-pushing, blatantly-vandalism, and maybe a few others?

Then, do the same for 1000 random edits from June'14, from June'13, from June'12, and so on back to 2005 or something, to give us a nice long ten-year-trend. I'd rather see those type of statistics, grouped by type of edit, than the generic anonymized statistics grouped by edit-count-itis-standing. That would give us some insight into whether the uptrend is an increase in good-faith contributors... or instead, to quote a memorable phrase used above out-of-context, a metric related to the tonnage of horseshit that needs to be removed. Gracias, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of these things are difficult to test, and just because no one is volunteering to test them doesn't mean they agree or disagree with them. I have tested the direct effect of Orangemoody on the >100 a month metric. I've checked a dozen of those accounts at random and only one was even close to 100 edits in any one month, and while many now have more deleted edits than live, the pattern includes gnomish edits as well as article creation, so many of them will have live if reverted edits. So I doubt there will be much direct effect on the >100 edit metric, as unless my sample is ridiculously skewed the great majority of those editors won't have reached the 100 edit total in any one month. Indirectly of course there should be some effect, deleting a bunch of articles created over the last few months will take out all the edits to those articles, and there could be categorisers or other gnomes who drop below 100 live edits in one or more recent months as a result of this. Whether that exceeds normal attrition will be hard to spot, but sometimes AFD deletes contentious articles with a lot of contributors and if that happens it could eclipse the effect of these deletions. I would not be at all surprised if the July uptick disappears when we get the August figures, many articles created in July won't have been deleted until August, and these will be skewed towards one that were categorised, wikified and deletion tagged in July. So when August comes out if July 2015 has dropped below July 2013 but above July 2014 I won't be surprised but I'd suspect it is more likely normal deletions than Orangemoody - not least because any effect of Orangemoody will be spread across the several months that those edits were made. As for the rest of your comments, I don't know how to estimate how much undisclosed paid editing is going on, and I doubt anyone else does either. My suspicion is that spam generally increases in line with perceived value to marketers of an entry in Wikipedia, and that probably lags one or two years behind our total readership, but how do you measure covert activity? ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Where I hope Orangemoody will have an effect (a negative one in terms of number of edits and number of articles, but a positive effect on the much less easily measurable factor of quality) is inducing us to remove the similarly promotional articles inserted by other promotional editors, and especially the many thousands added in the past when our standards were lower. The only real way to prevent such abuse is by more careful scrutiny, and I hope the effect of this concentrated effort to remove some of this material will be to encourage people to work much harder at detecting and removing others. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Something that brought me back

I had really slowed down my content editing up until about 1 month ago, largely because I am working for the Foundation on WP:TWL, but also burnout. I know the meta:100wikidays challenge has helped me feel more tied to coming back to contributing (and contributing content). I have noticed an increase in the number of similar collegial activities in the last couple years: whereas when I really burnt out and backed off in 2012/13, those were nearly as accessable. I wonder if we should be encouraging more editing contests, to keep people engaged (there is even a tool kit for running such events being worked on, based on community learnings). On English we don't have as many of these kinds of spaces as we could (geographically focused language communities tend to do it better), Sadads (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are ghost towns

I quit editing a while back, maybe 5 years. Trying to make Abe Lincoln an FA broke my will to edit. I've been checking my watchlist daily for the a last few weeks now, though. I see some of the same people around still active, like Black Kite and BOZ. I miss the editors from the old inclusionist/deletionist wars we used to have who aren't around anymore, like Ned Scott and Matthew. Win or lose, I don't think WP has ever had anything as addictive as that particular fight. Now it's over.

Anyways, I still have a bunch of wikiproject pages on my watchlist, but they barely ever come up anymore. WProject comics used to have maybe 10 comments a day. Now it's a few a week. Same with the rest. Things are way less active than they used to be. But, I'm back, doing a little bit here and there, though. Maybe we hit rock bottom and will start moving up. I think wikinews never came back, though, as an example, so who knows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! I find the active pages, editors and even wikiProjects change over time, so looking at a bunch of pages that were active several years ago will likely include more of the ones that have become less active than the newly active ones. My experience of WikiProjects is that many have watchers who return if there is a query and respond if it interests them. So while I agree that overall we probably are less active than at peak, it is easy to get a skewed impression and difficult to really measure how the community has changed. ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The trend continues for August

August stats are in and the trend continues. I'm starting to monitor this at User:WereSpielChequers/100+ editors ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion at JimboTalk about picking ten random articles, and then comparing their article-quality today, versus their article-quality one year ago in 2014, versus their article-quality 5 years ago in 2010, versus their article-quality ten years ago in 2015. Although it is somewhat biased by the eye-of-the-beholder phenomenon, it does seem to be a useful metric.

