Talk:Lombardy during Expo 2015, Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 and Wikimania Esino Lario 2016

Texts for the communication

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. But who edits Wikipedia is not anyone.

The project targets specifically the people who are (or can be) astonishing wikipedians: exceptional people who can make 1'000 edits in a month, complete by themselves an entire topic on the enciclopedia, or checking and remove vandalism like Luke Skywalker in a battle.
It is probably more efficient to consider two groups of people:

1. People who do not know they can edit Wikipedia (but they are likely to really enjoy it)
2. People who already edit Wikipedia (but they maybe feel a little lonely or they do not know how much appreciated they are or they could contribute more actively if they were triggered by a milestone)

Below I start drafting some ideas in a way I hope allows other people to add and comment of them. --iopensa (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where wikipedians and potential wikipedians are

On Wikipedia.

• Even if they are contributors or occasional contributors, the current communication tools are not necessarily the right way to reach them. Project pages, OTRS, meta, mailing lists, Wikimedia chapters/groups are what we currently use but they do not necessarily facilitate contribution; it is relevant to mention that people who are very engaged in these "tools" sometimes they stop contributing (or they never contributed at all) and they rather become managers and active contributors of the tools themselves. You need to be interested in the meta discourse to cross them. If you like writing the enciclopedia you are more likely to be focussed on a page, not necessarily knowing how the entire machine works. And sincerely the tribal gergo (OTRS, wiki, wikimedia, wikimedia chapter, mediawiki, wikimedia foundation, wikimedia chapter, IEG, PEG, FDC...) does not help at all to invite people to join in or to make it fun for people interested in their specific work, not on the system and meta discourse. --iopensa (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In a library.

• If you are curious maybe you already use a library. University libraries or libraries in small villages are places for aggregation and they are used by students or people enjoying making research. Targeting libraries has also the advantage to target content which is not necessarily available online (which is often the content less represented on Wikipedia). --iopensa (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Places where you can have fun and cultivate your passions.

• Video game shops and festival of comics might be pretty relevant places to cross wikipedians and potential wikipedians. The disadvantage of them is that these specific topics are pretty well documented on Wikipedia and maybe it would be useful to target a segment of people with a passion for coming and video games but also for something else. --iopensa (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

At gatherings.

• One of the most successful gathering of the Italian community is a recurrent annual Milan-based beer-gathering in August. It a pretty bizarre situation: in Italy August is still the month of holidays, many companies are closed and Milan is the place people run away from if they can. Basically one of the most successful gathering presents the following characteristics:
  • it is organized in a period and a location you would never target if you wanted people to attend. There are usually around 20 people there.
  • It has no purpose: no aim, no working goals, no defined topics.
  • It is economic, informal, you can order (or not order) what you want, and you can simply pass by (and people will never know if you suddenly decide not to join in)
  • it is characterized by absurd and fun discussions, which range from the taxonomy of beers, asteroids, the famous wives of famous writers, the epic search for a specific image in PD...
  • the people you meet there are often different from the people you meet at the Wikimedia assemblies; definitely more active wikipedians. The gathering definitely does contribute to create and reinforce relationships online; I would argue that from this point of view Wikimedia assemblies are quite the opposite (on Wikipedia you tend to keep a distance from people and topics linked to the chapter, to keep wikipedia and wikimedia community somehow separated/independent/not confused/not interfering too much with each other).

--iopensa (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)