Forwarding a wikitech-l note from Moushira (cc'ed) and the WMF reading
team, relevant to the discussion on microcontributions.
I am writing to share with you an effort from the Android team to
themes of products
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Readers_contributions>  that
would allow readers to create micro-contributions that are welcomed and
actually needed by fellow Wikipedia editors.
The team has already identified 18 ideas as examples of tasks readers can
do to help editors, we would like to expand the conversation to help us
evaluate the importance of the idea*s*. While thinking, the team already
had criteria for evaluating the ideas
but this is still missing community input on how ideas are evaluated and
what would actually get high votes for being something that matters, in
order for the team to start working on. Please feel encouraged to add
more ideas and adjust criteria for evaluation if needed.
This work is a continuation of the reading consultation
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_Interaction_Consultation> earlier done
in April. The team is excited to continue the conversation early with the
community in order to define product themes.
Ideas promoted from this conversation will be designed in Android first,
given the consideration of lower traffic and relative ease of
implementation, but the team will be excited and watching for lessons
learned in order to move ideas to the web.
This work is made possible by Jon Katz, Reading team's senior PM, and
Dmitry Brant, the product owner of Android. Thanks for their thoughtful
and collaborative approach".
We will allow the conversation to run for a month, after which we can
already start exploring ideas for implementation in Q3. Please help spread
the word across village pumps.
Looking forward to your input --
Community Liaison for Reading team
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> Hoi Bob,
> Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It has its own problems and it could
> do better as well. The point of a marketing approach is not only in
> reaching more editors. Having people help with more content for instance
> with micro tasks is achievable. The point must be that the work done makes
> a difference. It is not something we have ever shown that individual work
> makes a difference even though we could do this. We could produce lists of
> articles waiting to be written in domains. They could be our red links,
> they could be the articles that exist in other Wikipedias. They could even
> be items in Wikidata.
> The biggest point of our projects is not our contributors, it is what they
> produce. What we could do is make sure is that this is easier available.
> Has a better user experience. Take Commons or Wikisource I do not use it
> because I do not know what to find and in what state I will find it. This
> has technical issues but the main thing is that our audience is hardly what
> we are interested in.
> In them days I asked loudly for Commons but I find it impossible to find
> material for my blog so I gave up on Commons. I have done a lot of work on
> Wiktionary but I found that there was too much repetition so I started
> OmegaWiki and hoped for the WMF to adopt it. Wikidata has much promise and
> it could do a lot of good but that is where I am at the moment.
> With proper marketing we will improve the user experience for our
> audience, they may cooperate in micro tasks and, we will as a consequence
> grow an interest by some to edit text. They could stay if we do a better
> job of maintaining a friendly space. That is not marketing not technology
> but it is necessary. We are at a state where we have a technology that more
> or less works for most editors in the bigger projects.
> On 28 August 2016 at 21:26, Bob Kosovsky <bobkosovsky(a)nypl.org
>> I've been active with Wikipedia since 2006. My impression (which
>> corresponds with data) is that 2008 was the year with the highest number of
>> editors on English Wikipedia. While it may sound good on paper, in some
>> ways it was a mess because of the frequency of vandalism. Nowadays I know
>> there are more automated techniques for detecting vandalism, but if you
>> want to increase the number of users just to make the stats look good,
>> you're going to get more dubious data into the encyclopedia as well as
>> frustration from editors who dislike spending their time on so much
>> maintenance (although I'm sure there are some editors who would jump at the
>> chance to make corrections all day).
>> I suspected from the outset of Wikipedia's creation that the project
>> would mirror the well-known "life cycle of email lists" as I've
>> believed Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia." I feel this well-known
>> accurately reflect's Wikipedia's evolution so I repeat it here as a tool
>> from which to learn:
>> *1. Initial enthusiasm* (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot
>> about how wonderful it is to find kindred souls).
>> *2. Evangelism* (people moan about how few folks are posting to the
>> list, and brainstorm recruitment strategies).
>> *3. Growth* (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads
>> develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up).
>> *4. Community* (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots of
>> information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as well as
>> less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease each other;
>> newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience; everyone -- newbie and
>> expert alike -- feels comfortable asking questions, suggesting answers, and
>> sharing opinions).
>> *5. Discomfort with diversity* (the number of messages increases
>> dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people start
>> complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens to quit if
>> *other* people don't limit discussion to person 1's pet topic; person 2
>> agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more bandwidth is
>> wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used for the threads
>> themselves; everyone gets annoyed).
>> *6a. Smug complacency and stagnation* (the purists flame everyone who
>> asks an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies
>> are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor
>> issues; all interesting discussions happen by private email and are limited
>> to a few participants; the purists spend lots of time self-righteously
>> congratulating each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list).
>> *6b. Maturity* (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the
>> participants stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few
>> weeks; many people wear out their second or third 'delete' key, but the
>> list lives contentedly ever after).
>> I feel Wikipedia is at stage 6 (both a and b). Unless there's a
>> significant change in functionality and design, the days of 2008 will never
>> return, and we should stop bothering to think it's possible to replicate
>> them (because their existence was due to the novelty of the project).
>> Instead, I think Wikimedia projects should cultivate those individuals
>> with specialized knowledge. A lot of these people are in specialized
>> communities (for example educators, medical professionals,
>> researchers/scholars, devoted amateurs). These are communities which
>> formerly looked down on Wikipedia but now are reconsidering their formerly
>> negative opinions of the encyclopedia. I feel the as-yet small successes in
>> the medical and GLAM communities (I am sure there are others) show great
>> promise. Being part of the GLAM community, I know there are outreach
>> efforts underway to others within that community. Being part of WM NYC, I
>> know there's a lot of librarians involved in chapter activities--and most
>> of those activities take place in libraries or museums (often museum
>> Until this year, the WMF showed no real interest in continuous engagement
>> and dialogue with the community that edits the projects. I totally agree
>> with the person who said WMF needs to have a marketing department. This is
>> especially true for the kinds of research which marketers report on and are
>> typical of any organization, profit or non-profit. That would be a first
>> step: Understanding who are the variety of its users/editors from which it
>> can then create action items to determine how it can increase the number of
>> users by going after specific market segments. This would not eliminate
>> the "anyone can edit" ethos, but could be a more effective means to
>> increasing users rather than appealing to a broad public.
>> Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts,
>> Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
>> blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44
>> Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
>> - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
>> *Inspiring Lifelong Learning* | *Advancing Knowledge* | *Strengthening
>> Our Communities *
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
*Dario Taraborelli *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation