キャンペーン/財団製品チーム/イベントを見つける
 | このページの要旨： キャンペーン・チームでは各ウィキでイベントをもっと簡単に探せるようにしようと試みており、どうすれば良いかご意見ご指摘を募集中です。 |
イベント発見プロジェクトの目的とは、編集者が各ウィキで行われるキャンペーン・イベントを知りやすくするツールの作成または改善です。私たちが立てた仮説では、偶然、イベントに遭遇したからイベントのことを知ったという編集者が増えるなら、より多くの編集者がイベントに参加もするだろうし、その結果、影響力の高いトピックに関する記事の数も加わっていくと見込んでいます。この作業は、2023/2024年次計画にあがったウィキ上のコンテンツ格差の対処の一環です。
プロジェクト案内と問題分析
イベントを見つけようとしたとき、現状の問題点は？
ウィキメディア運動ではキャンペーンのイベントを探すのがなかなか大変です。現行の広報の対策にも、問題は少なくともひとつあります。
- 主催者なら誰でも使えるわけではない。
- 使えないウィキもある。
- 告知を見る人の数が限定される。
We believe that issues related to event promotion and discovery create the following problems:
- Events receive lower participation rates.
- Events produce less contributions on high impact topics (due to lower participation).
- Participants and organizers may feel less motivated (due to lower participation).
- Editors miss out on opportunities to join impactful events and connect with other editors who care about similar topics, in turn feeling less integrated into the Wikimedia movement.
- There is limited exposure to the breadth of work being done and the types of events being created in the movement as a whole.
現状はウィキでイベントをどう告知・探すの？
現状でイベントの広報、告知と探す主な方法をあげます。
一斉通知：CentralNoticeはウィキのページの上部にバナーとして表示します。ここにお知らせを載せたい主催者は専用のページに申請を出す手順です。また同時に掲出時期のカレンダーへの申請も済ませてください。同じ地域および／あるいは同じ使用言語で他のバナー掲出とぶつからないように、主催者側の責任でチェック願います。その理由として、申請の審査を担当する一斉通知の管理者の数が少ないからです。またバナーの設計もこれらの管理者が手がけて忙しい場合もあります。
- 長所：一斉通知はすぐに目に入るし、キャンペーンのイベントによって効率よく編集者を動員できます。
- 短所：広報するイベントの数は限定されます。掲出カレンダーに載らない、あるいはこの方式では効果が出ないイベントの数はとても多いのです
（地域的に限定されたり主題が特殊な場合）。また主催者は一斉通知につきものの技術面の複雑さ、ウィキメディア運動のダイナミクスをしっかりと理解する必要があります。
MassMessage: If an organizer has the MassMessage right (see MassMessage senders), they can send messages to a bulk of user talk pages about upcoming events. Many users receive automatic emails when they get a talk page message, so they may also be emailed when they receive the talk page message.
- Benefits: This is a mechanism for reaching people both on and off the wikis (if the editors have emails turned on for talk page messages).
- Problems: This only works for people who may already be “in the know,” to a certain degree, because they have signed up for updates from the organizing community on a topic (i.e. a WikiProject, Newsletter, etc). Organizers are required to integrate a complex technical workflow into their communication plan.
一斉通知：これはウィキページの上部に表示されるバナーで、それぞれのローカルのサイト管理者が掲載関連のコントロールを担当。
Benefitsː It is a simpler request process than CentralNotice, and it is often easier for non-English speakers to issue requests. Admins are local, which can be useful in some contexts.
短所：さまざまな観衆層に訴える手順がない点、ウィキによってはほとんど使われていない点。
Geonotice: This is a notice on the Special:Watchlist page of English Wikipedia for users in a specific location similar to the global MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. Organizers will add a request to have a geonotice.
- Benefits: This can be an effective strategy to let active editors (who are more likely to check their watchlists regularly) know about upcoming events, especially in person edit-a-thons and smaller scale events.
- Problems: It’s only on English Wikipedia, and it’s not useful for events that are online.
Homepage promotion: Some wikis promote events on their main page.
- Benefits: It reaches a lot of people.
- Problems: This isn’t a promotional strategy shared by all wikis, and it depends upon people actively and regularly going to a wiki homepage.
Calendars: There are currently many calendars in the movement that presumably cover events, but they vary in how much they cover. Some of these calendars include: Calendars in the project namespace (such as Wikipedia Meetup Calendar for English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Editatón for Spanish Wikipedia), Events list on Meta-Wiki main page, Events link on Meta-Wiki, Events list on Mediawiki.org, and thematic calendars, like the International Women’s Day Calendar.
- Benefits: Editors can find events that may interest them (but that they don’t know about yet) on event calendars.
- Problems: There is no central or cross-wiki events calendar that is available on the wikis, many events never make it onto the calendars, the process to add events can be confusing, most calendars don’t have any search filters or notification/subscription systems.
ウィキ以外でイベント告知とそれを見つける方法は？
メール：メールを使っている、または特定の主催者あるいは提携団体のメーリングリストに登録している人には、今後のイベントの予定が届くと思われます。* 長所：目指す人たちの集団に届く点、キャンペーンに一般の人よりも興味を持ってくれそう。
- 短所：メールを開かなかったり見落としたりしやすい点、こちらの話を聞きたいとすでに決めた人にしか届かない点。主催者は購読者名簿の複雑な構成をよく読み解いて、目指す観衆に声を届けるには工夫が必要な点。
チャットグループ：世間にはさまざまなチャット媒体があり、Whatsapp、Signal、Facebookを含めたオフウィキのプラットフォームにウィキメディアンは集まっています。その媒体を使い、イベントの広報活動もできます。
- 長所：イベントに関心を持ってくれそうな、条件に合う人たちの集団に訴求できる確率が高い点。
- 短所：グループに参加していない人には届かない点、パッと読めるからパッと忘れてしまう点。
SNSで広報活動：外部のソーシャルメディアのプラットフォームを広報に使う主催者もいるでしょう。
- 長所：今までウィキ類に参加していなかった人を引き寄せたり、イベントに関心はあるんだけど、まだ参加登録の決心ができてない人の背中を押せるかも。
- 短所：効率があまり良くない点。こちらで データを分析したところ、SNSはイベントのページを見るところまで行動してもらうには、力が弱いと出ました。提携団体、あるいはその他のプログラムはSNSで発信や受信をしても、内容はどうしても身内向けになってしまって、新しい観衆への訴求力が弱い点。
オフウィキの主催者が作ったカレンダー（たとえば公式ブログのDiff カレンダー、アート+フェミニズム・カレンダーなど）：
- 長所：見た目がすっきりしていて、恐らくはプロが仕上げて管理も担当しているから、全体にきちんと機能する
- 短所：ウィキ上にないせいで、拾える活動の種類や量がそれほど大量ではないこと。オフウィキ、より広汎なウィキメディア運動のエコシステムの外部にあること、運動の投稿者でも、うっかりチェックし忘れる人が多くなる確率が高い、特にウィキ空間だけで活動する人にその傾向が大きくなる点。
この次には何があるの？
次の段階で皆さんの声を聞かせてください！ イベントを各種ウィキで探す方法（見つけ損なう原因）を知りたいですし、せっかく関心を持ったイベントなら、もっと楽に探せる方法も探しています。フィードバックが蓄積したところで、発見した内容をまとめて次の段階で共有する予定です。その間、皆さんにはどうか下記の質問集に回答願い、問題解決の糸口が見つかるようにご協力くだされば幸いです。
質問集に回答を済ませたら（以下ご参照）、事務局時間を10月7日・10日に開きますので出席してくださるようお招きします。このプロジェクトについて、当チームに話を聞かせてください。
未解決の質問
- ウィキメディアのキャンペーン・イベント類の情報は、どうやって入手していますか？ 例：サイトのバナー告知、メーリングリスト、トークページの投稿、SNS、その他。
- 面白そうだと感じるキャンペーン類の情報を、もれなく見つけるのは楽ですか？ 「はい、いいえ」と理由を教えてください。
- もし理想がかなうとしたら、キャンペーン類のお知らせはどんな方法で届くと良いですか？
- どのイベントに出席するか選ぶときの決め手は？
- 知らないうちにイベントが終わってしまって、出席したかったのに残念だった経験はありますか？
- イベントに参加登録したとき、日程を忘れないようにするコツはなんですか？
- 上記で出てこなかったけど、付け加えたいことを書いてみませんか？
Status updates
April 16, 2024
In the last few months, we conducted an experiment to learn more about Event Invitations. We have now wrapped up the experiment, so we would like to now share our findings and next steps.
First, what was the experiment?
We created a model to generate an Invitation List (see T353459 and score calculation documentation). The Invitation List had two main parts: a list of editors to potentially invite, and a score assigned to each editor (i.e., high, medium, or low recommendation on whether to invite them to an event). The editors were identified because they had contributed to specific Wikipedia articles in the last three years. The score was determined based on the number of bytes they had contributed to the article(s), the number of edits they made to the article(s), their overall edit count on the wikis, and how recently they had edited on the wikis.
