Subvenciones:Evaluación/Campaña de aprendizaje sobre comunidades saludables/Preguntas

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Learning and Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign/Questions and the translation is 91% complete.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎татарча/tatarça • ‎日本語
Campaña de aprendizaje:
¿Cómo crees que
una comunidad saludable
debería ser?

Community Health Campaign cover 03.png


Community Health learning campaign - Analysis Report of Community Responses.pdf

Esta consulta ya finalizó. ¡Gracias a todos los que participaron!
Pueden encontrar el análisis de la consulta en Commons. Se presentó en la Wikiconferencia Estados Unidos 2015 junto a un proyecto más extenso sobre salud de la comunidad



¡Comparte tus ideas! Hemos seleccionado 5 temas para discutir sobre las comunidades saludables.

  1. ¿Qué te hace sentirte bienvenido en los proyectos?
  2. ¿Qué te hace sentir que no perteneces aquí?
  3. ¿Hay prácticas que pueden facilitar el trabajo colaborativo en línea?
  4. ¿Hay algo que podamos hacer mejor en nuestras relaciones en línea para ayudar a otros a aprender y para transformarnos entre nosotros?
  5. ¿Qué hace que los proyectos estén vivos?
Colabora con tus ideas en cualquiera de las siguientes preguntas.

No olvides firmar tus colaboraciones usando ~~~~


Bienvenido

¿Qué te hace sentirte bienvenido en los proyectos?

  • welcome by teahouse; or editathons is welcoming. Slowking4 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Positive comments, thank you messages and helpful answers. B25es (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A nice atmosphere of editing where I can fix any problem I see either major or tiny. Almost no ways to break things (except when working with merging page histories, imports and other non-frequent stuff). --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikimedians of similar interest reaching out to collaborate and offering support with very specific links for more learning. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians and so on. All of them. I don't know why, nerdishness and being churlish is not accepted in real life, here, it is differnet. --Sargoth (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When people explain their actions, and when people do something not individually, but as a group. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, appreciation and moral support of all kinds. Civil, polite, thoughtful and patient interactions. Rich Farmbrough 14:29 1 August 2015 (GMT).
  • The freedom to contribute ideas and original research in fields of interest. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, barnstars, wikilove, nice messages. Assume good faith and offering help when there's a problem.
  • Compañeros que se toman el tiempo de explicar con amabilidad un aspecto complicado de alguna política que he incumplido, o de aportar una referencia que contradice algo que he escrito en un artículo. Hispalois (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comrades who take the time to explain in a friendly fashion a complicated aspect of some policy that I haven't carried out, or who add a reference that contradicts something I have written in an article.
  • A welcome message and a set of rules and pillars of Wikipedia makes me feel welcome.--Rberchie (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, wikilove and nice messages. Seeing that your contributions are appreciated (e.g. someone improves your article). Polite (even crticial!) comments on my contributions, and a possibility to ask for feedback or help and get them — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel welcome to edit, when I feel my edits are useful. That motivation can be given by the community, but It also can be personal motivation, etc. For the new comers, I think it is important to have simple, comprehensible help pages. The "nice atmosphere and nice community" is important but can't be easily improve by the foundation. --Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Personal interactions in the physical world. Romaine (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome message for newcomers it's nice, but that's much better if the contributions which have made to the wiki can be received and responded with appreciation. Also in any criticism should politely. That could make it comfortable.--Uchup19 (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another editor noticing the work that I'm doing and thanking me for it, or recommending an article I wrote be a DYK article on the main page. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • An atmosphere of working together with likeminded people. The are a lot of individual preferences and ideals that can cause tension, but in most cases a productive way of working side by side can be figured out. And – and note that well – the easy-to-learn syntax that is easy to handle and control and no one who I have met and who has the knowledge needed to contribute failed on learning that syntax. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • People with a completely different lifestory from mine with completely different interests and abilities, with strenghs and weeknesses, who I'm very unlikely to become friend with in any other environment, people who I can learn from and who can learn from me, people who share one of my hobbies and passions: Free access to knowledge. → «« Man77 »» [de] 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sinceramente, en la actualidad muy pocas cosas, quitando del apoyo de los amigos íntimos wikipedistas, me anima a estar en cualquier proyecto de wikipedia. Existe un número descomunal de personas cuya felicidad se basa en incordiar el trabajo hecho de buena fe de la gente que quiere colaborar con los proyectos. Patrulleros, biblios, revisores, borradores oficiales, "colocadores" de plantillas, que en lugar de enseñar al que no sabe, le patean y humillan todo lo que pueden pero jamás demuestran sobre el error cometido cómo corregirlo. Te envían a leer doscientas páginas de normas, usos, costumbres..., te envían a artículos destacados, buenos, extraordinarios, pero tú error no te dicen cómo corregirlo ni te ayudan a hacerlo. además si caes mal a algún "gurú" de la comunidad está claro que todos los que puedan irán por ti, hasta que o te cases tú o se cansen ellos.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In sincerity, at the moment very few things, if we take out the support of the intimate Wikipedian friends who motivate be to be in any given Wikipedia project. There is an exorbitantly large number of people whose happiness is based on slamming the work made in good faith by people who want to collaborate with the projects. Patrollers, bibliography adders, revisors, official deleters, template "placers", who instead of instructing those who don't know, kick them and humiliate everyone they can but who never show anyone how the mistake that has been made can be corrected. They'll tell you to read two hundred pages of norms, usages, customs ... they will send you to distinguished, good, extraordinary articles, but they won't tell you how to correct your mistake or help you fix it. In addition, if you get on the bad side of some "guru" of the community it is clear that everyone who can will come after you, until either you or they tire of it.
  • wenn ich in meiner Sprache angesprochen werde. Und zwar nicht von irgendwelchem Spambots, sondern von echten Menschen. Weissbier (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
When I am addressed in my own language. And, not by some spambots, by real live people.
  • Free access to knowledge and the courteous behavior of the Wikipedians/Wikimedians. Besides, the exquisite collaboration among millions of Wikimedians is also very welcoming and inspiring! Tanweer (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel welcomed when i know that a fellow editor recognizes my work and send a thank you note; when i get help when there is a problem and when someone is kind eneough to edit my typing mistakes. --Basak (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Constructive feedback from other editors always makes me feel welcome. --Gereon K. (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For newbies, a Welcome massage in their talk page Template:{{welcome}} ; A tip, a good advice from an edtior ; Giving and getting barnstars ; Dialogue between editors ; Co-editing articles ; Vetran Wikipedians taking part in Adopt-a-user program, Teahouse ect. ; Clear and readable help pages ; Face to face meetings, community meetups. Michal Lester on behalf of WMIL staff לסטר (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am here to work, that is the point. when you're welcoming me if you look at my edits so far you should show me that what I do is useful, why it is special and makes a difference at the moment, who can help me to improve my level (be honest if that person is not you), where I can ask for additional specific feedbacks. That is what I do with newcommers. "You seems interested in X... that's important... we haven't a lot of users working on this area, you should contact the project Y to get some feedback (I can help you with some formal aspect, but that's not really my topic). Users active on the moment with similar topics are A, B, C... you will find them at the project. C is very keen on welcoming any newcommers, you can contact him too, he says he's ok. Here are some specific category of articles needing your help. help yourself!". That is what I do with newcommers, and it works very well. I can do that because I have a good memory, I try to improve tools that can give you an idea of these pieces of information using key words, but some old users sometimes are suspicious, they "don't like it".--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) La amabilidad de los editores, el respeto por el trabajo, la presunción de buena fe y la cordialidad en la comunicación. petrohs (gracias) 17:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I started my Wikipedia journey as a reader, later on editor and then an article writer. It became an opportunity for me to observe and extrude the bouquet of knowledge. Later on better than an opportunity I found Wikipedia as a place of taking over responsibility to forward Wikimedia revolution on the path of progress. And all these things makes me feel welcome in the wiki projects.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When people start collaborating in projects and work just flows. It is beautiful. Also thank you notes and conversation in talk pages. Chibs007 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome message for newcomers it's nice. I like it. BTW, Thank you notes and nice messages in talk pages. --Hasivetalk • 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The welcome text we had on our front page was nice. It was more than just a bland header. Getting a welcome from a real person, who gave suggestions for the first edits just made was a good one too: It gives the feeling that whatever strange things happen in a wiki, there's at least one friend. Mysha (talk)
  • (Spanish) Lo que me hace sentir bienvenida es una comunidad fuerte y vivaz, capaz de crear un ambiente agradable donde lo editores puedan trabajar cómodamente, los novatos son bien recibidos y los veteranos siempre encontramos ayuda de alguien con más experiencia para resolver nuestras dudas. Un lugar donde cada editor es consciente de que todos estamos aquí por un fin común, hacer crecer los proyectos y llevar el conocimiento libre a todos los rincones del mundo.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For me Its all about guiding further to the next step from the fellow editors. Hey, did you really do that? It's great. Here is something that you can do better. Can you join in?. Apart from this yes, it feels good to find a thank you note & a highfive through the notifications. Omshivaprakash (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mal recibido

¿Qué te hace sentir que no perteneces aquí?

  • I attend to Edit-a-ton twice, in my own city at the Public library of Lyon and at cite des Sciences et des techniques la Vilette in Paris area. My experience was poor in the two meeting. The introduction to contribution was not adapted ; Then the working groups was not prepared and finally I work alone... A "how to" manual to organise a good Edit-A-ton would be useful!--Jbureau (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jbureau! There are some guidelines on English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. But how does an edit-a-thon organiser find out about this page? (I don't know). And also, it's hard to give precise instructions that apply equally in all parts of the world in all situations. Kerry Raymond (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When my talkpage is a list of warning templates all the way down, then i do not belong.Slowking4 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't know how to do something. You look for that something and it doesn't appear. You keep looking for and eventually you're directed to what looks like an answer. It consists of several pages which are linked to other pages which are linked to other pages which are linked to other pages which are linked to other pages and so on. Then you feel like you'd better be doing something else. B25es (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Lack of documentation for a process and a need to go through a gatekeeper, especially if going through the gatekeeper is an imposition or a bottleneck. More documentation please especially for processes which originate from paid staff. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Community members constantly violating basic rules and most of the community tolerating it; WMF meddling with software unrequested as well as WMF violating its own rules or guidelines with no efficient answer on pointing it. --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Non-native speakers or Wikimedians having no context or idea of another Wikimedian's native language/culture/history refusing to educate themselves about the same before reverting or arguing unnecessarily. At times lack of available reliable citations and citations misquoting facts create worse state. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The small, hard core of editors who oppose every improvement in process and technology solely because they think it makes them seem "cool".--Anders Feder (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have witnessed new users who are practically told to go away, when their inadequate, poor, clearly novice contributions are rejected, without anyone offfering them help. I have witnessed that a user has been attacked for contributing stubs, while, according to his attacker he had the audacity to criticize (in his own discussion page!) the quality of Wikipedia articles. Such behaviors from Wikipedians from have been around longer, are pushing people out. --FocalPoint (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actions by the WMF. It's so like getting mails like "how to earn 3.000 $ by sitting around at home doing nothing - look at this video"--Sargoth (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WMF. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Obstructionism, of all kinds. Examples:
  • Any process, policy or rule that prevents, impairs or slows people from improving the project.
  • Editors who's main goal is to chastise or sanction others.
  • Combative and confrontive approaches to problem solving. Inability or unwillingless to listen.
  • Ad hominem attacks, grudges, patronising attitudes.
Rich Farmbrough 14:29 1 August 2015 (GMT).
  • Being slapped in the head with links to incomprehencible guidelines. People who deliberately enforce their own POV and get away with it because they are "diligent and productive contributors". When people are being blocked for challenging such users. /Esquilo (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously being blocked for copyright violations which were not. This being on Wikipedia. So I am not welcome there. But, every other WMF project has made me feel welcome. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The culture of negativity rather than positivity. Unwillingness to assume good faith. The bullying of newcomers. This is a toxic culture! Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wenn ich in einer fremden sprache "gebeten" werde irgendetwas zu tun was für jmd. anderen (hier die WMF) nützlich ist. Wenn ihr ernsthaft antworten wollt die auch außerhalb der englischen WP sinn machen dann bemüht euch um die autoren. Sprecht deren Sprache. WMF hat genug Geld, wenn ihr es nicht organisiert kriegt dann nutzt halt dolmetscher ...Sicherlich Post 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
When I am "asked" in a foreign language to do something which is useful for someone else (in this case, the WMF). If you all are serious about getting answers that also make sense outside the English Wikipedia, then make some effort on behalf of the editors. Speak their language. WMF has enough money, and if you all aren't able to organize it, then trained translators are needed.
  • Las guerras entre editores que solo acaban con la expulsión de uno o varios de ellos. Hispalois (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The wars between editors that only end when one or several of them are expelled.
  • This normally happens when you commit an offence or you make an ommission and you are given a set of link to go through without you being conversant with that rule in the first place.These links can sometimes be bulky in terms of content and not readily understandable.--Rberchie (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content-based: reverts without explanations, personal attacks (especially from the position "I know better"), critising without offering any solution. Project-wise: some weird changes imposed by WMF without any community consultation — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For me, the worst demotivating thing is when I feel that the discussion isn't productive, when the discussion go around in circles, when my times is absolutely useless. Because I have done and suffer plenty of fights, dispute, arguments (And I think that isn't the structural problem), but it's (for both meta and editorial problematic) veritable problem when we can't found a solution. Example : For me, it isn't a problem that a part for the community don't really like some specifics actions of the WMF, but it's demotivating when I feel like that it's a structural attitude for a part of the community, and that the WMF can't found a solution to that. And it's demotivating when I feel that the problematic will be the same in ten years.--Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Newbies experience it very demotivating that there is not much guidance. Romaine (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is in general very demotivating if users nominate an article for deletion, without doing any effort, or not much effort, to explain to the user what should be fixed to be in Wikipedia. Romaine (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When I try to apply the verifiability politics and get strong opposition.--MisterSanderson (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decision-makers who are unable or unwilling to set a good example (Board communication, licensing issues [remember "Share a fact"], sections and chapters who seem to care for themselves above all) → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Feedback pages long-time editors can hardly edit because of myriads of tags, embeddings and other fancy things → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The WMF. Nearly solely the WMF. Yes, Wikimedians can be rough and harsh sometimes, but that is not really a problem. This is the case everywhere in the internet, and no one who really has the will and the ability to contribute can be prevented from doing so by those conflicts that arise from time to time. Yes, the extensive use of templates and bots can be a turn-off, but also is not a mayor factor. But the mistreatment of the existing communities and editors by the WMF has really dried my motivation for the projects off. The head of the Board of the WMF was even so kind to tell me and others in a roundabout way that we can go. We, the contributors made the projects big, we the contributors raise the donations, because we create the content on which you can post your requests for donations. We deserve respect and support and we get neither in my opinion. Same goes for the Wikimania. It turned in my eyes into more or less a propaganda event of the WMF, and I have no desire to participate in such. What would be needed be the understanding that the WMF is only a service provider to the volunteers who can reach out to new editors, but just without stabbing the knife in the back of those who made the whole movement big with their contributions. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pienso que la existencia de un grupo que se siente el "portador" del "único y verdadero" espíritu de wikipedia hace más mal que bien. Esta gente que está mucho tiempo intentando mantener la wikipedia libre de "GENTE INDESEABLE QUE HACE COSA QUE ELLOS CONSIDERAN INACEPTABLES", dudo que puedan utilizar mucho tiempo en lo que se supone es mejorar la wikipedia como aumentar el número de artículos o mejorar los existentes de verdad, no sólo poniendo plantillas o poniéndo a los autores de los mimsos "de vuelta y media" ante toda la comunidad por su "ignorancia". Y si se comete el error de preguntar por la validez de sus criterios sobre los propios, eres tachada de orgullosa, prepotente y de ir en contra del espíritu "Wiki". Cometí el error de entrar en Wikipedia pensando que todos estábamos para lo mismo, primero aprendes a base de corregir tus propios errores de la mano de los que saben y luego corrigiendo a otros sin tener que colorearles la cara. A mi me gusta editar artículos nuevos, pero cuando entro en alguno y veo errores que se pueden corregir, pues lo corrijo, eso es para mi el espíritu "Wiki" no me dedico a dejar mensajes en la página de discusión de los editores que han cometido el error a decírselo, ni a poner plantillas para que el que "venga detrás arree", lo que se puede mejorar se mejorar, si no para qué se supone que está el espíritu colaborativo y la buena fe....19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the existence of a group that feels like it is the "carrier" and the "true and only" spirit of Wikipedia does more harm than good. These people who spend a lot of time trying to keep Wikipedia free of "UNDESIRABLE PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS THAT THEY FEEL ARE UNACCEPTABLE", I doubt that they can spend much time in what is supposed to be improving the encyclopedia, such as increasing the number of articles or really improving existing ones, not just leaving templates or putting the authors of those articles or tearing these editors apart in front of the whole community for their "ignorance." And if one makes the mistake of asking about the validity of their criteria, you are dismissed as proud, arrogant, and going against the "Wiki" spirit. I made the mistake of entering Wikipedia thinking that we were all here for the same thing, first you learn to correct your own errors in the hands of the people who know, and then you are correcting others without making their faces turn red. I like to edit new articles, but when I get into one and I see mistakes that can be corrected, then I correct them, this is the "Wiki" spirit for me. I don't spend my time leaving messages on the discussion page of the person who made the mistake to tell them about it, nor to leaving templates so the "the person who is in back is the one who does the plowing", what can be improved gets improved, if not so that this is supposed to be the spirit of collaboration and food faith ...
  • WMF. As well as feedback pages I can't edit properly. Oh, and the knowledge that WMF makes money out of my contributions, but no more. --Arcudaki (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Spanish wiki, what makes me and others feel most unwelcomed are some (fortunately not all) of our sysops. Real bullies, partial, and lacking writing skills and culture. They seem to come from banana republics and feel impportant and above the rest just because they have some flags. Even though it's been said that wiki is not a democracy, it should not be a dictatorship. Maybe this is one of the reasons why, despite so many millions of Spanish-speakers, we lag behind other wikis in terms of the number of articles. --Maragm (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Toxic people that keep spreading lies in order to get their aggresive and liar friends a free pass at insulting others. Spanish wiki is not a welcoming place due to false and name calling people, like the one right above this comment. I think that's why we lose editors. People more interested on getting their petty goals instead of helping. es:Magister Mathematicae 20:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ich fühle mich nicht willkommen, wenn Ankündigungen von Spambots in einer Sprache verteilt werden, die ich nur rudimentär beherrsche. Dieser angelsächsische Sprachimperialismus ist sehr unangenehm. Weissbier (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel welcome when announcements are distributed by spam bots, in a language of which I have only a rudimentary knowledge. This Anglo-Saxon linguistic imperialism is very unpleasant.
  • WMF and its corporate culture. The Wikimedia projects have been (and still being) developed by passionate volunteers from around the world. And WMF is nothing but an entity to support the volunteers and maintain the servers, engineering tools, legal issues (and other associated stuffs). WMF receives donation because volunteers have built this huge knowledge-base with enormous collaboration. That's why any authoritative impact or act over the volunteers or Wikimedia projects by WMF make me feel that I don't belong here. Tanweer (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel unwelcomed if i am treated like a vandalist for a mistake i have made while editing/writing an article--Basak (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jargonisitic talk ; Verbal abuse ; Impatience ; Warning templates on talk pages ; The interface isn’t sufficiently user-friendly (talk pages, Community portal) ; The Help Pages are written unclearly. Michal Lester on behalf of WMIL staff. לסטר (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@לסטר:, messages like this should not make feel like one does not belong here! Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Incoherence. "no fixed rules" does not mean incoherence. When the same person decide that the same action is a problem for a user and not so relevant for another, this has nothing to with the 5th pillar. Wikipedia has no firm rules, you as a person, you should have. It is a matter of respect for yourself and other people.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) La soberbia de algunos editores, que estén a la defensiva y ataquen ante cualquier comentario que no tienen que ser personales, creer que tienen la verdad y sus estándares son lo único valido. El sesgo idiomático y cultural. petrohs (gracias) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, everything in Wikipedia is fine as per my observation. But, sometimes when WMF encourage the corporate thinkers and exclude the real contributors of the communities I feel unwelcomed. I think WMF should listen to Doers who does something even they didn't like to talk more rather than Dreamers who talks more just to fulfill their individual dreams.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As people have mentioned, Wikipedians that act aggressively and all knowing. Chibs007 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When the members of the community substitute the discussion of contributions with the discussion of contributors. And even more so when the claims thus made are not just false, but are actually utterly impossible to prove or disprove – such as the claims regarding the reasons the others have for contributing.