    Is there a way to run a similar test on the usernames with 100+ edits per month? Which is to say, randomly pick ten of those usernames, and then examine their contrib-quality for September 2015, compared to September 2014, September 2010, and September 2005? That might give us a rough idea of what sort of editors, doing what sort of work, are causing the uptrend. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to get that data myself, but I fear it would have the same drawback as ten random articles in that it wouldn't be statistically valid; Especially if you were looking for sub trends such as FA contributions. Ten editors might give you a rough idea between gnomes and content writers, but in the unlikely event that a single FA writer happened to be among the ten that would skew things hugely. It would also be incredibly skewed if you limited it to ten editors who have been active all the way through as opposed to ten random active editors for each year. Yes there are editors who have been consistently active since 2005 - I've heard that until this year the 2006 cohort was the most productive in every year since 2006. But those editors have themselves changed over time, some may have gone from vandalfighting adolescents to article writing postgrads. Others may have written the articles they were interested in and since hung around maybe doing an hour or two on AWB or Huggle once a fortnight. I've only been here since 2007 so I wouldn't make your sample, but I guess I'm in the group who found some niches, in my case categorisation and typofixing, and much of my editing by volume is still in those niches. But my earliest edits definitely won't have included citations, and while I add little content nowadays, when I do I cite it. So if you were looking at it from that angle I would suggest a much bigger sample size, and decide if you were looking at how longterm editors change over time, or at how the currently very active community changes from year to year. Personally I'm taking a very different approach, looking for anomalies and patterns, hypothesizing various things that could have changed the stats over time and then trying to quantify that effect. For example there was a suggestion that the Orangemoody related deletions would have a measurable effect on this by deleting hundreds of articles created in the first half of this year. User:WereSpielChequers/100+ editors is my evidence that the effect of Orangemoody on the >100 edits stats was very probably trivial, or just conceivably, big but almost exactly balanced out by an otherwise unobserved and unexpected move in the opposite direction. ϢereSpielChequers 11:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wishful thinking

We have years of decline, then one indicator goes contrary. If it is reflective of anything it is the bad actors beginning their steady march. As another editor mentions above WikiProjects have mostly failed. Barnstars and WikiLove are nice and all but they have nothing to do with the integrity of the project. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't just one indicator now, though we held back the publication of the article for months while people double checked the stats on this one. At the other end of the scale look at Wikipedia:Time Between Edits. For the last year we have been pretty consistent at about 60 days per ten million edits, in 2014 we had three consecutive ten millions that took over 70 days. As for Wikilove, thanks are very nice, but they aren't logged as edits and I'm sure that sometimes they replace them. ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia (1,754 bytes · 💬)

• "Russian internet providers do not have the "expensive equipment" needed to block individual pages on sites using HTTPS" pfft - does anyone? [Yes I know that in theory, data gets leaked by inter-packet timing, and packet lengths. But being able to do online timing/length analysis of https streams and selectively block them in real time, still sounds like the realm of science fiction to me. Or I guess he could mean doing a giant MITM attack with some government obtained cert, which would be more politically shocking then technically.] Bawolff (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bawolff, from Meduza:

"Earlier in August, Roskomnadzor briefly banned the popular website Reddit. The offending content was a page titled, "Minimal and Reliable Methods for Growing Psilocybe [Mushrooms]." Because Reddit uses https protocol for secure communication, many Russian Internet providers (perhaps 30 percent, according to Roskomnadzor) would have blocked the website in its entirety. It is unclear why Roskomnadzor, in its threat against Wikipedia, implies that https would require the entire website to be blocked for more than 30 percent of Russian Internet users." (As Russian Internet providers start blocking Wikipedia, the banned entry is taken off blacklist Stanislav Kozlovskiy, Meduza, 25 August 2015)

--Atlasowa (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: Re-imagining grants (1,623 bytes · 💬)

The articles on top GA/FAs state 15-20% of pageviews are mobile. This is over 50% on average for medical articles. Unless we begin including mobile we miss more than half our traffic and our results are not very accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that more than 50% of Wikipedia pageviews are from mobile (across the board, not just for medical articles). Hopefully mobile stats will be more widely available soon. Keep an eye on T44259. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaldari For all of EN WP I am getting 40% (3.3B/8.26B) and for all 36% (6.5/17.9) [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Note A Request for Comment about the conflicting CentralNotice banners is posted here: Meta:Requests for comment/Fundraising banner or Wiki Loves Monuments banner. It is time the community has a say in this. Romaine (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences? (37,696 bytes · 💬)

It's actually a systemic problem with chain hotels. Not only do they soak up visitors at exorbitant rates, but they capture a lot of the other spending too, from taxi fares to food and drink, and in the beach resorts entertainment and leisure. It is hard to find accommodation for 1,000+ people with suitable facilities, and at a good price. Pretty much Universities are the only likely contenders. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

• Very nice op-ed, Lane! - with which I agree. - kosboot (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Lane hits the nail on the head with so many observations that it's difficult to know which ones to comment on. Probably the scarcity of budget for scholarships, the huge disparity in the quality of accommodation (DC was aweful), are among major issues. The totally disproportionate use of the conference by the Foundation to showcase their own exploits and present awards to each other has always raised my eyebrows. Overall, I just dread what's going to happen in Italy next year. Thank you. Lane, for this excellent article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Excellent points. A mass-movement with pedestrian roots risks losing goodwill through profligacy. Shyamal (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think it is difficult to assess the significance and future direction of Wikimania events without recognizing that they differ greatly in size based on various factors. The first sentence of this op-ed stands out; "About a thousand people convene" is not a good description of Wikimania 2014 in London, where it was over two thousand. So Wikimania in Mexico was about half the size of the previous year's event, and my understanding is that Wikimania 2016 in Italy certainly does not aim to return to the size of the London event. I think it was said that it's hoped to get back to events more like the 2005 Frankfurt Wikimania... much smaller. But one of the implications of a smaller event is that a much larger proportion of attendees will be either paid Foundation staff (whose dominance of the conference program Lane and Kudpung express concern about here) or recipients of travel grants (a system of which some parts of the community seem to disapprove). For me, two very significant things about Wikimania in London were first that some of the most valuable and productive sessions were the community round-table discussions (not organized by the Foundation), and second that the event attracted such a very large number of people who either had not edited before, or were beginner editors or irregular editors. But the event ambitious enough to provide these outcomes came at quite a cost... it was expensive. Does a high cost necessarily imply profligacy? Has the Foundation demonstrated that there are other ways it can spend donors' money that are more efficient in meeting the aims involved? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping Below someone suggested that I respond to you. Thanks for continuing the conversation. You raise several issues but I only wish to respond to one right here - no, I do not think any money was wasted or could have been spent more efficiently. My objection is only that there is a narrative that Wikimedia events are run inexpensively with volunteer support. The reality is that volunteer run events carry a lot of risks and attendees complain about lack of professionalism for these events. When events planning is left to professionals and volunteers are left to do Wikimedia activities rather than event planning, the cost only goes up to typical nonprofit conference costs and not anything beyond that. There is nothing wrong with the Wikimedia community doing things like a typical nonprofit community - in fact, I favor that in many ways - but this is in contrast to a community philosophy that everything should be crowdsourced. Again, I acknowledge that you raise other points. I would discuss those elsewhere, but not here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• On the question of greater reliance on paid organizers, I think the case has been made. Conference space with suitable infrastructure is not cheap, even for a "smaller" event of under 1000 attendees. No-one has suggested abandoning scholarships altogether, and plane tickets still cost serious money even if we move back to 3 star hotels instead of the 4 star Hilton (I hope we are not moving back to 1 star and 2 star accommodation). So if large six-figure sums must be spent on Wikimania every year anyway, then the cost of more paid event organizers to get the most out of that investment... and to provide better accounting for how the money is spent, as Lane mentions... is very worthwhile. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I had to give Mexico a miss - it would have cost me around $5,000.00, serious money that I don't have for a 4-day jaunt. I think prolific content providers and hard working backroom boys/girls should be first in line for some compensation but after two years on the scholarships committee I know that's not how it's allowed to work. Hilton Hotel in Mexico? I can't believe that such a large city didn't have anything more economical to offer. At the bottom end of the scale, the humiliation of a backpacker squat in an 8-man room on the 4th floor without a functioning elevator for an arthritic old age pensioner was a bit hard to swallow, while the WMF as always, on top of their other junkets, wallow in 5-star luxury. I'm always amazed why no Wikimania is able to learn from the errors of its predecessors. I can't help but feel that Italy is going to be a fiasco, but I'll be there anyway. I've heard tell that European visitors are going to be expected to come in motor homes or caravans.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I went to a hostel in Washington and I can't complain about it. Four-star hotels are certainly too expensive for a volunteer project. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• "The first two were hackathon days, in which WMF staff controlled everything in the schedule" - I wasn't able to go to Mexico, but as a developer this strikes me as extremely odd. Of course typically, "sessions" aren't why you go to the hackathon, but still usually people can do what they want. Even the official website says "This schedule is made by the hackathon participants." [2]. So what's the deal with this. Bawolff (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bawolff this would be a minor issue which could be resolved with communication, except that it is another example of how paid staff naturally tend to capture loosely-held common property. Staff should do this - staff are great for getting more value out of underutilized resources. The problem was that all events posted for the first two days of Wikimania had to be approved by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and they had a blanket rejection policy for anything that was not coding and software development. I wanted an WP:OTRS session and would have helped other people schedule too. See Talk:Hackathon#The_Wikimania_Hackathon_is_a_technical_event_indeed. This is not a problem now - I think this is going to be addressed and resolved so that there is space for everyone from now on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry That doesn't sound like it had much to do with being controlled by paid staff so much as being reserved for certain types of events. A Hackathon, by definition is an event to do coding and software development. Bawolff (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bawolff In previous years the hackathon made space for non-technical events, and the entirety of the preconference has been called the hackathon. This year there was policing to prevent dilution of the hackathon concept, such that non-technical events where disallowed from the hackathon schedule and no alternative was provided for scheduling them. There were empty rooms everywhere, and most people in attendance were non-developers, so the scarce resource being withheld was branding and space on the Wikimania wiki. There was no way to get other kinds of events on the Wikimania schedule. In previous years anyone could schedule anything. The problem could be solved by having a separate schedule for other kinds of events, and not advertising the preconference as exclusively a hackathon. I do not want to encroach on the hackathon - I just wanted to use empty rooms and space on the wiki do post other events. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, This was the first year things were done this way and that was part of Qgil-WMF's team's effort to make things work better. They asked for feedback, so I think it would be something you could tell them. --☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 14:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was in charge of the Wikimania Hackathon content prior to the beginning of the event. "The first two were hackathon days, in which WMF staff controlled everything in the schedule" is definitely not true. We have wiki pages, phabricator tasks and mailing list archives to show that open calls were made and the schedule was filled by whoever had any session to propose in a completely decentralized fashion. We kept the scope of the pre-scheduled hackathon session to technical sessions, yes, but this is just consequent. During the event, we accommodated to all requests, we spoke with Bluerasberry (just like we spoke with him before online), and as far as I'm aware he got the space and slots he was asking for. I agree that there should be rooms available for non-technical unconference-like sessions, I just don't think that these should be provided by the Hackathon organizers. They should be planned by the Wikimania organizers. It is not true that all spaces before the main Wikimania days were allocated to the Hackathon. Other activities were organized in spaces allocated to them, totally out of the scope and reach of the Hackathon. In next years there should be an open space for non-technical sessions, completely detached from the Hackathon, so contributors like Bluerasberry can have non-technical meetings at will without having to deal with the Hackathon process.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Asking the question if paid staff should be hired or not should be answered in my opinion based on the available qualities (skills) in the community to come to a good plan. To organise a good conference, you need at first a good plan. A good plan consists out of arranging everything possible, and then even expect to arrange more things that are not expected. To be able to arrange everything possible, you need someone or some people who have insight in planning and oversight the whole happening. This is not easy to learn, you just need luck to have someone on board who has the skills to do that and can see and understand the issues.
• Having a local chapter themselves doing the organisation of the largest Wikimedia event possible gives a chapter the opportunity to professionalise. They learn that they can organise the largest event, and having done that, everything is possible and easy for them to do as well. During the organisation to learn by doing. And they get a chance to culture exchange, something what is important for the world wide movement. As a local movement gets the opportunity to open their mind up to the world wide community, afterwards a chapter is a stronger organisation with more experience. Not only for the key organisers, but for all the helping volunteers that get to learn about the excitement from the whole world wide Wikimedia movement.
• But above all, being hired or as volunteer organising a conference, the most important part is to have feeling with the community that comes to the conference. Wikimedia has a large different culture in comparison with almost any organisation.
• One question that should be asked is: what is Wikimania? And more precise: is Wikimania a community conference? In other words: a conference of the community. The organisers of the 2016 conference said so at the closing ceremony of Wikimania 2015 in Mexico. If Wikimania is a community conference, this property has implications we should think about.