We decided to conduct a light-weight experiment to determine the usefulness of Event Invitations. This way, we could learn if Event Invitations were effective in bringing new audiences to events. We also wanted to learn what people liked, what they didn’t like, and what could be improved about the tool. With this information, we could make an informed decision about next steps, including whether or not to continue with the project.
Here’s how the experiment worked: We reached out to event organizers who were conducting events between December 2023 and March 2024. We collected the worklists of their events. From these worklists, we generated Invitation Lists (see T357007), which we shared with the organizers. The Invitation Lists did not display the scores, but we indicated if editors received higher scores or lower scores. Then the organizers made their own judgment calls about who to invite. The invitations were sent via talk page messages or wikimail tools such as massenmail. Then, the organizers shared data with us on who they invited, and we compared their finalized Invitation Lists with their registration lists.
To provide support, we held a 4-session office hour training. The first office hour introduced the project, the second office hour provided training on generating and sharing worklists (see some of the worklists shared), the third office hour provided training in sending out invitations via wikimail, and the final office hour focused on collecting user feedback on the tool.
What were the results & learnings?
First, we learned that organizers were interested in testing out the tool. We conducted a survey of organizers in the early stages of the project, and when we asked if they would be interested in testing out Event Invitations, we received the following results:
- 32 respondents said “Yes”
- 1 respondent said “No”
- 7 respondents provided no answer
Then, we launched the experiment, and had the following rates of participation:
- We worked with 19 different events to generate 20 Invitation Lists.
- One event focused on 2 wikis, so it received 2 lists.
- Note that 1 of the Invitation Lists (in December 2023) used an older model, and the remaining 19 (between January and March 2024) used an improved new model.
- 12 processes were completed, meaning the invitations were sent and we could compare invitation data to their registration list.
- 7 organizers did not complete the process (i.e., no invitations were sent or not all necessary data was shared with the team). This did not surprise us, since sending invitations and reporting on the invitation data is currently a labor-intensive process.
We were also able to learn what we wanted to learn through the experiment, which was: Do some editors respond to Event Invitations and join events—and, if yes, at what rates? Here is what we found (see T357827):
- 338 editors total were invited to 12 different events
- Of the invited editors, 42 of the invited editors registered for the events
- While this breaks down to 12.43% of the invited editors joining the events, there is large variation in the results from each event. Here is a breakdown of the performance of these 12 events:
| Event | Total number of editors invited | Total number of invitees who registered |
| Event 1 | 18 | 14 |
| Event 2 | 14 | 2 |
| Event 3 | 8 | 1 |
| Event 4 | 10 | 1 |
| Event 5 | 40 | 5 |
| Event 6 | 49 | 1 |
| Event 7 | 58 | 1 |
| Event 8 | 29 | 2 |
| Event 9 | 10 | 1 |
| Event 10 | 47 | 11 |
| Event 11 | 22 | 0 |
| Event 12 | 22 | 3 |
As displayed in the table above, some events had higher success rates and some had lower success rates with Event Invitations.
- The events with the highest success rates tended to have event pages with images, clear objectives, and clear timelines of the event.
- The events with lower success rates tended to have basic event pages, without images and/or clear objectives or timelines of the event.
On the qualitative side, when we talked to organizers who used Event Invitations, we generally heard positive feedback and interest in using the tool again for future events. Organizers told us that the tool provided an automated way of doing work that they previously did manually or did not have the time or resources to do at all. However, there were also requests for improving the experience, including:
- More information on the editors in the Invitation List
- Such as: links to their user page, their edit count
- We also heard requests to share more sensitive information on the editors, including their gender and location
- An easier way to send mass emails to invite editors
- A way for editors to opt out of receiving invitations
We also learned about some general user behaviors when using Event Invitations, such as:
- Organizers did not invite everyone from the Invitation Lists. They made their own judgment calls about who to invite.
- There was no one invitation method chosen by all organizers. Some organizers emailed invitations, some organizers used talk page messages, and some used a combination of methods.
- Some people in the Invitation Lists were already in the community contact lists of the organizers or were the organizers themselves. Some organizers also received their Invitation Lists after the event had started, so they found that some people on the Invitation Lists had already joined their events. For these reasons, the organizers did not invite these editors. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it indicated that the tool was identifying editors with interest in the event.
What are next steps?
