Talk:CIS-A2K/Reports/CIS-A2K Narrative Report: (September 2012 – June 2013)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


I don't understand the need of "narrative" report, looks like combination of newsletters, plans, etc. I see some numbers at "A2K Program Achievements (September 2012 to June 2013)", many don't matter; newsletters published, blogs posted, events, programs, etc. conducted are not achievements. Any organisation/team with that amount of money can conduct such events and support others financially, you can list them under activities. "Number of valid usernames" surprises me! What do you mean by valid usernames?? All the usernames created should be valid automatically! Are there any invalid usernames shared by any users? I don't think so. Only achievements you should show is, how many of them are regular or have more than 50/100 edits or so, and the list of those usernames. -- ɑηsuмaη «Talk» 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ansuman thanks for engaging with the CIS-A2K Report and sharing your feedback.
We need to check if it is ok (in terms of privacy, etc) to share the usernames of those who have more than 50/100 edits. Let me check on this and get back.
As you rightly noted the Narrative Report does capture in a structured manner all the activities done by CIS-A2K during the 10 months period and obviously all these were shared with the community through the newsletters every month. The report, as you will note, assimilates all the activities and reflects on the outcomes and impact.
About your remark about "A2K Program Achievements", while it is obvious that CIS-A2K has done these events as part of the WMF Grant, CIS-A2K team has put in effort and skill in getting these activities done and it is the team's achievement. Are you intending to ask what is the outcome and impact of this? If so, it's been discussed in the Impact section. Would be useful if you elaborate on your comment.
About the valid usernames... We have discussed the challenge we faced with regard to this in the report. I am reproducing it here again. "The username data for more than 700 participants could not be ascertained, due to incorrect inefficient data collection and input. This includes participants giving wrong usernames, trouble with the handwriting of some of the participants, etc. We have already taken note of this issue and have put in measures to efficiently capture the new user data. Hence, we have only presented an analysis of 582 participants, whose usernames are valid."
We welcome further feedback and ideas that we could put to action.

--Visdaviva (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to distinguish Achievements and Outcomes, please show them in different sections. And A2K's impact in the growth of Indian language Wikimedia projects doesn't count as it is very very low, or it's not possible to measure, so lets not talk about it. And I'd appreciate if you be precise and don't list them while making these reports.
  • What you call team's achievement, i call team's effort.
  • If you care to show the outcomes, please find different ways to show them. The usernames are already in public, you just need to list them (no need to be linked), i don't see how it could be a problem. If possible please make lists of Usernames with Account creation dates, Home wiki (Meta or En Wiki or any language specific wiki,..), Total edits. And separate lists for usernames with more than (10 edits,) 50 edits, 100 edits, and so on. If you can't share publicly then share only the numbers of such usernames and keep the lists with you for the record.
  • And please be concise and precise while making any reports. Your efforts will be noticed automatically when we will see the outcomes. You should not waste any time writing unnecessary explanations and excuses. And longer reports like this won't be read by many and fully, i hope you get my point. -- ɑηsuмaη «Talk» 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indicwiki stats vs. WikiStats[edit]

I'm quite sad to see that you hired someone to produce . I hope this was the cheapest way to get some basic graphs, but it's surely not the better: I would've been much happier to see some work on stats:EN_India/, which already provides all those features (and much more) but is currently disabled. Scattered ad hoc stats sites like this, apart from being ephemeral (we've seen many, very few survive for long), are not reliable at all and I hope you don't use any of those stats for any real decision: for instance, I'm sure we won't see updates of page views stats on that website after Erik Zachte's regular raw data error correction. --Nemo 08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nemo, firstly sorry for getting back on this so late :( Been travelling on work. Thanks for pointing to stats:EN_India/. Didn't know it existed. You are right, is currently not a dynamic one and does not get updated. We are considering to make these charts dynamic such that it reflects updated data. Especially this visualization was a lot appreciated by some of the community members and others. Should we put energies in reviving stats:EN_India/? Is there any way we could have this visualization integrated into Erik Zachte's work on ? Welcome your suggestions. Thanks. --Visdaviva (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way we very much use for decision making. Cheers --Visdaviva (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first such animation was stats:wikimedia/animations/growth/AnimationProjectsGrowthWp.html. It shouldn't be too hard to submit a patch for a variant that only shows indic languages. And yes, I think stats:EN_India/ is worth reviving, assuming you have some coding resources left. --Nemo 14:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]