• To me, the most important part of an organisation is that good people organise a great conference. This can be done by someone/some people who are hired, but personally I think that working with people who have the feeling with Wikimedia is the best! :-) Romaine (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Lane raises some interesting points, but - as with many who question the cost or administration of Wikimania - does not address the benefits gained. Spending $2million (or whatever) on a conference is fine - if it grows participation in the projects to a degree commensurate with such a figure. While I have enjoyed my time at two Wikimanias, and at GLAM similar events, (hostel issues notwithstanding), thanks to scholarships, I have also found them to be a good use if my time, and extremely beneficial in terms of making contact with other Wikipedians and working with them to resolve issues which had resisted on-wiki solutions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the issues of the very last paragraph. Wikimania has been hijacked by WMF staff. It once was a conference for the volunteer community, nowadays the vast majority of those attending are employees of either WMF or the chapters. The speakers are almost exclusively staff. With topics that mostly are of no interest at all for volunteers. This got to change, fast and hard. WMF: Give us Wikimania back and if you can justify it to the donors, create your own conference besides the existing ones. --h-stt !? 12:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• "nowadays the vast majority of those attending are employees of either WMF or the chapters"... I don't see how that is numerically possible, since it would mean considerably more than 500 Foundation staff plus chapter staff attended in Mexico, and considerably more than 1000 in London. And, at least some Foundation talks are very well attended, for example the one on copyright... if I remember rightly... in the Fountain Room at Wikimania 2014 in London. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've only attended Wikimania in DC, but I observed at last year's WikiConferenceUSA (and have heard about Wikimania in London) that an extremely well-organized and "professional-looking" conference attracts interested non-Wikipedians. Having attended numerous professional conferences, I feel that a Wikimania created solely for Wikipedians is a narrow and provincial way to view the event. A good Wikimania can be a significant outreach tool and the community should be open to that possibility. I was so impressed by the materials produced by Wikimedia UK documenting their extensive Wikimania preparations the thought occurs to me: Why not have a committee devoted to the logistics of the annual Wikimania? It could be a rotating committee, with volunteers serving 3-4 year terms in staggered manner (so as to help newer members of the committee learn the ropes), all under the aegis of a paid professional organizer. - kosboot (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'd rather like Wikimanias organized by volunteers but if it is not possible paid staff could be hired.
  But I don't like the idea of paid people making the presentations. I've only been to one WM (London) and learnt a lot from the fellow Wikimedians I met there, somebody who writes about a country half a world away, the problems that some others had with their project about trains, or the unexpected simmilarities with countries you wouldn't think of. I don't mind some Jimmy's speech here, some Lila's comment there, or some paid specialist from time to time. But I'm far more interested in how you do the things you do. And I was asked more than once about what I did and how, so maybe I'm not the only one with this opinion.
  My wife loves Barbican Centre, but had the place been an industrial building or a university campus, we would have enjoyed it all the same. B25es (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• A world in which paid services were the only provided in the field of knowledge, already existed. Then Wikipedia came. Staff are useful, volunteers are wonderful, which would be a rational choice? It is however reasonable, imho, that paid staff is hired only when necessary, and for really necessary services: this is and remains a context of volunteers. The little they can do is wonderful, the mistakes they can make are the mistakes of everyone of us. If this is a Community talking about the most important Community event... --g (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Twice the city is referred to as "Mexico". I know that people who speak Spanish might call it that (actually México). But it's confusing. Like New York City in the United States. If someone says "New York" how do we know they're not talking about the state?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The hackethon days are important even if it's just for the extra socialising for anyone who has paid a fortune to fly to the conference. Hong Kong's Wikiania was a nice, friendly, almost family affair, and organised by a team of extremely young and very enthusiastc people. All the right people were there (if you could spot them through the crowds of Foundation employees) and it was great to see them all again. Some things such as the two organised extramural events, went disasterously wrong and left many of us frustrated, but were forgivable. That said, event management is a recognised professional service. It need not be ridiculously expensive like some consultants' fees but it does cross the Ts and dot the Is which inexperienced volunteers miscalculate or don't think of. London was fine except for the food but there is a nice piano in the Barbican. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Very well said, Lane. You raise very good points.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Very good points. I was pretty stunned by the number of WMF staffers both attending and speaking at Hong Kong and London. Way out of proportion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lane makes a few accusations in his op-ed, especially regarding the alleged $300,000 that went into the hotel for the scholarships. Please support that with facts, because I'm not buying it, and it does not match with explanations I have heard from the organisers. So... citation needed! effeietsanders 18:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• The actual group hotel rate for a double room was $179 which included full breakfast and internet. A large part of the group (scholarships, staff, speakers) shared a room.--EYoung (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

EYoung (WMF) To what extent can the room rate be determined independently of the venue rental, staff wages, catering, and everything else? I assume that rooms and everything else were negotiated together, right? This is a conversation and I am not looking for answers, but in the longer term, I would like more discussion and communication about costs. Thanks for always doing an awesome job, Ellie. I am sure that you get the best possible deals and execute the conference in the most efficient way possible. No one should ever ask more of you because you do the best anyone can. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

effeietsanders I make no accusations. I am very pleased with Wikimania, and if I criticize at all, it is to make a good thing better. I would talk to you anytime and tell you more good things about the Wikimedia movement, but to answer you here, I am not sure where to begin. Do you question that about 100 volunteers got scholarships, or that the rate posted at the hotel at the check-in counter was about USD 300/night? By the posted rate, 5 nights * 300 is 1500, so 150,000 for 100 volunteers. Another 100 WMF staff were there so that's 150,000 more. With that amount of money spent of course the WMF negotiated the rate for conference space, catering, hotel staff support, and audio video. Typically, renting conference space at a hotel in a city like this for 1000 people is about 150,000 if there are rooms rented also. I am not accusing anyone of extravagance - I just said that a typical nonprofit conference happened in a usual way. The 2013 conference in Hong Kong happened in a university, so should have been less expensive, and meta:Wikimania_2013/Budget still cost about USD 300k. Of course I did not do research for any of this and could be wrong, but if I am, then it is because I do not have access to better information and because more communication needs to happen about community funding. I have no objections to the money spent - I only question the idea of whether we should continue to say that all of this should be managed by volunteers. I have another prediction for you too - the bidding process for Wikimania is going to end after 1-2 more years, and instead, a small team will choose a country without volunteer bids. We are looking at the end of the narrative of volunteer management for events. I always love your ideas and would take any criticism you have of anything I say gracefully. It is embarrassing to be published in the Signpost because I know my ideas are not well-researched, and I say these things more in the hope that someone will correct me than because I want to teach anyone things that I myself do not understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• "the rate posted at the hotel at the check-in counter was about USD 300/night" ... citing such numbers is very misleading, and using them as a basis for calculations of overall cost is even more problematic. The rack rate displayed behind hotels' check-in counters is nothing at all like the price actually paid for most rooms, especially when rooms are booked well in advance (as in this case) and taking advantage of further discounts due to block booking a very large number of rooms (as in this case). I have on numerous occasions paid well under USD 100 per night per room for rooms where the displayed rack rate was considerably over USD 500, and that is with only booking one or two rooms and only booking one or two months in advance. I am amazed that no-one has pointed this out to assuage the concerns of some attendees who were shocked by these displayed rates, especially on the feedback pages for the event itself, where a number of scholarship attendees had it as their largest concern. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Bluerasberry: I also appreciate your piece (parts of it), but this 300k$ definitely sounds like an accusation to me, based on unsound numbers as Arthur explains above. Especially if this large a number of rooms is booked, and even more so if you would combine that with the room renting, those prices might actually be hugely lower - in cases like this using those rack rates is, I'm afraid, wild speculation. I hope that you can retract that particular suggestion (or clarify that it is likely to be way too high), because I think it suggests wasting money where that suggestion is unjustified (maybe it is justified elsewhere, but lets stick to facts). effeietsanders 19:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

