Communications/Research/Brand Health Tracker

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker is a bi-annual tracker setup to monitor key brand metrics of the Wikimedia Movement and the projects maintained and managed by the movement, by surveying the perception of the global online population. The report is completed on a bi-annual basis to ensure traction in the health of the brands are monitored as a means to guide strategy and tactics to support the growth of the movement and the projects.

The Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker[edit]

Over the last decade, Wikimedia project usage, brand and mission awareness have been measured using a variety of methods. Research conducted in 2010, 2014 and 2016, 2020 were either one-off investments, regional, or explored product, brand or mission awareness independently or selectively. Today, we know that among the billions of people who use our projects, some are aware of their functional value but many are not aware of our brand or social good mission.

Our hypothesis is that Wikimedia’s unique brand story and the movement’s social good mission can motivate readers to become more involved with the Wikimedia movement, such as through editing, content contribution, public advocacy, and engaging with our affiliate ecosystem. The following documentation details how we can build upon and improve past awareness studies and create a consolidated, dimensional and tracked brand health dashboard for our movement.

Brand Health Tracker reports[edit]

The Brand Health model[edit]

The Wikimedia Movement Brand Health Tracker [MBHT] allowed us to explore, establish and monitor which aspects of the Movement’s projects, brand and mission resonate most with audiences around the world over time. We took inspiration from The Edelman Relationship Index [1,2] which proposes that the more points of attachment there are between an organization and an audience, the more vital, resilient and valuable that relationship is for both parties. But, unlike the Edelman model, ours will not segment audiences along a linear path from Awareness to Loyalty, nor will it produce a single composite score for each country. Rather, the tracker will present a collection of quantitative and qualitative indicators that will act like vital signs of our brand’s health in each geographic region of study.

The MBHT provides the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia movement with unprecedented insights about internet users' connectedness to our projects, brand and social good mission. While the bi-annual release of these insights will be shared across the Foundation, the primary audience is the Communications department teams responsible for executing and measuring campaigns that strengthen the worldwide narrative of Wikipedia and increase awareness of our projects, brand and our social good mission, so that people join our movement. The data may also be of use to Wikimedia movement affiliates looking to shape their own strategies for community growth and resonance with readers. In this regard, we will ensure the insights from his tracker will be regularly shared on Meta Wiki to enable access by the movement, as a means to use the insights to shape understanding, focus, and strategy.

Methodology[edit]

The first edition of the tracker served as a baseline study by adopting a more intensive approach, covering top-end brand health metrics, including Net Promoter Score, brand funnel metrics, and brand attributes and values. The second wave on the other hand builds upon the findings from the first edition by monitoring changes in key metrics as well as new questions around people’s awareness and interest in the free knowledge movement.

The second edition continued the more intensive approach built out in the first edition, covering top-end brand health metrics, including NPS, brand funnel metrics, and brand attributes and values.

In the third and fourth editions, we monitored changes in key metrics as well as asked new questions around the meaning of ‘Open Knowledge’ and 'Free Knowledge', awareness and usage of ChatGPT/AI, the meaning of the term “Wiki", and what people think constitutes a high quality Wikipedia article. We continued the more intensive approach built out in the first two editions, covering top-end brand health metrics, including NPS, brand funnel metrics, and brand attributes and values.

Table 1: Summary of metrics tracked in the brand health tracker

Focus areas / Brands Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Free Knowledge Movement -
  • Global issues/concerns
  • Free Knowledge Movement awareness
  • Threats to free knowledge
  • Global issues/concerns
  • Free Knowledge Movement awareness
  • Threats to free knowledge
  • Global issues/concerns
  • Free Knowledge Movement awareness
  • Threats to free knowledge
Wikimedia Foundation
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Organization Attribute Importance
  • Organization Attribute Associations
  • Vision Statement Connection
  • Mission Statement Connection
  • Vision Statement Associations
  • Mission Statement Associations
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Organization Attribute Importance
  • Organization Attribute Associations
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand Trust
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Organization Attribute Associations
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand Trust
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Organization Attribute Associations
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand Trust
Wikipedia / Wikidata / Wikicommons
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Brand Presence
  • Consider Using
  • Usage
  • Frequency of Use
  • Reasons for Use
  • Access
  • Ever Edited
  • Editing Consideration
  • NPS
  • Values Importance
  • Values Associations
  • Website/App Attribute Importance
  • Website/App Attribute Associations
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Brand Presence
  • Consider Using
  • Usage
  • Frequency of Use
  • Reasons for Use
  • Access
  • Findability
  • Ever Donated
  • Donation Consideration
  • Ever Edited
  • Editing Consideration
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand relevance
  • Brand distinctiveness
  • Brand knowledge
  • Brand Trust
  • NPS
  • Values Importance
  • Values Associations
  • Website/App Attribute Importance
  • Website/App Attribute Associations
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Brand Presence
  • Consider Using
  • Usage
  • Frequency of Use
  • Reasons for Use
  • Access
  • Findability
  • Definition of Quality
  • Ever Donated
  • Donation Consideration
  • Ever Edited
  • Editing Consideration
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand knowledge
  • Brand Trust
  • NPS
  • Values Associations
  • Website/App Attribute Associations
  • Unaided Awareness
  • Aided Awareness
  • Brand Presence
  • Consider Using
  • Usage
  • Frequency of Use
  • Reasons for Use
  • Access
  • Findability
  • Definition of Quality
  • Ever Donated
  • Donation Consideration
  • Ever Edited
  • Editing Consideration
  • Brand Affinity
  • Brand familiarity
  • Brand knowledge
  • Brand Trust
  • NPS
  • Values Associations
  • Website/App Attribute Associations

Sample respondents for the survey were purposely selected to reflect the population demography, particularly for age and educational qualifications for selected countries.

  • Sample frame for first wave: A total of 11,000 respondents (1,000 per country) were used across 11 markets for the first wave which include the United States, Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, Philippines, South Korea, and Germany.
  • Sample frame for second wave: For the second wave, a total of 12,000 respondents (1,000 per country) were sampled across 12 countries which consisted of the United States, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the UAE, Egypt, and Germany.
  • Sample frame for third wave A total of 12,000 respondents (1,000 per country) were sampled across 12 countries which consisted of the United States, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Russia, Germany, Morocco, Senegal, Japan, Poland, and Mexico.
  • Sample frame for fourth wave The survey was conducted, sampling a total of 12,000 respondents, with 1,000 participants from each of the 12 countries. The countries included in the study were the United States, Egypt, India, South Africa, Argentina, France, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Taiwan, Malaysia, Kenya, and Colombia.

These markets were selected to achieve a global coverage, and also in line with the focus areas for recent campaigns, partnership and strategic focus, as well as markets with identified growth opportunities based on recent market research surveys and system data. The plan is to ensure the Movement Brand Health Tracker will be completed bi-annually (i.e. every 6 months), spanning at least 12 countries (set by organizational priority), completed with web surveys.

Table 2: Focus regions for the four waves of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

First Wave
Africa Asia Europe & NA LaTAM
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Philippines
  • South Korea
  • Russia
  • Germany
  • USA
  • Brazil
  • Mexico
Second Wave
Africa & MENA Asia Europe & NA LaTAM
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Egypt
  • UAE
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • South Korea
  • Russia
  • Germany
  • USA
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
Third Wave
Africa Asia Europe & NA LaTAM
  • Nigeria
  • Morocco
  • Senegal
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Japan
  • USA
  • Russia
  • Germany
  • Poland
  • Brazil
  • Mexico
Fourth Wave
Africa Asia Europe & NA LaTAM
  • South Africa
  • Egypt
  • Kenya
  • India
  • Taiwan
  • Malaysia
  • USA
  • France
  • Ukraine
  • Czech Republic
  • Argentina
  • Colombia

The plan is to continue to complete the Movement Brand Health Tracker bi-annually, spanning at least 12 countries (set by organisational priority), completed with web surveys.

Findings from the Fourth wave of the Brand Health Tracker[edit]

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

Once more, the results of the fourth wave in the tracker reveal that there is still a limited level of interest in free access to knowledge and awareness of the free knowledge movement across various countries. The primary worry expressed by individuals regarding information and knowledge pertains to the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation.

Chart showing the global and/or local concerns, average across the surveyed markets measured in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

In general, people remain more preoccupied with other global issues, with the primary global concerns being inflation, corruption, and climate change. Inflation has newly emerged among the top four concerns, displacing war/violence to the fourth position, while corruption has returned to the second spot. Within the realm of information and knowledge issues, 18% of respondents expressed worry about misinformation and disinformation, 8% were concerned about the lack of free access to knowledge, and an additional 8% were apprehensive about major corporations controlling information and knowledge. This indicates a further decline in concerns related to knowledge and information compared to the previous tracker wave, with a 4%, 2%, and 2% decrease for each of the three factors.

Brand Awareness[edit]

The findings from the fourth edition of the tracker show that people’s awareness of the Foundation continues to be low at 23% (a slight drop in the third wave from 25%), particularly when compared with other social good organizations. For example, 78% of respondents were aware of the International Red Cross, and 77% were aware of the UN in this current edition. Compared to the third edition of the MBHT, the Wikimedia Foundation’s awareness is essentially flat globally.

Chart showing aided brand awareness (%) for Wikimedia Foundation over four waves of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker.

Conversely, global brand awareness for Wikipedia stands at a robust 77%, albeit marking a notable decrease from the third edition, where it stood at 83%. Despite this decline, there is an overall upward trend observed over time in various Wikipedia brand metrics, including consideration and claimed usage. This suggests a strengthening of the brand's presence worldwide, even though a slight dip was noted in the fourth edition.

While Wikipedia's brand awareness falls behind major media giants such as Google (90%), YouTube (93%), Facebook (91%), Instagram (91%), and TikTok (85%), it still surpasses other knowledge content platforms. More individuals are familiar with Wikipedia compared to platforms like Yahoo (74%), X/Twitter (60%), ChatGPT (48%), Reddit (39%), Quora (28%), and Encyclopedia Britannica (16%).

Chart showing aided brand awareness (%) for Wikipedia across all regions and in all four editions of the MBHT so far

In the fourth wave of the survey, awareness of Wikipedia has declined in nearly every global region since the third edition. The most significant drop was observed in North America and Northern and Western Europe, with only a slight increase noted in the East, South-East Asia, and Pacific region. Additionally, it is noteworthy that awareness of Wikipedia remains high across various demographic groups.

Brand values and attributes associated with Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

To understand the factors important for people to support or donate to social organizations we explore the brand attributes and brand values people associate with these organizations.

In terms of brand attributes, the Wikimedia Foundation, in comparison to other organizations, is more strongly linked with concepts such as 'supporting the creation or sharing of free knowledge,' 'being open source and freely distributed,' and 'leading the movement for free access to knowledge'.

Chart showing brand attributes association with Wikimedia Foundation vs competing organizations in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

These findings align with those from the third edition of the survey, highlighting the Foundation's perceived strengths among those familiar with it. However, on the flip side, in comparison to other organizations, the Wikimedia Foundation still exhibits lower associations with attributes like 'spending donations wisely,' 'being transparent about how donations are utilized,' and 'having a positive impact in the world.'

Diagram showing the top-ten adjectives used to describe the Wikimedia Foundation.

In addition to understanding how people that know the Wikimedia Foundation describe the organization, we asked the respondents an open-ended question to write what comes to mind when they think of the foundation. As shown in Figure 5, a large majority of the responses showed positive connotations, with most connected to being ‘free’, as well as being ‘open’, ‘educational’, and ‘informative’.

Chart showing brand values association with Wikimedia Foundation vs competing organizations in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

Examining brand values and echoing the findings from the previous MBHT editions, the Wikimedia Foundation maintains its perception as more neutral and innovative compared to other organizations. However, on the flip side, in comparison to other entities, the organization is not perceived as international, does not take strong advocacy positions, and is not widely recognized or known.

Wikipedia[edit]

In contrast to other platforms, Wikipedia maintains a consistently positive overall perception, scoring above average across most measured attributes. As observed in previous MBHT editions, Wikipedia's primary relative strength lies in providing free access to usage and delivering high-quality information on various subjects.

Chart showing brand attributes association with Wikipedia and competing brands in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

Other positive associations include being well-cited and referenced, appearing as a top search result, offering content in respondents' languages, and being deemed reliable, trustworthy, and consistently up-to-date. The only relative drawback for Wikipedia compared to other platforms is the perceived absence of video content utilization.

Chart showing connotations with Wikipedia across all four waves of the tracker

In addition to gauging respondents' perceptions of the brand, we integrated data from social listening to identify patterns of associations with the Wikipedia brand within social discourse across social media networks. The result shows that there has been a consistent association of Wikipedia with descriptors such as new, free, good, and American throughout the period of the four waves of the Brand Health Tracker.

Brand exposure for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

To assess the extent of Wikipedia's visibility in the world, a factor that can influence brand strength, we evaluate what is termed as 'Brand Exposure.' This metric gauges the frequency and locations where individuals perceive the brand, including instances such as Google Search results, social media, and recommendations from friends or family. Essentially, it measures the brand's presence in people's lives.

Chart showing the percentage brand exposure for Wikipedia across regions

In general, Wikipedia maintains robust brand exposure, with 70% of respondents indicating they have seen or heard about the brand recently. Although this reflects a slight decrease compared to the third edition of the MBHT, it aligns with the perceived exposure levels of other digital platforms like TikTok (78%). However, Wikipedia falls behind brands such as YouTube (87%) and Google (84%) in terms of visibility. In addition, Wikipedia’s presence drops across most regions of the world, with only flat/constant presence in Central, Eastern Europe & Central Asia since the last wave of the tracker, and slight increase in East, South-East Asia & Pacific region.

Chart showing sources of brand exposure for Wikipedia by regions over four waves of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker.

Wikipedia’s presence continues to come mainly from search results - a consistent finding across editions - with the web and social media being the other main places people are seeing the brand.

Net Promoter Score (NPS) for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

In this edition of the MBHT, we once again assessed the Net Promoter Score (NPS), a widely recognized metric utilized to gauge the likelihood of advocacy among users, reflecting the overall strength of the user experience.

How NPS is calculated and used in the tracker

The NPS is determined by asking respondents to rate, on an 11-point scale, how likely they are to recommend the brand to others, with 0 indicating high unlikelihood and 10 indicating high likelihood. The NPS score is then derived by subtracting the percentage of "detractors" (those rating between 0 and 6) from the percentage of "promoters" (those selecting 9 and 10).

Chart showing NPS score for Wikipedia and competing brands measured in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

Consistent with the findings from previous editions of the tracker, Wikipedia maintains a relatively high Net Promoter Score (NPS) of 16 points, signifying a net positive level of advocacy among global internet users. When benchmarked against other platforms surveyed, Google and YouTube stand out as the only brands with higher NPS values, registering at +58 and +46, respectively. This underscores the robustness of Wikipedia's brand.

Depiction of the trend of Promoters, Passives, and Detractors over the waves of the tracker

Upon comparing the NPS in this edition to the previous editions of the MBHT, we observe a decline to a level akin to that seen in the first edition of the tracker. This shift is primarily attributed to a decrease in the number of 'Passives.'

Purposes for using Wikipedia and emotional feelings users get when using the platform[edit]

Building on insights from past MBHT editions, in the fourth wave, Wikipedia is still predominantly utilized across various countries for fact-checking purposes and as a source of information for users to stay informed.

Chart showing Purposes for using Wikipedia over four waves of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker.

Notably, no other platform in our measurement portfolio is employed as extensively for fact-checking. This represents a crucial data point, offering a user-centric perspective that illuminates the motivations behind usage and sheds light on the brand's perception.

Chart showing the emotional feelings users feel when they use Wikipedia vs other brands measured in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

Similar to the previous editions, we sought to grasp the perceived value of Wikipedia by asking respondents about their emotional experiences while using the platform. Three prominent emotions that remain significant are feeling Smart, Empowered, and Inspired. This insight establishes a connection to areas where we can assert ownership, suggesting potential directions for our brand positioning, especially in interactions with younger audiences.

Chart showing the dimensions on perceptions of Trust in Wikipedia measured in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

Beyond emotions, we assessed the extent to which the aware audience trusts Wikipedia using various trust dimensions. The foremost aspect of trust revolves around the belief that Wikipedia provides up-to-date information and that the content on the website is perceived as accurate.

Motivating factors for users to contribute to content on the internet[edit]

When it comes to editing Wikipedia, we continue to monitor the barriers that internet users have around contributing content to the platform, to understand opportunities to bring more community members in.

Chart showing the barriers to contributing and-or editing content on Wikipedia in the fourth wave of the Wikimedia Brand Health Tracker

The top three editing barriers remain the same as in previous editions: don’t feel I have the skills; don’t know how; and didn’t know I could. There continues to be an opportunity for the Foundation to address this knowledge gap that people have in what it takes to edit Wikipedia.

Findings from the Third wave of the Brand Health Tracker[edit]

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

The findings from the third edition of the survey identified that concern for free access to knowledge, and awareness of the free knowledge movement, continue to be low across countries, and that the main concern people have around information and knowledge is the presence of misinformation and disinformation.

Global/local concerns, average across the 12 countries (% stating as a concern)

Overall people continue to be more worried about other issues in the world, with the top three global concerns being war/violence, climate change and corruption. These are the same top concerns we saw in the second edition of the MBHT, with only corruption declining slightly in importance. Within information and knowledge issues, 22% of all respondents were concerned about mis/disinformation, 10% were concerned about lack of free access to knowledge, and 10% were concerned about big companies controlling information and knowledge. There was no change in the percentage of respondents concerned with each of these compared to the second edition of the MBHT.

Brand awareness[edit]

The findings from the third edition of the MBHT show that people’s awareness of the Foundation (the percent of people who have heard of it) continues to be low at 25%, particularly when compared with other social good organizations. For example, 75% of respondents were aware of the International Red Cross, and 73% were aware of the UN in this current edition. Compared to the second edition of the MBHT, the Wikimedia Foundation’s awareness is essentially flat globally.

Aided brand awareness (%) for Wikimedia Foundation comparing all editions of the MBHT so far

Conversely, global brand awareness for Wikipedia remains strong at 83%. Over time this, and other Wikipedia brand metrics such as consideration and claimed usage, has been increasing suggesting a strengthening of the brand around the world over time.

Wikipedia brand awareness does continue to lag behind some of the media giants like Google (96%), YouTube (95%), Facebook (92%), Twitter (86%), and TikTok (88%). However, more people have heard of Wikipedia than the other knowledge content platforms like Encyclopedia Britannica (21%) and Quora (29%).

Aided brand awareness (%) for Wikipedia comparing all editions of the MBHT so far

Since the second edition of the survey, Wikipedia’s awareness has continued to rise in the US and Brazil in particular, though is relatively flat elsewhere with the exception of Russia where the brand is weakening substantially. Wikipedia awareness in Russia has fallen from 90% to 77%, and the percent of people who would consider using Wikipedia, and the percent who claim to currently use Wikipedia, are also both down over time.

Brand values and attributes associated with Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

To understand the factors important for people to support or donate to social organisations we explore the brand attributes and brand values people associate with these organisations.

When it comes to brand attributes, in comparison to other social organisations, the Wikimedia Foundation is more highly associated with being ‘open source and freely distributed’, ‘supporting the creation or sharing of free knowledge’, and ‘leading the movement of free access to knowledge’. This is consistent with the findings in the second edition of the survey, and are the Foundation’s relative strengths in the eyes of people who know it.

Deviation from category average for Wikimedia Foundation to show how respondents relate attributes to the brand

On the downside however, compared to other organizations the Wikimedia Foundation continues to be less associated with ‘has a clear mission’, ‘has a positive impact in the world’ and ‘spends donations wisely’ compared to other social organizations.

Deviation from category average for Wikimedia Foundation on how respondents relate values to the brand

When we look at brand values, reinforcing what we saw in the previous edition of the MBHT, the Wikimedia Foundation continues to be seen as more neutral and innovative relative to other organizations. On the downside, relative to other organizations, the organization is not seen as being international, taking advocacy positions, or being well known.

Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia continues to be perceived more positively overall when compared with other brands, ranking above average across most attributes measured. Similar to our findings in previous editions of the MBHT, Wikipedia’s core relative strength is around the quality of information it provides on a variety of topics.