    I think one of the worst cases I’ve witnessed so far was when one participant (and by no means a newcomer) has accused the other that he has no “goal of constructive collaboration” (I see that that user has commented on this page; I hope he has reconsidered his position by now) – but there sure were many others.

    Then, I wonder whether WMF were really shifting the focus in the right direction with their last year’s ToU change?…

    Ivan Shmakov (dc) 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • (Spanish) Hay muchas cosas que pueden hacer que un usuario no se sienta bienvenido, pero dejando de lado las quejas personales por una mala experiencia propia, que seguramente todos hemos tenido, lo que más puede hacerte perder la paciencia es que el ambiente de trabajo sea desagradable.

    Es molesto tener que lidiar con usuarios que se sienten superiores a los demás y que ponen sus intereses o simpatías personales por encima del bienestar de la comunidad, a veces se convierten en verdaderos grupos de presión y persiguen a otros editores o editoras, obstaculizan su trabajo y los hacen sentirse acosados. Muchos buenos editores han abandonado el proyecto cansados de tal persecución.

    Seas la víctima o un testigo involuntario es poco grato editar en un entorno así.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Senior/non-native speakers not understanding the subject matter when there is very little that is written about the same in primary references (english) and being rude to the editors. Newbies might understand how to go about handling such cases if they were guided properly by working together rather than showing them out. I also feel at times that I don't belong here when the partner organization co-ordinator acts like an alien in a community and doesn't understand the wiki culture to work together. Omshivaprakash (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The major source of feeling unwelcome are the unwelcome messages: Messages saying "Welcome", that blast you with several screens full of text that has no relevance to your activities whatsoever. And specifically, I feel unwelcome in the smaller wikipedias when I find that the majority of lack of communication is done in English by people flooding the communication channels with messages that nobody in those wikipedias will have the time to pay much attention to. And than there's the force of arms contingent that comes in to do for other wikipedias what those had no reason to do for themselves; that's also a clear "If you don't want us here, just say so and we'll leave the whole language to you." Mysha (talk)

Valores compartidos

¿Qué valores compartidos nos unen en línea?