effeietsanders I do not mean to accuse. I do not even want to criticize. Sometimes it is hard to even suggest that things could be done in other ways, or that I have questions, or to ask about other options without people taking things personally. Then also - I know that I personally tend to challenge ideas, even when I do not mean to be confrontational. So part of the problem here is my own inability to communicate peacefully.

Another part of this is that it is hard to get information on topics like this. There is a thread in the mailing lists right now in which people are trying to collect Wikimania financial records - these records are neither easy to find nor understand. I am not sure what kind of information is ideal to report. I hardly know where to begin a conversation. For this opinion piece, I am ready to retract what I said and defer to anyone else who publishes something more informed, if anyone says anything better. I feel more confused than confident.

I still expect the hotel collected the rates they posted. Some of the costs went into other things - like the venue - and I still worry about how expensive this was versus how inexpensive locally managed (not international) events are. More data could tell a clearer story. Definitely no money was wasted, but I feel that it was invested in a way that cannot be called crowdsourcing. An event at a university or library rather than a foreign hotel would feel a lot more like crowdsourcing to me, but that may not be a reasonable expectation or may even cost more than using a hotel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns about confusion and about transparency and about many other things, but statements (even now) like "I still expect the hotel collected the rates they posted", when we are apparently talking about rack rates, do far more to add to the confusion than anything else. It's misleading and can only lead to less clarity and transparency, not more. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Bluerasberry, "The mythology around the Wikimedia movement is that volunteers do everything." It is time that this myth is busted as volunteers are not super humans to do anything and everything efficiently and effectively. There is a role for chapters and foundation. The sooner that these roles are articulated, discussed and agreed, the better for the movement.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  "mythology" is only another way to call a dream come true, but with a less positive spirit. Volunteers are not super humans and never pretended being, but everything you can see here around, from the website to the grants, from the pens with "wikipedia" printed on them to the bank account of those who already work as paid staff for the Movement, well, all this is strictly based on the work of volunteers who built all what we are here for. They are not super humans, they don't complete the things they start, a lot of articles still need a citation to a reliable source, and paid staff actually is sometimes necessary: all true. But let's keep in touch with common sense: paid staff can be seen like a shortcut to quicker material results, because we could never wait for volunteers learning how to do everything that's needed. Even if they would be eager to try. Sometimes they just cannot and we need paid stuff. I bet this is a point on which we all could converge, so I do believe that this is the perspective; so this is why I don't agree with this "hunt for professionals" which one could read in some of the posts above. We could perhaps plainly say that they are useful, in some cases we need them, but a literally extraordinary Movement of volunteers just cannot turn itself into a commercial firm like any other: we don't collectively think as a commercial operator, what's normal for firms not necessarily is good for us too, or appropriate. It's no heresy to talk about professionals; rest assured, i.e., that I wouldn't feel safe if legal stuff should be managed by a committee of volunteers spending 70% of their day in telling how much the law is wrong and how politics should go :-) It's no heresy; still, I wouldn't go crusading aloud for paid staff in the place in which the work of volunteers has smashed down the commercial system of paid encyclopedia writers, making it crumble with unprofessional volunteer small edits. We are famous for being volunteers; how the hell can we seriously propose such a turnaround and hope for a no-volunteer zone in our context? Hire the ones who are necessary, ok; but hire the ones who are needed, no more. Common sense; which is always much better than dogmatism. Common sense and a bit of wiki-feeling ;-) Imho :-) --g (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have been the Wikimedia Foundation's representative for Wikimania for Wikimania DC, Wikimania HK, Wikimania London, and Wikimedia Mexico. Some clarity on the information provided. For these last four Wikimania's it has been a community event. The organizing team and the program committee have been managed by volunteers. Each organizing team decides what professionals they want to hire to support the organizing team in the work of hosting Wikimania. The Foundation supported the hiring of a event planner for Wikimania in DC and hired Ellie Young to support the organizing teams for Wikimania HK, Wikimania London and Wikimania Mexico and any additional paid staff they needed to be successful. In each case, Ellie and I worked with the local team to determine what support they needed to be successful and worked to provide that support. Each organizing teams ask for different types of support. Except for the venue change in Mexico, I made the decision to change the venue based on the information available to me and with the objective of not overburdening the local team, most of the key decisions are made by the volunteer program committee (Please talk to them if you feel the Wikimedia Foundation staff are over represented in presentations) and the local organizing team. I agree that the time has come for the community to have a conversation on what is the purpose and objective of Wikimania given the size of the event and the budget.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GByrd (WMF), the time has come, certainly, but it is too late for what will almost certainly get screwed up in Italy next year and it needs to start right now if problems are to be avoided for 2017. How many more annual experiments are needed before various organisers and WMF staff finally get it right? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

An OT about Italy: I'm not at all involved in the Committee, but I know them, and I also recently met the Mayor of Esino Lario, where the event will be. First of all, thank you for the expected failure some of you, once more, are talking about: this immediately makes everybody feel more comfortable, because whatever it might happen tomorrow, it certainly will be more and better than what those haruspices were able to foresee today, so thank you for this surprising opportunity and this early positive result :-)
Yes, it is an experiment. The thrill is that it is, for many reasons, an important experiment; I then hope you too you can share the thrill of the challenge, in Esino.
Actually, they are all working to let all the visitors (each and every visitor) enjoy at their best their stay and the event. The Mayor is a really positive and brilliant person, he more or less put the entire town in the hands of the Committee, so the town of Esino Lario will totally, entirely, and wholeheartedly work for the Wikimedians attending the event. And this is one of the not-monetary symbols of the event: the Wiki Movement inside the life of the town, in the streets of an everyday life, and the town wanting some Wiki in its life. Of course, you are not going to visit a bank, despite certain arguments I can read above; in Esino you will find the streets of a small village on a lakeshore, with no touristic premises, and this might seem rather "unprofessional", indeed. ClubMed's GMs are welcome, however, just the same.
I'm not at all involved in the Committee. Volunteers wanted this event, volunteers are working on it. Mostly volunteers. So, if any mistakes or troubles there will be, they'll be mine too, even if I'm not helping in that. If mistakes and troubles will be yours too, then we still are in Wikiland, and that's the good news of the day... --g (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
(PS: needless to say, I would say the same whatever the destination; I know something about this one because the whole Italian Community, and the Swiss too, are supporting it and wish that Wikimedians will be welcome as well as they deserve)

• Thank you for sharing this helpful insight, Lane. I have no objection to having more paid staff doing the groundwork for Wikimania, as from my experiences, volunteers have often struggled to cope with the huge amount of work organising Wikimania involves. I had significant involvement in Wikimania 2014, and from what I saw, it was the combination of paid staff and volunteers that made the conference a general success – the absence of either could have changed the outcome significantly. I've also been part of the Scholarship Committee for three years, and I could certainly see merits in paid staff doing more of the groundwork there, as volunteers have sometimes struggled to cope. That said, I think Wikimania must be a community centred event – that's what makes Wikimania magical to me. Such magic is hard to put into words, but of the three Wikimanias I've attended (2011, 2014, and 2015), the first one had it very strongly, while 2014 had it a lot less, and 2015 even less still. Giving more speaking slots to volunteers would be a good start in getting that magic back. As for Esino Lario, the radically different approach of this Wikimania gives good reasons to believe that it could be very magical, but nevertheless, critical commentary has been made for good reasons. CT Cooper · talk 06:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)