We believe that Event Invitations could be a useful tool for event organizers who want to identify audiences to invite to their events, provided those events focus on Wikipedia articles. This is for two primary reasons:
- The quantitative data showed promise: The 12.43% average rate demonstrates that the tool can help identify some editors who are interested in attending editing events. Furthermore, we plan to incrementally improve the scoring model over time (see T358526 for early ideas), which could make registration rates in a similar test or experiment potentially higher in the future.
- The qualitative feedback generally showed interest in the tool among organizers, who said that they would like to test out the tool and/or use the tool again in the future
However, there is some potential sensitivity around the usage of the tool, since it allows organizers to generate lists of editors who edit certain articles (which could be articles on controversial or sensitive topics). For these reasons, we think it makes sense for Wikipedia communities to decide whether or not they want Event Invitations, if they have the CampaignEvents extension enabled.
Furthermore, we think it makes sense for usage of Event Invitations to be restricted to only those who are trusted to use it, which can be users with the Event Organizer right (which is controlled by local wiki admins). For example, here is the documentation of how the right is handled on Meta-Wiki. This way, we can empower organizers to have new ways of reaching audiences for their events, while also giving local admins the power to assess if and how such tooling is appropriate for their wiki communities.
Note that the CampaignEvents extension is currently only available on Meta-Wiki, but we are planning to begin releasing it on some Wikipedia wikis soon. Once it is enabled on Wikipedia wikis, we can engage with those communities to see if they are interested in enabling Event Invitations, when it is ready for general usage.
As next steps, we will develop some designs of how a simple version of Event Invitations can look. You can follow this work in T361029. We will share these designs on this project page and ask for feedback when they are ready. After we have collected feedback on the designs, we will start building the first early version of Event Invitations, in collaboration with the communities and organizers who are interested in the tool.
So, please do let us know what you think of our experiment, findings, and next steps. Do you think Event Invitations could be a useful tool for organizers? How can we potentially improve it? Please share your feedback on our talk page!
November 27, 2023ː Event Invitations Experiment
Hello, everyone! We are excited to share an update on the project. First, we have decided on the first focus area: Event Invitations.
With Event Invitations, we want to help event organizers reach out to new audiences of editors who may be interested in their events. This way, we hypothesize that more people can register for events and make impactful contributions. To do this, we plan to generate an Invitation List, which is a list of editors who the organizer can invite. The Invitation List may be based on some of the following criteria:
- Interest in the topical area: We can select editors who have made a significant contribution (for example, a certain minimum number of bytes) within a certain period of time (for example, within the last 2 years) on at least one of the articles being worked on during the event. Alternatively, we could also select editors who are watching a page indefinitely that is on the organizer's worklist.
- Recent editing activity: From this group, we can select editors who have made at least one unreverted edit on the wikis in the last 90 days, as an example.
- Productive history of editing: From this group, we can select editors who have made a minimum number of contributions (for example, 500 unreverted edits) on the project of the event, as an example.
With this list, the organizer can then choose to invite the editors to the event. The method of invitation has not yet been determined, but we may have organizers use communication methods already available to them as a first experiment (such as talk page messages or wikimail). The hope is that since this group of invited editors are productive, active, and potentially interested in the specific topics of the event, some of the invited editors may be interested in joining the event.
To assess whether Event Invitations are useful, we will be asking questions like:
- What percentage of invited editors register for the events?
- What percentage of invited editors make any contributions during the event?
- What percentage of invited editors make substantial contributions during the event?
- How do organizers feel about the Invitation List? Do they find it useful? Why or why not? Would they use the Event Invitation list again to help promote their events?
With this information, we will then determine what next steps we will take. If we see fruitful results, we may continue to explore Event Invitations. For example, we may investigate how we can improve the communication infrastructure available to organizers, so it is easier for them to message invited editors directly. We can also potentially look into how we can build a generalized tool for organizers, which could have ways for participants to opt out of event invitations (either in general or from a specific organizer). Alternatively, if we do not see fruitful results, we may choose to pursue a different Event Discovery project entirely.
The engineering team has begun to investigate how we can generate an Invitation List. You can check out our Event-Discovery board on Phabricator to see some of the work that we will be doing now and in the future.
In the meantime, if you would like to join us in the experiment as an organizer, please reach out to us! We want to connect with organizers who will be developing campaign events in 2024 who are interested in inviting new audiences to their events. If that is you, please reach out on our Talk page or in our chat group for organizers.
Finally, if you have any feedback on the Event Invitations idea, please share it on our talk page!