Deviation from category average for Wikipedia on how respondents perceive the brand

Other relatively positive associations are that it’s free to use, is the top search result, is available in respondents’ languages, and is easy to navigate. The only relative downside Wikipedia has compared to other platforms is a lack of perceived use of video.

What would mean an article on Wikipedia is high quality from the respondent’s perspective

Given the importance of the idea of ‘quality’ to Wikipedia, in this edition we looked further into what constitutes a quality article. The top responses were related to an article’s source material - that the source of information in an article is reliable - and that an article is well sourced or referenced in the first place.

Brand exposure for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

To understand how ‘present’ Wikipedia is in the world, something that can be a driver of brand strength, we measure what’s called ‘Brand Exposure’. This captures how much and where people feel they’re seeing the brand in media and elsewhere (e.g. in Google Search results, in social media, from friend/family recommendations) - i.e. how present the brand is in their lives.

Overall Wikipedia continues to have strong brand exposure: 76% of respondents claimed to have seen or heard about the brand recently. This is slightly up from what we saw in the second edition of the MBHT. This level of perceived exposure is similar to other digital platforms like Twitter (80%) and TikTok (82%), though Wikipedia is less present than brands like YouTube (89%) and Google (90%).

Percentage brand exposure for Wikipedia (people who have seen the brand recently in any medium) across countries

Wikipedia’s presence is increasing in a number of countries, namely the US, Brazil and Germany. In Russia we see a decrease in people saying they’ve seen Wikipedia recently - this lower presence of Wikipedia in the lives of Russians may explain some of the deterioration of the brand overall.

Sources of brand exposure for Wikipedia by country

Wikipedia’s presence continues to come mainly from search results - a consistent finding across editions - with the web and social media being the other main places people are seeing the brand.

Net Promoter Score (NPS) for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

In this edition of the MBHT, we again measured the Net Promoter Score, a widely-known metric used to measure the level of likely advocacy among users, which helps reflect the strength of the overall user experience. It is measured by asking respondents on an 11 point scale how likely they are to recommend the brand to others - with 0 being highly unlikely, and 10 being highly likely.

How NPS is calculated and used in the trackers

The NPS score is then calculated by subtracting the % of “detractors” (those who select between 0 and 6 to the survey question) from the % of “promoters’ (those who selected 9 and 10 on the survey question).

NPS score for Wikipedia and competing brands

As with the previous editions’ findings, Wikipedia’s NPS score is relatively high (23 points), indicating a net positive advocacy among internet users globally. When compared with the other platforms we measure in the survey, Google and YouTube are the only brands to have higher NPS compared to Wikipedia, at +53 and +43 respectively. This reinforces the learning that Wikipedia’s brand is strong.

Promoters, Passives, and Detractors change since the first edition

Comparing NPS in this edition to the previous editions of the MBHT we see that NPS has remained stable since the last edition, and is still up from the first edition of the MBHT. This is mainly driven by a decline in ‘Detractors’ and an increase in ‘Passives’.

NPS by age group, by market

Finally looking at NPS by age group, we see a rebound in some markets of NPS among younger people - particularly in the US and Brazil. This is reassuring given the decline in engagement we’ve seen with the brand among the 18-24 age group in past editions of the MBHT and elsewhere. However, note that in these markets, as well as in Germany, the brand continues to be weakest among 18-24 year olds compared to other age groups. Also note how NPS is declining in Russia, again a sign of Wikipedia’s brand weakening in this market.

Purposes for using Wikipedia and emotional feelings users get when using the platform[edit]

Similar to the learning on previous MBHT editions, across most countries Wikipedia is primarily used for fact checking purposes, as well as a means for people to stay informed.

Why respondents use Wikipedia

No other platform we measured is used for fact checking as much. This is an important datapoint as it helps us see through the lens of users to learn the reasoning behind usage and how the brand is perceived.

Emotional feelings users feel when they use Wikipedia vs other brands

And as with the previous editions, to help us to understand Wikipedia’s perceived value, we also asked respondents their emotional feelings when using the platform. Three strong feelings continue to be important - feeling Smart, Empowered and Inspired (see figure 15). This connects us to areas where we can take ownership of, and maybe should drive our brand positioning, particularly when engaging with younger audiences.

