Tilman,
Thanks, it's great to see the momentum here in Mobile Contributions.
Was there any discussion about how to convert the "selfies" uploaders and
people who sign up for the watchlist
feature into more active contributors? This seems like an opportunity to
make progress on what I think should
be the #1 WMF-wide priority right now, which making progress on the active
contributor statistics.
Pine
This is very interesting to all of us on the Product team, because we think
a lot about how to convert high quality contributors on every feature,
mobile and desktop.
Converting users who signed up with one set of intentions to do something
even slightly different can be a very difficult thing. This is why, for
example, AFT5 users who accept a call to sign up edit at dismal rates
compared to "natural" converts to registered editing. In product
development we ideally prefer to think of ways to attract and support users
who are interested in a useful activity, rather than say, try to turn
readers who want a reading list into editors using a watchlist. Making that
conceptual shift is a big ask for people with no prior experience editing.
The "selfies" group is an interesting example to talk about because these
people clearly are open to contributing. I would venture that they just
have the wrong mental model for what a useful photo is. Maryana and the
design team have been working on a mobile "intro to contributing photos"
that I think is a really great example of how to not just build in the base
functionality of something like mobile photo uploads, but actually try to
target new users who have the right motivations and concepts about the
feature. I'm sure Maryana, Vibha, and Munaf could expand on this more. :-)
--
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:32:54 -0700
From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org <javascript:;>>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly
reviews of high priority WMF
initiatives
Message-ID:
<CAPDdKA6M+PLM7OHfJNKQcNVp_cS0EUEeBMATjvS=
jjYDv01DeQ(a)mail.gmail.com <javascript:;>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Minutes and links to slides from this week's Quarterly Review meeting
of the mobile contributions team have been posted at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r…
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> to increase accountability and create
more opportunities for course
> corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
> and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
> starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
> to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
> Board [1]:
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
> - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
> - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
> I'm proposing the following
initial schedule:
> January:
> - Editor Engagement Experiments
> February:
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
> March:
> - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
> - Funds Dissemination Committee
> We’ll try doing this on the same day
or adjacent to the monthly
> metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
> their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
> otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
> also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
> My goal is to do this in a manner
where even though the quarterly
> review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
> meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
> discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
> which we can use to discuss the concept further:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r…
> The internal review will, at minimum,
include:
> Sue Gardner
> myself
> Howie Fung
> Team members and relevant director(s)
> Designated minute-taker
> So for example, for Visual Editor,
the review team would be the Visual
> Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
> I imagine the structure of the review
roughly as follows, with a
> duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
> - Brief team intro and recap of
team's activities through the quarter,
> compared with goals
> - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
> - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
> - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
> action items
> - Buffer time, debriefing
> Once again, the primary purpose of
these reviews is to create improved
> structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
> where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
> In addition to these priority
initiatives, my recommendation would be
> to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
> a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
> may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
> to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
> engineering.
> As we pilot this process, the format
of the high priority reviews can
> help inform and support reviews across the organization.
> Feedback and questions are
appreciated.
> All best,
> Erik
> [1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
> [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> Support Free Knowledge:
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate>