I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
 the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group  as a Wikimedia User Group. The
group aims to support the community of active contributors that develop
content about Bénin, its story, culture, and people; to promote Beninese
indigenous languages on Wikipedia and its sister projects; and to develop
partnerships with national and international institutions to promote use of
and contribution to Wikipedia.
Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
Chair, Affiliations Committee
É essencial que façamos uma reunião de direcção o mais brevemente possível,
para tratar destes assuntos:
- Votação para o conselho de administração da WMF (escolha dos
candidatos q apoiamos)
- Aplicação aos Strategy Salons para discussão da Estratégia 2030 ao
nível de afiliado
- RG / conferência nacional em Setembro
O Gonçalo sugeriu o sabado, a qualquer hora. Alguém tem preferência na hora?
I think that the mobile Suggested Edits feature and the related analysis
are interesting. I am forwarding text from that discussion.
Also, I was happy to see the recognition of two new user groups. They are
the WikiClassics User Group and the Wikimédiens du Bénin User Group.
What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Charlotte Gauthier
Date: Tue, May 14, 2019, 08:07
Subject: Re: [WikimediaMobile] Stats & data from launch of Suggested Edits
on Wikipedia Android app
Thanks for this great info, Mikhail, and for the work that went into
producing this useful - and beautiful! - report.
We do indeed have plans to experiment with the thresholds to find the
optimum balance point between wide adoption and maintaining contribution
quality, to extend the feature with new microcontribution types, and to
begin intensive testing to find ways to encourage users to explore more of
the feature, and to inspire long-term use. Advertising new contribution
types and re-activation of editors who have previously tried the feature
will be one of the mainstays of our push messaging strategy.
If anyone is interested in our particular plans over the next year, don't
hesitate to get in touch. We've already been having wider discussions with
several teams on how we could possibly work together towards mutual goals.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:37 PM Mikhail Popov <mpopov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I wanted to highlight a few really interesting pieces of data/stats
> regarding the release of the Suggested Edits feature on Wikipedia app for
> Android. These come from the daily report
> which is also where you'll find a brief description of the feature.
> First, at this time 25.3% of editors (whose contributions are being
> tracked since launch of the backend) have unlocked the feature by making
> the 5+ title description edits
> currently required to unlock it. (See: unlock stats
> That's 632 editors out of the 2495 editors who have made at least one title
> description edit since April 5th. We have plans to experiment with this
> threshold and see what happens if we lower the barrier to entry.
> By the way, we don’t expect all logged-in users to edit or unlock the
> feature (by making the required number of title description edits), as
> there are incentives on the mobile apps to use an account just for reading
> (e.g. reading list syncing
> However, perhaps we should advertise this ability better (especially to
> logged-in users) and that those title descriptions don’t require any
> knowledge of wikitext.
> And since the production release, the feature has had a steady stream of
> 20+ users unlocking it per day. What are our users doing with it once they
> unlock it? They’ve been using it! (Sorry if the text in the included graph
> is too small to be legible, it's larger in the report.)
> Nearly half of all title description edits made with the Android app each
> day are coming in from editors using the Suggested Edits feature to add &
> translate descriptions. More than half, even, on some days! Furthermore,
> some of those edits are made by users who have previously used the feature.
> Every day we have some editors who are using Suggested Edits for the first
> time, but there are also quite a few who are returning to the Editor Tasks
> screen & contributing more. (See: edit stats
> “Okay, so what’s the quality of those 200-400 descriptions being added
> every day?” you might ask. Well, one way we can check that is to check how
> many of those edits are reverted within 48 hours. Turns out, almost none
> of them:
> This is especially impressive when compared to the proportion of other
> title description edits that are reverted. (See: revert rate
> When the user goes to the Suggested Edits screen and opens a task, they
> begin receiving suggestions of articles to add descriptions to (or
> translate descriptions, if they have unlocked that next tier of Suggested
> Edits). On average, users express interest in editing 30-40% of those
> suggestions. Among the suggestions they tapped to edit, they end up
> actually making an edit around 60% of the time (although the average varies
> from 40% to 70%). (See: interactions
> and other engagement stats
> Since the suggested edits are currently completely random, this leaves us
> with a lot of room for improvement by, say, employing machine learning and
> simple recommendation systems to suggest articles without title
> descriptions that are similar to articles the user has added title
> descriptions to previously. (Just a thought.) For example, in my own
> experience with the suggestions I tend to skip articles that I don’t feel
> confident enough to write short descriptions for, which are often articles
> well outside my interests.
> We’re still in the first month of the production release, so it’s hard to
> draw conclusions about the longevity of this feature. These early numbers
> are promising, and hopefully the number of editors using this feature
> continues to grow because then those editors might be inspired to edit
> articles too (if they haven’t yet). Of course, if we see people get bored
> over time we might have to consider ways to encourage/inspire long-term
> use. We also have plans to explore ways to recognize users for their
> So congratulations to the Android & Reading Infrastructure teams and
> congrats to Rita Ho (now on the Growth team) for an impressive release. We
> all look forward to the addition of image caption translation and seeing
> the impact of the expanded Suggested Edits v2 on Structured Data on Commons.
> Thanks for reading! :D
> *Mikhail Popov*, Data Analyst (he/him)
> Product Analytics <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Product_Analytics> //
> Audiences <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Audiences> // Wikimedia
> Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> Other info (including PGP): https://people.wikimedia.org/~bearloga/
Mobile-l mailing list
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and
"you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?
In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
reflects that it is trying to do so.
> Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)