  • I can't talk for anybody alse, but as for me I'm here because I like to preserve information and knowledge. All knowledge of any kind. From Gothic cathedrals to mopeds. B25es (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • An interest in collecting/curating/presenting information. Any kissy-huggy community stuff is secondary. Equinox (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A nice sandbox which allows you to do whatever you want as long as it's towards the common goal. And that's a really nice goal we have. --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Who are we (who is "us")? Mankind in general has never been seperated, it is one race - and that is what makes us unique. Differences between human populations are smaller than differences in the population itself. This is a big motivation for hope for the future, where anger, hate and bigotry might be gone. So let's create the possibility for every individual to educate him- or herself. --Sargoth (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Digital communism: a wish to get rid of property. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeking the common good. Rich Farmbrough 14:36 1 August 2015 (GMT).
  • Because free knowledge is the shit! /Esquilo (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Freedom to learn and contribute. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sharing knowledge freely. Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wer ist "us" WM und die Autoren oder die Autoren untereinander oder WM mit seinen chapters oder? ...Sicherlich Post 19:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is "us", WM and the editors, or the authors among themselves or WM with its chapters or ...
  • El compromiso con la Verdad, con mayúsculas, frente a la propaganda comercial, partidista, ideológica. Hispalois (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The commitment to the Truth, in capital letters, in the face of commercial, partisan, and ideological propaganda.
  • The pillars of Wikipedia brings us all together.Again the fact that there is always an editor on call or a bot that will always notify you when you make a mistake plus giving you a set of rules to follow and rectify these mistakes bring us together. Lastly the fact that we can all freely contribute to the sum of all human knowledge in view of that you can make contributions to works of others and others can make contributions to your work too.--Rberchie (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A possibility to share your knowledge (be it a hobby or a professional experience) and collaborate with other people sharing their knowledge — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Contribute, improve a knowledge base, learn. I things it is better to concentrate on concrete things not value, idealogical or marketings slogans. Even freedom of panorama isn't consensual on the different project (like wp:nl or wp:fr (we have a dispute on that)). --Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Making the world a better place by easy and simple adding information. Romaine (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wanting to be useful for the humanity by sharing free knowledge.--MisterSanderson (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Collecting knowledge, simple as it is. And how easily forgotten in SF. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Es difícil que existan muchos valores compartidos porque la comunidad es muy diversa y dispar. Creo que hay un gran grupo, que como yo cree en el espíritu wiki y en que el conocimiento debe estar al alcance de todos de forma libre y gratuita. Ahora bien, decidir qué debe entrar en el concepto de "conocimiento" es ya en sí y de partida un problema, de ahí una de las razones por las que más se borra artículos: la falta o no de relevancia enciclopédica. Es curioso que se considere que una serie de televisión tiene relevancia enciclopédica y en cambio una estatua puede considerarse excluida de ella....En mi opinión, no habiendo problemas de espacio, siempre que la información introducida en el artículo sea veraz y comprobable, tendrá la relevancia enciclopédica de quien busque y necesite esa información. Para unos las series televisivas son su mundo y otros dan relevancia a las diferentes manifestaciones artísticas, desde pinturas y obras arquitectónicas a graffitis en fachadas de las calles de cualquier pueblo o ciudad. Por eso y porque intentar que a través de un "café" o de unas páginas de discusión concretas se puede recoger el pensar global de una comunidad que es de dimensiones elevadas, es totalmente ilusorio, considero que no existen y es prácticamente imposible que puedan existir valores generales que nos unifiquen, de hecho si se respetaran de verdad los cinco pilares que se supone todos aceptamos como normas básicas, la mayoría de los "defensores de la causa, con título e insignia (patrulleros, verificadores, biblios, plantilleros....)" deberían ser expulsados del movimiento, entre otras cosas por pisotear el quinto pilar donde se anima al personal a ser "valiente" y lanzarse, porque entre otras cosas, no hay normas y todo puede ser válido si se respeta los cuatro pilares anteriores.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It is difficult to say that there are many shared values because the community is very diverse and disparate. I think there is a large group who believes as I do in the wiki spirit and that knowledge should be within the reach of everybody in a form that is freely available and gratis. Well not, deciding what should be included within the concept of "knowledge" is in and of itself part of the problem, and one of the reasons that more and more articles are deleted: whether or not they are lacking encyclopedic relevance. It is curious that a television series is considered to be encyclopedic and by contrast, a statue can be considered something to be excluded from the encyclopedia ... In my opinion, as there aren't problems with having enough space, whenever the information introduced into the article is verifiable and proven, it has encyclopedic relevance for whoever is seeking this information and needs it. For some people, television series are their world, while others find other artistic expressions relevant, ranging from painting and works of architecture to graffiti on facades on the streets of some town or city. For this reason and an attempt to use a talk page or "cafe" to gather the global thinking of a community of high dimensions is totally an illusion, I consider that that general values that unite us do not exist, and that it is practically impossible for them to exist, in fact, if the truth of the five pillars which we are all supposed to respect as basic norms were respected, the majority of the "defenders of the cause, with title and insignia (patrollers, verifiers, bibliography adders, template adders ...)" should be expelled from the movement, among other things for trampling on the fifth pillar which urges participants to be "bold" and throw themselves into things, because among other things, there are not norms and everything could be valid if the four earlier pillars were respected.
  • Ich denke ein humanistischer Grundgedanke im Sinne der Aufklärung sollte allen Menschen gemein sein, welche an einer Enzyklopädie arbeiten. Gesichertes Wissen wird gesammelt, keine Märchen, religiösen Spinnereien oder weltanschaulichen Verdrehungen. Weissbier (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that a humanistic foundation of thought, in the sense of the Enlightenment, should be something that all people who work on an encyclopedia have in common. Verified knowledge should be collected, no fairy tales, religious craziness, or twisted up world views.
  • The ability to empower people around the world by providing them the opportunity to freely access the human knowledge-base in their own language. Tanweer (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The ability to feel happy and fulfilled contributing the common good.--Basak (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Love of Knowledge ; Cooperation ; Sharing knowledge freely. Michal Lester on behalf of WMIL staff לסטר (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Results. they can be contents or increase on efficiency or funding or competence but they have to be real results... otherwise you make the mistake to think that the community and its cohesion is the real goal. That's not true: the community is a just a mean. It is nice and lovely and everything but it is not more important than what you're building. If the user you trusted has clearly damaged wikipedia don't look for excuses because you know or like him or her, accept the facts. if (s)he can't stand that, (s)he is the wrong place, you can always be friends in real life. And if you don't think (s)he can handle a critique in public and you start to think that the best thing is to address the problem only in private, well with all due respect that sounds like he or she is just a problematic type, are you really sure that protecting him or her it is the best for a cooperative community?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) El conocimiento libre, compartir cultura, solidaridad. petrohs (gracias) 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think rather than an individual aspects a common desire of we all wikipedians brings us here online. A common desire to contribute not corporate, a desire to exchange knowledge, a real desire to make a better world where any single person can observe free education and a bouquet of knowledge.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Knowledge. Free for all. Chibs007 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None. Even if the question would specify the "we", clearly the only thing e.g. all wikipedians of any group have in common is Wikipedia itself. Mysha (talk)
  • (Spanish) Yo creo que independientemente de las motivaciones personales de cada uno, la gran mayoría de las personas estamos aquí por un fin común que nos une, el interés de hacer crecer los proyectos y así poder llevar el conocimiento a todos los rincones del mundo; sobre todo a aquellos lugares y personas que no tienen otra forma de alcanzarlo. Es lo maravilloso de esto, ver congregadas a millones de personas procurando el bien ajeno sin esperar nada a cambio.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Kannada)ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಮುಕ್ತ ಜ್ಞಾನ. ಜ್ಞಾನ ಹಂಚಿದಾಗಲೇ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವುದು ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಗಿಂತ ಬೇರೊಂದು ವೇದಿಕೆ ಇಲ್ಲ.. (English) Free Knowledge to the world. This is only possible on a platform like Wiki as it allows us to share to acquire more knowledge. We don't learn when we don't share. Here on wiki we learn, we share and we keep learning and earning more knowledge. Omshivaprakash (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Prácticas

¿Hay prácticas que pueden facilitar el trabajo colaborativo en línea?

  • Communication has to be simple and has to look simple. Most threads in discussion pages are simple but look complex, because finding who said what or which question was answered with that sentence is not very evident. Of course once you get used to the system it's much easier, but not for begginers.
    And in some cases they both look and are complex: references to out of document stuff, abbreviations, wikislang...
    This problem is easier to explain than to solve. B25es (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what the question is about. All the practices are already in use, IMO. If community develops an improvement it implements it. If it needs some help it asks it. That all is already fine. As kinda comment to first guys' post I'd say that I have seen people with over 10k edits asking me how to respond on a talk page as well as guys who dived deep into discussions on talk pages from the very beginning. It's individually and I doubt any change of system would change the fact that some people are just not suited to discussions while some are more suited to discussions than to anything else. --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The ability to edit specific sections. Like it's not working in this survey… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, simplify the rules, simplify the markup. Allow innovators to innovate and new communication models can be created. See en:User:Mirror Bot for example. Rich Farmbrough 14:36 1 August 2015 (GMT).
  • Knowing each other in person. → «« Man77 »» [de] 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Being bold is best described as proactive contributing rather than deletional contributing, although sometimes deletions are necessary. Discussion is better than striking. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allowing undo only if the user will tick one of "vandalism", "BLP violation" or other specific major problems. Edits that are good faith but perceived as problematic in lesser ways should be helped either by fixing the article (where the intent is reasonably clear) or by talking to the user (to establish what was intended) and then fixing the article. Make "Bold - Help - Discuss" be our new way of working. We should not underestimate how much harm reverting does to other users. It can be hard to build a relationship if it starts with a revert or a criticism. Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hablar con otros editores por email, por teléfono, por videoconferencia o, si es posible, cara a cara. Hay experimentos famosos que demuestran que nuestra tendencia a infligir dolor a otros humanos es mucho menor cuando les vemos la cara. Muchos de mis mejores recuerdos como editor de Wikipedia son conversaciones que he tenido con otros editores "en directo". ¿Sería posible permitir que otros usuarios nos contacten por teléfono, videoconferencia, mensajería, etc igual que permitimos que nos contacten por correo electrónico? Hispalois (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes the rules should be simplfied and newbies should not be bitten once they commit an error.Again experience editors should interact more with newbies and just not leave links and rules on their talkpages without explaining them.--Rberchie (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • First and foremost: being civil. It is OK to be critical, but be civil and polite. Secondly, be bold, but if in serious doubt, ask before doing something (e.g. discuss before moving an article). Thirdly, resolve conflicts by discussion and offering constructive solution: it is great to say you found a problem, it is much better to say how to fix it. Finally, document good practices in a user-friendly way, not in a form of long and boring rules — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I thing lot of editorial and meta problems are come from lack of coordination between the different communities (ex : between wp:en, wp:fr, wp:de, commons, wikidata). Because each have different structures, rules, communications mediums, etc. We shall have more commons tools (and less difference of presentation between each tools), the help and meta pages should be more similars. --Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Working together online would be facilitated if there was a social environment in what groups of users easily can work together online, also if they do not have much experience. If users can form groups, they are more likely to continue to edit. Romaine (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, preventing people from degenerating the project.--MisterSanderson (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You should support local and national meet-ups, because networking helps to strengthen the community as whole and also makes conflicts less likely to escalate. Working in an online environment will be more rough than in real life always, wherever you look in the internet you see it. Wikimedia projects are not worse, in most cases even better. You should train the WMF staff better. YOu should know better what your work is really about, too amny of you ahve no idea what contributing to Wikimedia projects really means and that way also have no idea how to reach out to long-time and new contributors. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Creo que si se respetaran los cinco pilares de verdad y se creyera en que muchos ojos viendo las mismas cosas corrigen los errores, evitaríamos mucha mala fe y muchas discusiones en las que al final lo que está en juego no es la wikipedia y su validez o supervivencia, si no la autoridad o el poder de los que se creen con derecho a establecer sus criterios por encima de los demás. Por otro lado, yo que llevo poco tiempo editando, tengo que cumplir unos requisitos a la hora de realizar un artículo, que las mismas personas que me "vigilan" no cumplieron cuando empezaron, y de hecho artículos de hace siete años están sin referenciar, o no están wikificados, pero como el editor que los redactó tiene "solera" y es "alguien" en la comunidad, pues ahí están sin haberse tocado en lustros.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Es wäre schön, wenn diese Frage in einer mir geläufigen Spache gestellt worden wäre. Ich verstehe sie schlicht nicht. Weissbier (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So ungefähr: Gibt es Methoden, die unseren Zusammenarbeit ermöglichen konnten? Oder, einfach gesagt, was konnen wir tun, damit wir gut zusammen arbeiten? Was für Beispielen würden Sie gerne vorschlagen?
Ich würde vorschlagen keine automatischen Übersetzungsprogramme zu nutzen. Sie produzieren leider unverständlichen grammatikalischen Unfug. Weissbier (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice is this question were posed in language that is familiar to me. I simply don't understand it.
  • Jeder macht das was er am besten kann und respektiert die Tatsache das jeder etwas anderes am besten kann. Weissbier (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Maintaining politeness at all times and at any cost is a must for smooth collaboration. Also, regular offline WikiMeetup is really very helpful in maintaining sound brotherhood among Wikimedians, which positively affects better collaboration online. Tanweer (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Knowing at least some fellow editors in person would help working online.--Basak (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have appreciated the WYSWYG edit tools. It facilitates de edits on the encyclopedia. --Papischou (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No cops, please. That should never become a "profession" for a wiki user. And in case you have to deal with "cops", if an useless tension has been created, don't blame the "bad cop"... after all (s)he's sometimes a vicitim of the mask (s)he's wearing. On the contrary, I always blame on the good cop, IMHO (s)he is the one taking the real advantages of these tensions, trying to play on both side, never actually proposing a real solution because if people solved the problem his/her status would become less relevant. BTW, if you can't shot the (good) cop, try simply to keep in mind that whatever you are writing, people will always find it in the future. Even if you do it with a nickname you actually leave traces of yourself at the end. People will find you. And when they do, be sure that they always realize that you did your best to handle the situation and you're after all a nice, honest guy.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) La comunicación clara, amable, con buena fe; entender que es trabajo voluntario y en tiempo libre en diferentes usos horarios. petrohs (gracias) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the Wiki Culture of mutuality is the key point that can facilitate working together online with 100s of contributors throughout even in a single event or project from all over the World.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Communication and respect. Clearer programming language would go miles. Chibs007 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Judge actions, not actors – it’s what I’m trying to stick with. Think of multiple possible reasons why the action might have been done – and assume good faith once you did. When someone opposes your approach – try to explain your reasons as clearly as possible; even if it’s much simpler to discard the complaints and “find out” that “they have their hidden agendas, and didn’t like you in the first place, and just want you to leave.” — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Asking the community what is needed, rather than assuming that what we would add by our own initiative is something the community is waiting for. Mysha (talk)
  • (Spanish) Yo creo que sí las hay y una de ellas, si no la principal, sería poner el bienestar de la comunidad y la construcción del proyecto por encima de nuestros intereses individuales. Cuando un editor alcanza la madurez suficiente para entender más allá de cualquier egoísmo que estamos construyendo un proyecto cuya intención es la difusión universal del conocimiento y decide trabajar por el bien común, todo lo demás fluye más fácil, la comunicación, el trabajo en equipo, la aplicación de las reglas.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ayudándonos entre nosotros a aprender

¿Hay algo que podamos hacer mejor en nuestras relaciones en línea para ayudar a otros a aprender y para transformarnos entre nosotros?

  • This is a multilingual community. So don't take an excellent completely native level of English for granted.
  • Most of us are not technicians, not in computers, not in many other fields. So explain things as plainly as possible.
  • DNOUA (Do not overuse abbreviations). That's true for most language communities.

B25es (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • If we are talking about inter-community interactions then we've got to develop Meta and as per the first point by above guy: translations are not just important, they are vital. Just little percentage of many communities knows English on a level which allows them to participate in discussions like this one. --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't use stupid commercial PR-Language. Don't send mass-messages with enwiki-only syntax. Oh, and don't lie to readers as well as editors, like in those insane fundraising campaigns. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't take anything from your homewiki/meta/enwiki for granted. Maybe you are the exception, not some exotic others. → «« Man77 »» [de] 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Realizing we really are all in it together. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When someone clearly doesn't know how to do something, it would be nice to be able to fix the article for them with a recording of how you did it to share with them to help them learn in the context of the specific problem. It's really hard to write "Now find the end of the sentence that you want to add the source to. Click your mouse after the full stop. Now on the tool bar click Cite. Now in the dropbox ...". If only, I could click "start recording", do my actions (optionally recording my voice), then click "end recording and save/send ...". Such a "Show me how to" would be such a powerful tool to teach people! Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ja, sprecht meine Sprache und hört mit diesem PR-Bullshitting auf. ist gruselig uznd zeigt wie wenig WMF mit den Autoren verbunden ist. Das mit den Srachen wurde Euch übrigens vor Monaten schonmal gezeigt. Offensichtlich ist es Euch egal und das ist hier nur eine Show um den Autoren ein gutes Gefühl zu geben ohne jeglichen wirkliche Einfluss ...Sicherlich Post 20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, speak my language and stop this PR bullshitting. It is creepy and shows how little WMF is connected to the editors. By the way, the stuff about languages was pointed out to you months ago. Obviously you don't care and this is just a show to give authors a good feeling without any impact.
  • Interactions can be better if experienced editors go beyond leaving links on the talkpages of newbies sometimes a more detailed explanation concise and summarized will be more effective than a whole link to rules.--Rberchie (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not make wrong assumptions or generalisations: yes, there are "non-English Wikipedias" that do not have the same language and even may not have the same templates. Yes, there are even Wikimedians who do not speak English. While we have already had an awareness campaign that we have female Wikimedians, it would be great to make more people aware that we have some 290 languages, representing even more countries and approaches in everything — from writing articles to what healthy online interactions are. What may work in one community may not work in the other, be it a MassMessage with enwiki-only templates or a practice that does not apply in local context — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think automated tools for help the maintenance, for encourage to contribute, who detect some errors, are a solution to improve WP/WM (the recent translated initiative for create article is a good idea a things). We shall encourage the utilisation of lot of gadget and tools that are often have a local utilisation. Ex : I don't know a lot of solutions of the tools labs. I sure there are some gadgets that I don't know on some communities, that I likely to use them by default. Like the others answer, I thing the communities are very dispersed will lot of different communications mediums, options and difference that discourage discussion and exchange between there communities. --Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Create a social environment, like what is done with the education extension, which allows people to form a group and are interested to interact on each others actions. Romaine (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes a healthy online community?

I write in Wikipedia for the last 8 and half years, for about 5 years I am also an administrator. I believe that a healthy community needs a few rules of behavior: 1. Respect the other, write in a polite manner, under no excuse insult other people. 2. Think that the wikipedian that wrote an article thinks it is important – try to look at his point of view. Do not delete articles without a very good reason – nothing despairs people as lack of respect to their work. 3. Do not involve personal feeling with the creation of Wikipedia – try to probe and examine every point with a detached and objective thinking.

I tried to sum in three simple sentences my rules of conduct.

Here are some other thoughts that may help:

1. In the Hebrew Wikipedia we developed a very good tool that enables us to show the development of a chess game. We offered the English Wikipedia the use of the tool, but did not get an agreement. This might be only a small example, but if someone develops a good tool, there should be a way to populate the other Wikipedia with this tool. The English readers would enjoy it!

2. I found a user that writes especially nasty messages. He was blocked 60 times in the past, and 200 wikipedians that got his personal message never wrote again in Wikipedia. I believe that such users should be banned from Wikipedia as their style repels other. I believe that banning 2-3 wikipedians (in the Hebrew Wikipedia) would have kept many others contributors. --Yoavd (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • More promotion and improvement of Help. Personally, I find it atrocious-fragmented and often over technical, without examples that are easy to follow. Wiki has been built with a learn-as-you-go attitude but this excludes those learners who want to learn the rules first. I still have not found a "talk" etiquette explanation. It sounds as if some clear instructions, processes and boundaries need to be made explicit. --Zoeannl (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt that you in the WMF are able to do it, but how hard can it be to program a good tutorial to introduce newcomers to the wiki syntax? It is just a question of will, and the bad mouthing of the wiki syntax is something that is just a propaganda lie to impose stronger WMF control over the way of editing. I have introduced some people to contribute and they all were able to learn the syntax easily. Beside that, you need to learn to reply promptly to everything that the community demands. You might have the feeling in SF that you rule the Wikimedia world and that you decide where it goes, but no, we, the contributors, are the sovereign and you work for us. And you have to learn that when you want to be a global organization, you ahve to adress your core communities in their languages and deal with them in those. It is a shame that you abuse volunteers workforce for doing your job by demanding translation! That is not our job, we work on providing content to the readers. Beside that most interactions in the projects work fine (to internet standards, and a more loving world than in other online communities you won’t be able to form anyway), the German Wikipedia has strong democratic structures and also ways to handle most conflicts fine. The poison to the projects are the conflicts caused by the WMF. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Let new users ask for help via email. At the moment, we point new users at the Teahouse. However, the Teahouse is not enabled for use of the visual editor, so how do VE users communicate on the Teahouse? Second, when people are really new and struggling with using the editor tool (whether it be the source editor or the visual editor) and don't understand talk pages, then it's not helpful to dumping them into a talk page environment that they don't understand. Let them ask for help using tools they probably already understand, e.g. email. Also I think new users of the Teahouse don't understand why they see other questions and answers. I doubt they are interested in anything else than the answer to their question ("mission focus"). Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • New editors might want to provide a screen shot of their problem or someone helping them might want to provide a screen shot. That's relatively easy to do with email, just paste it in or attach it (whatever their email tool supports). However, it's amazingly hard to do on-wiki. Take a look at the instructions at Wikipedia:Screenshots of Wikipedia which starts by saying "how to easily and correctly upload screenshots" and then describes a process that certainly isn't easy. (Indeed, it does not use the Commons upload wizard which would make it tiny bit easier). It includes very detailed rules in relation to copyright (some of which relate to the Wikipedia logo - yes, we make screenshots of Wikipedia more complicated to upload to Commons than almost anything else!) and provides detailed instructions for markup editing (what to do the Visual Editors users make of this!). Sorry, "easy" means paste/attach not the process described there. Even as a relatively experienced Commons user, I've found it too hard to help people by giving them a screenshot on-wiki. I preferentially use the "Email this user" to help people (only works if they have an account and supplied an email address) to give help because it makes screenshots and discussions so much easier. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hay muchos medios de mejorar las ayudas entre los editores. Si nos centramos en una comunidad idiomática concreta, lo mejor sería que la gente asumiera que cuando se empieza se es un "pardillo" y se cometen errores, entre otras cosas porque a la hora de editar no se utiliza un editor de textos tipo Word, sino que hay que saber cómo se quiere que se editen ciertas cosas. El modo de referenciar, cómo se ponen las comillas, cómo se colocan fotos, cómo se hacen columnas o se insertan gráficas... y eso ya es un problema, porque si para editar has de hacer un cursillo de días para aprender cómo hacerlo, sin entrar en el contenido del artículo, que es otro tema, esto supone un grave problema. Parece fácil pero es muy complicado y no entro en el tema de los claudators, dobles llaves, plantillas tipo monumentos, iglesias, municipios...La persona que sin tener ayuda se atreve a editar, es para aplaudirle con las orejas. En cambio el comité de bienvenida es un grupo de expertos en sacar defectos y dejar al nuevo editor como una piltrafa.

Por eso creo que deberíamos empezar por reconocer que no es tan fácil editar, y que los errores que muchas veces se comenten es porque la información no es tan fácil de localizar sin dedicar a los prelimiares de la edición muchas horas, lo cual no deja de ser un desincentivo. Si un novato comete errores lo ideal sería que cualquiera de los maravillosos presenvadores de la calidad en Wikipedia se presentase como un ayudante y no como un evaluador, y que le dijera cómo, realizando la corrección necesaria, se evita ese error. Entonces se crearía el clima adecuado para solicitar ayuda porque se sabría que existe, al menos una persona que sabe de qué va, que tiene el interés de ayudar y no de evitar que realices ediciones, que es la sensación que actualmente se da.

Si nos centramos en el proyecto en general, llama la atención la disparidad de normas y de formas de editar según los proyectos de cada idioma. Si ya resulta difícil editar en tu propio idioma, tratas de traducir un artículo y te topas con que no te sirve de nada lo que utilizas en tu comunidad, porque cada cual va a la suya. Si tratas de utilizar la herramienta de traducción proporcionada por la Fundación, cosa que creo un avance extraordinario porque facilita mucho la edición, porque salva esos problemas, la comunidad respectiva no valora bien ese artículo por ser una "traducción menacizada" y faltarle el toque de personalización. En mi caso, escribo en castellano y en catalán, pero para ir más rápida sobre todo en enlaces wikis y en referencias, opto por utilizar el traductor que proporciona la fundación, y en ocasiones se me ha comentado que no está bien visto y que es preferible realizar la traducción directamente editando en catalán.

Unificar criterios en general y unificar modos de editar podría facilitar las cosas, porque en ocasiones lo que en una comunidad es un problema endémico, introduciendo unas normas globales, podría dejar de serlo.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Ich sehe es nicht als Aufgabe einer Enzyklopädie Menschen zu irgendwas zu transformieren oder umzuerziehen. Schon die Idee ist absund. Weissbier (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it as the task of an encyclopedia to transform people into something or to attempt to compensate somehow for the ways they were brought up. Even the idea is absurd.
Diese Übersetzung gibt leider den Inhalt meiner Aussage nur mangelhaft wieder. Weissbier (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Give editors the option of plain, old fashioned phone calls (no caller ID) with other editors to work together online. People willing to have phone contact with other editors, have to identify themselves to the WMF, and indicate that they will be polite and respectful with other editors. WMF sets up a system for making the calls without caller ID. New users who would like someone to talk to on the phone to help them could be encouraged to try this out. (If people agree to exchange their actual phone numbers after talking to each other, it is OK but it is fine to say you don't want to.) Also have a quick note at the end-- was this person respectful? Did you get the help you needed, or if you need additional help, what is it? If not respectful, or more help needed, goes into OTRS queue for followup. --Djembayz (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Policies, messages and other instructions should be translated into other languages because a great portion of people do not understand English. Being positive when interacting with Wikimedians is necessary for fruitful interaction. Tanweer (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As Base puts it so nicely: A nice atmosphere of editing where I can fix any problem I see either major or tiny. Almost no ways to break things (except when working with merging page histories, imports and other non-frequent stuff).Lotje (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Firstly, you need to improve inter-/trans-/infra-/cross-/meta-wiki connections. Everyone should be able to find someone else to connect. These connections are the synapsis creating day by day our collective intelligence. Many options should be given: same geographic area, same topics, users of the same tools, etc. In order to produce a network of balanced and complete articles, you need a network of balanced editors: if you want to find someone else, you should be able to find it easily. This is useful because this way interactions are so strong that everyone is replaceable. that's a very important goal: if you are the only one who does something, you should know that's not right. Be sure you didn't create this situation because maybe you wanted to fell important "in your field". Than, you need to praise the results too: positive feedbacks such as barnstar and thanking edits are ok. Finally, try to explain to everyone that another important goal is, after all. to "feel stupid". That's it. you are here to learn, so try to feel stupid about something. As soon as someone finally "replace" me, I always change what I do starting from zero a new thing. That makes me replaceable, makes me feel stupid, motivates me to learn a lot of new things, gives me a great number of new connections and... help me with newcommers. I kinda understand how "stupid" they feel. And that's great.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) Respeto, practicar mas la buena fe. Disminuir las barreras idiomáticas y culturales. petrohs (gracias) 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the above comments and answers were far enough than I imagined to mention here.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't go bananas on newbies. Explain, help, encourage. Chibs007 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the most interesting and yet intricate aspect of Communities is they are not uniform. Each language and Community is different - both as a result of intrinsic traits and characteristics exhibited. So if an attempt is made to use one yardstick - it fails. I am saying this out of my experience as a Wikimedia blogger in the light of my published and yet-to-be published blogs. For example, Esperanto Wikipedia draws linguistics enthusiasts who adopted this language. A novice here is likely to get more support from a compatriot who otherwise speaks the same different language than other Esperatist user. Hindi Wikipedia has more communication focus on the village pump and embassy than the social media. Urdu Wikipedia on the other hand has active Facebook group and Twitter handle. Bangla Wikipedia has some minor linguistic variation in both India and Bangladesh. So, in my humble view, constant study of Wiki users is essential. This can be done through blogs or dedicated project studies which encourage community members to willingly be interviewed, share opinions, grievance and any other community development not known to people outside the community. And this approach needs to be extended not just to language Wikipedias but also other Wikimedia projects.-Muzammil (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Learning is not the prime purpose of contributing to Wikipedia. There may be ways to help others learn, but determining whether that's wanted is an earlier step to take. Mysha (talk)
  • (Spanish) No me queda muy claro que es lo que pide la pregunta. Si se refieren a qué pueden hacer ustedes desde la WMF, estoy de acuerdo con algunas de las opiniones aquí vertidas. La WMF debe esforzarse por tomar en cuenta que esta es una comunidad multilingüe y que si bien el inglés es el idioma universal y muchos podemos leerlo y entenderlo, no necesariamente tiene que ser así. Como bien dicen algunos compañeros, hay que promover la creación de las traducciones en Meta para facilitar la participación de aquellos cuyo inglés no es el mejor y no deben condicionarse los apoyos desde la fundación a que tu nivel de inglés sea nativo o del 100%, pues si bien hay personas que no pueden comunicarse en ese idioma, lo leen y entienden lo suficiente para participar y compartir sus ideas para mejorar el bienestar de la comunidad. A los editores voluntarios nos gusta pensar que para la fundación todos somos igualmente valiosos, sin importar las barreras del idioma.

    Si la pregunta se refiere a qué podemos hacer nosotros para ayudar a otros, me hacen remontarme a mis primeras semanas en Wikipedia. A pesar de que antes de iniciar mis ediciones me leí todas y cada una de las políticas, tuve experiencias desafortunadas donde se me trató con dureza por ser novata y aparentemente también por ser mujer, aún recuerdo como algunos subrayaban el “señorita” cuando se dirigían a mí. Sin embargo, tuve más experiencias afortunadas con usuarios que me enseñaron desde los rudimentos de la edición, hasta como redactar mi primer artículo destacado, o simple y sencillamente hacían por mí las cosas que yo no podía hacer (como subir fotos a Commons) y eso fue lo que me ha hecho permanecer en Wikipedia por 6 años. Es de estas experiencias buenas de las que yo aprendí como tratar a los demás. Hay que tener mucha paciencia y entender que nadie nace sabiendo la edición wiki; mostrarles con amabilidad en que se equivocaron y como hacer para corregir los errores (en la práctica, si no se trata de cuentas de propósito particular, me funciona el 100% de las veces); también es importante mantener siempre la comunicación y estar ahí para resolver sus dudas. Al cabo del tiempo tendremos un editor que estará a su vez ayudando a otros miembros de la comunidad.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Proyectos vivos

¿Qué hace que los proyectos estén vivos?

  • Alive projects just live. Like a person who lives: you can deepen in all sophisticated biological explanations but it's better to keep it simple - the person just lives. The same for projects - no need to learn it too deeply for simple purposes. No need to fix what is not broken. No need to revive what is no dead. It is worse with actually dead projects or projects which are virtually dead and being kept afloat just by a one or two enthusiasts who burn out sooner or later. There it is a difficult question how to revive it, how to bring new contributors, how to make them stay there and stuff. The problem is that it could be not generalised. For example while ukwikinews and crhwikipedia have many factors in common, there are still many specific. Such factors could be categorized and stuff but that's a work for a thing bigger than a single response in a survey or whatever you call the thing. --Base (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The main reason is our common goal, that we want to achieve through this project.--Ammar Tivari Talk! 07:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A living project is one that has active community, thus a constant inflow of new participants from a wider community of that language speakers. Do they perceive the project as interesting/useful? Is its current community seen as welcoming and supportive towards newcomers, who want to start editing often without knowing with existing rules, standards, etc.? First experience matters, and negative one spreads quicker and wider. How do we keep wider audience excited about the project? Covering diverse topics and points of view seems a must. Ex. participants interested in preserving respective cultural knowledge, history and perspectives seem to dominate in smaller language projects, but developing a project that reflects reality requires balance. -- Frhdkazan (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Contributions and uploads. Quality, if possible. I really think that it's that simple. --Sargoth (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Social advertising outside of Wikimedia sites, and explanation of the reasons to work for no salary. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Learning how to help new contributors so that new or fresh perspectives are included. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A combination of several delicate balances: openness to many voices but a respect for expertise; a culture that manages to remain generally friendly without suppressing the disagreements that are necessary to healthy discussion; consensus about rules without deteriorating into rigidity; concern with issues of community, without losing site of the fact that there are tasks at hand besides simply community-building; pluralism without surrendering some notion of standards. - Jmabel (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Terminology question. Are we talking about projects at the level of en.WP and Commons? Or are we talking about WikiProjects such as en:WikiProject Antarctica?
    • If we are talking about the former, then I think a living project is one that is growing in both content (quantity and quality) and contributors and that the trendlines of the major metrics are positive. I think the existing metrics provide us with some pretty good indicators. Is our content growing both in terms of number of articles and length of articles? Is the influx of new editors growing? How they surviving? What are our active editor numbers doing? What's our retirement rate? Maybe we should have some more that approximate contributer happiness? How about the revert rate for different groups? Or some new metrics like "number of articles without illustrations" to reflect things that readers find important (a picture really an be worth 1000 words).
    • If we are discussing WikiProjects, then living WikiProjects require ongoing signups to the project, an active Talk page, and evidence that project members are collaborating on some tasks that improves the articles within their purview. Currently most WikiProjects are moribund. Their Talk pages are inactive (apart from messages being sent to all projects) and the only Project activity appears to be some old hands tagging new articles (which is not in itself productive unless it leads into some other activity to improve the articles). Also, these tags send some pretty negative signals to newcomers "this is our gang's turf - stay away". They usually contain a quality tag (usually "stub" or "start") which is often wildly inaccurate as the project has not revisited the article since it was first created. I would suggest shutting down WikiProjects that are inactive (by some reasonable definition and remove their tagging). I would also suggested removing any WikProject tags quality assessments that have not been reviewed "recently" (which I would define as some metric of article size change or number of subsequent edits - e.g. more than 10% size change needs re-assessment or more than 10 edits). I would also suggest that WikiProjects reduce their tags to a small size (or have them in closed mode) to reduce the visual burden on the Talk page. Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • First, I suppose that "wiki projects" means a project like English-language Wikipedia, Commons, or Wikisource. Then, well - there has to be an active community that is able to expand the project and keep up with necessary maintenance. Whether there is such a community depends upon many factors that may be specific to the project - the raison d'être and surrounding conditions are very different in projects such as Wikinews or Wikisource. The criteria for judging a Wikinews project "alive" (is it a source of current news?) are very different from the criteria for a Wikisource (a corpus of source material is a more static thing and may grow slowly). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Al ligual que Kerry Raymond, dudo si la pregunta se refiere a proyectos Wikimedia o a wikiproyectos.
    • Para proyectos Wikimedia opino que solo se mantienen vivos los que consiguen una masa crítica de editores numerosos o bien muy comprometidos. Uno de los factores que dificulta que se alcance dicha masa crítica es la lengua. Commons ha sido un éxito porque todo wikipedista puede contribuir, independientemente de su lengua. Por el contrario, proyectos como Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, etc languidecen en casi todas sus versiones por falta de un núcleo suficiente de usuarios en cada lengua. Además, la fragmentación de estos proyectos en cientos de versiones obliga a multiplicar el esfuerzo en estructuras, por ejemplo creación de plantillas, actualización de la portada, etc.
    • Para wikiproyectos, mi experiencia es que es clave la figura del animador: alguien capaz de convocar y motivar a un grupo de editores para trabajar juntos en pos de objetivos que serían incapaces de alcanzar individualmente. Desafortunadamente, los rasgos de personalidad necesarios para ser un buen animador de wikiproyecto (liderazgo, comunicación) son bastante diferentes de los del "buen wikipedista" habitual (conocedor y cumplidor de las políticas, orientado al detalle, trabajador individual, a menudo discreto). Uno de los mejores animadores de wikiproyecto que conocí terminó siendo expulsado para siempre de Wikipedia en español; desde entonces nadie ha retomado el testigo y todos "sus" wikiproyectos han caído en la inactividad casi absoluta. Hispalois (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • To me talks and notifications make projects alive.It give that sense of the realtime nature of Wikipedia once you get an immediate or an almost immediate notifications for your actions on Wikiedia makes it and its projects alive.--Rberchie (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The question is ambiguous and may be interpreted in either way:
    • To keep a Wikimedia project alive, it must continue to be useful for readers (meaningful, not outdated content) and have a viable community. It may not necessarily have a constantly active community but it should have a group of people who are ready to act if an action is needed.
    • A WikiProject can be alive only if it is a useful place for cooperation, i.e. a place where editors can discuss content, get help, find some best practices (e.g. best structure of an article on a given topic) etc. A WikiProject is not alive if people still write articles within its scope but do not use this project as a platform for cooperation — NickK (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Contributions. --Nouill (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A productive environment where users are thanked and appreciated for the work they do. Romaine (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A community can likely be considered healthy, if sickness, illness, mental and physical damages and disabilities are rare with in it. -Physikstudent (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Offer a survey to new members re their interests and point out different opportunities available to pursue them e.g. Wikisource for primary texts, relevant WikiProjects, Wikipedia categories, Wikibooks for correlating information.--Zoeannl (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The contributors, only the contributors. They will get less, cause most easy to edit topics are written already. But the projects will live. What kills the Wikimedia projects is the WMF thinking as if it is a Silicon Valley company. No, you are not. You are service provider to volunteers who have the non-mainstream hobbies of editing encyclopedias, writing dictionaries, collecting sources … And that’s why Wikipedia and other projects never were full like facebook or reddit and never will be, because we are following a niche hobby that by chance has a big audience (and even if this audience would drop in a certain extent, it wouldn’t mean any bad for the projects, but for a too big WMF that doesn’t know what it tasks actually are). --Julius1990 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Si se refiere a qué es lo que hace que el proyecto wikipedia sobreviva en general, creo que el deseo o la creencia de la necesidad de dejar constancia de lo que existe, de lo que existió (y ahora a desaparecido y puede olvidarse), de lo que puede llegar incluso a existir, es una razón que hace mantenerse al proyecto vivo. La historia nos enseña que lo que no se recuerda no ha existido y eso nos lleva a los humanos a cometer errores de forma recurrente. Wikipedia puede ser una herramienta para la humanidad, para no olvidar lo que somos y los que fuimos y a dónde nos llevó lo que hicimos antaño y lo que hacemos ahora, por eso en wikipedia debería tener cabida todo, siempre que respete al menos los cinco pilares básicos, porque nadie es quién para decidir sobre lo que es o no relevante, lo que es o no enciclopédico. me imagino que Diderot escribiría en su enciclopedia cosas que en su tiempo eran tildadas de magia o de locura, e incluso cosas que consideró muy relevantes e importantes luego han resultado ser totalmente superfluas para la historia de la humanidad, pero el hecho de que en aquella época no lo fueran ya les da un valor en sí, el valor de la curiosidad histórica.

Si con la pregunta se hace referencia a los proyectos puntuales, creo que el hecho de que exista una participación en ellos, que se edite sobre ciertos ámbitos, que se trate de abarcar objetivos de cierta relevancia como conseguir que haya artículos de todas las ciudades de un país, o fotos de todos los pueblos, o de los monumentos que están catalogados, o de los parajes naturales protegidos, si se logra al menos ir avanzando y que por poco que se edite el proyecto siga una cierta evolución, demuestran que están vivos. Aunque puede verse que la existencia de diversos intereses hace que haya, en mi opinión, un exceso de proyectos que al final nunca se acaban y tampoco se mantienen con vida, y eso creo que da mala imagen porque es como que la enciclopedia, que es cierto que ha de estar siempre creciendo y realizándose, no tiene un mínimo de cosas acabadas y formando base de un tesoro cultural y educativo a tener en cuenta.19Tarrestnom65 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Proper use of language makes projects come to life. They tend to die under the hegemonial aspirations of a select few. Those few, those happy few, tend to work for the WMF.--Arcudaki (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The main problem of the health of the Community is that most people don’t see that we are in fact a community. The purpose of Wikimedia as whole is to give knowledge to the people. So we take inputs (information we know how to get, the pictures we take or are given, etc) and process those inputs (using our time, WMF provided software and equipment, etc) to get a final product that can be articles, images or other stuff.
    So that’s what we do. It’s like the old story about the bricklayer who said that he was putting bricks together while his mate just beside him said they were building a cathedral. Some people think they’re just in the checking rules business or –worst of all- in the internal rules business. They can’t understand that we check how we lay our bricks as far as it’s relevant to our building process.
    In order to make us see we are doing something together it would be great if we could meet physically. Wikimanias are great occasions for that but, at least for me, it’s quite impossible to assist to events in Buenos Aires, Washington, Hong Kong… My bus pass does not go that far. Even so, I went to London 2014 and I found so many people that were working on different parts of our cathedral. I found them face to face and what I learnt from personally talking to them is incommensurable.
    But as I said, it isn’t realistic to make worldwide meet-ups. Instead –or in addition- I would promote local events. I’ve attended events (go and back the same day) as far as 300 km away from home (I’d go even further). If we used such distance in Continental Europe, we could easily have events joining people from six or more countries and at least as many languages. In other parts of the World geography doesn’t help that much, but some other kind of approach could be used. The point is meet your fellow Wikimedians.
    One of the things that we Wikimedians need is a wider vision. For instance, relevance tends to be a very local concept: who (in Spain) cares about cricket? So an article about a Pakistani cricket player can easily be considered irrelevant. I guess the same would happen to an article about a player of Cultural Leonesa in many versions of Wikipedia. We are making a World-relevant work for everybody, including both cricket and Cultural Leonesa fans. So a wider view that includes them and all other people is required. As for the projects, I think that a lot of “see what’s on Wikidata and not on your own project” would help: Wikidata is the closest thing we have as a worldwide relevance guide.
    And I would add a question to everybody’s entry page: Are you going to help? B25es (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Die Freiwilligen machen es aus. Und zwar nicht wegen, sondern trotz der Vereinmeier und der völlig weltfernen WMF. Weissbier (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The volunteers are what make it. And not because of, but rather in spite of the organization people (Vereinmeier) and the WMF, which is totally out of touch with the world.
  • The spontaneity and energy of the Wikimedians make the Wikimedia projects be alive. It is the willingness and passion of the Wikimedians that drive the Wikimedia projects. Tanweer (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I attend to Edit-a-ton twice, in my own city at the Public library of Lyon and at cite des Sciences et des techniques la Vilette in Paris area. My experience was poor in the two meetings. The introduction to contribution was not adapted ; Then the working groups was not prepared and finally I work alone... A "how to" manual to organise a good Edit-A-ton would be useful!--Jbureau (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the question is strange, projects are different and they have different phases. In the early step the key ingredient is usaully quantity, later its quality. in both phases if possible you should have connections. They have to be part of the network, of users and contents.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) La comunidad que los visita los mantiene vivos; entiendo que el numero de usuarios continuamente aumenta, es un reflejo del gran trabajo que los editores realizan. Para mantener los proyectos creciendo es necesario generar lazos para sentir requerido, valorado y que el trabajo que se aporta es importante. Dicen que esto no es una red social, yo considero que si, que es necesaria fortalecerla como tal para mantener a los editores interesados en colaborar, y se debe expandir a nuestros círculos fuera de linea para invitar y difundir la colaboración solidaria en la construcción de conocimiento libre. petrohs (gracias) 18:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the same simplicity which Wikipedia and Wikimedia Projects are adapting from its starting period of time will keep the projects alive. A unique and desperate belief of Wikipedians will always keep Wikipedia alive even at the worse situation. Apart from these things I think people might want to observe Wikipedia graphically nowadays, I mean a image graphics.-Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Knowledge itself flows. But cooperation, appropriate discussion, research and communication make projects advance and grow. Chibs007 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The community. Once the participants decide they aren’t interested in the scope – or in collaboration – it’s all over. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Spanish) Los proyectos sobreviven gracias a que la gente los hace crecer, las personas que forman parte de la comunidad son el oxígeno que hace vivir a cada proyecto. Por eso es importante que la comunidad sea fuerte y unida para crear una atmósfera de trabajo agradable y un ambiente de camaradería que permita retener a los editores actuales y atraer cada vez más a nuevos editores.

    Una forma de mantener el capital humano con el que ya contamos sería estimular a los buenos editores, reconocer su esfuerzo y entrega, porque si bien estamos aquí de forma voluntaria y sin esperar nada a cambio, una palmadita en la espalda siempre resulta alentadora y te permite saber que vas por buen camino. Sería ideal que una parte de los apoyos de la fundación fueran para otorgar becas y promover reuniones y encuentros entre verdaderos wikipedistas (de esos que tienen miles de ediciones y cientos de artículos creados), aparte de ser un acicate para el trabajo, permitiría establecer y estrechar vínculos y fortalecer las relaciones comunitarias.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)