Motivating factors for users to contribute to content on the internet[edit]

When it comes to editing Wikipedia, we continue to monitor the barriers that internet users have around contributing content to the platform, to understand opportunities to bring more community members in.

Barriers to contributing and/or editing content on Wikipedia

The top three editing barriers remain the same as in previous editions: don’t feel I have the skills; don’t know how; and didn’t know I could. There continues to be an opportunity for the Foundation to address this knowledge gap that people have in what it takes to edit Wikipedia.

Findings from the Second wave of the Brand Health Tracker[edit]

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

The findings from the second edition of the survey identified that concern for free access to knowledge, and awareness of the free knowledge movement, are low across countries, presenting a challenge for the Wikimedia Foundation to grow interest in the movement. Overall people are more concerned with other issues in the world, from climate change to corruption to war/violence. However, within information and knowledge issues, concern was highest for mis/disinformation (21% average across the countries surveyed), with only 11% of all respondents citing lack of free access to knowledge as a concern.

Global/local concerns, average across the 12 countries (% stating as a concern)

When it comes to movements themselves, awareness of the free knowledge movement was very low, with only 17% of all respondents across the countries surveyed saying they were aware of the movement.

Movements aware of (% stating awareness of each movement)

Brand awareness[edit]

The findings from the second edition survey on brand awareness for the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia clearly showed that awareness of the foundation continues to be low at 27%, particularly when compared with other social good organizations. However, since the first edition of the MBHT, awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation appears to have increased across a number of countries, especially Indonesia and Nigeria.

Aided brand awareness (%) for Wikimedia Foundation comparing the first edition of the tracker, with the latest edition

On the flip side, global brand awareness for Wikipedia stands at 80%, which is strong. This is still behind the rich media giants like Google (93%), Facebook (92%), and Twitter (86%), but well above other knowledge content platforms like Medium (11%) and Encyclopedia Britannica (22%). Since the last edition of the survey Wikipedia’s awareness appears to have ticked up slightly across all markets except for South Korea.

Aided brand awareness (%) for Wikipedia comparing the first edition of the tracker, with the latest edition

For WMF, Egypt, UAE, India, Indonesia and Nigeria have the highest awareness with S. Korea, Brazil, the US and South Africa scoring below average. Wikipedia’s awareness on the other hand is strong in all markets, with the exception of S. Korea.

Brand values and attributes associated with Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

To understand the factors important for people to support or donate to social organizations we explored the brand attributes and brand values people associate with these organizations.

When it came to brand attributes, compared to other organizations we measured, the Wikimedia Foundation is associated more with being ‘open source’, ‘supporting the creation or sharing of free knowledge’, and ‘leading the movement of free access to knowledge’. These are the foundation’s relative strengths in how people see it. On the downside however, compared to other organizations the Wikimedia Foundation is less likely to be associated with ‘has a positive impact in the world’, ‘has a clear mission’, and ‘spends donations wisely’.

Distribution of attributes associated with the Wikimedia Foundation brand

When we looked at brand values, reinforcing what we saw in the first edition of the MBHT, the Wikimedia Foundation continues to be seen as more neutral relative to other organizations, and is also seen as more innovative. On the downside, relative to other organizations, the brand is not seen as being international, taking advocacy positions, or being well known.

Distribution of values associated with the Wikimedia Foundation brand and other non-profits

Wikipedia[edit]

Compared to other platforms Wikipedia is perceived more positively overall, ranking above average across all but one of the attributes measured. And, similar to what we found in the first edition of the MBHT, Wikipedia’s relative strength is around the quality of information it provides on a variety of topics. It’s also more strongly associated with being free to use. The only relative downside Wikipedia has compared to other platforms is a lack of perceived use of video.

Distribution of attributes associated with the Wikipedia and other brands

Brand exposure for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

We also measured Brand Exposure for Wikipedia, which captures how much and where consumers feel they’re seeing the brand in media and elsewhere - i.e. how present the brand is in their lives. Overall Wikipedia has a strong brand exposure at 71%, similar to other digital platforms like Twitter (76%) and TikTok (76%), though less present than brands like YoutTube (86%) and Google (85%).

Brand exposure for Wikipedia and other brands (people who have seen the brand recently in any medium)

Across the countries we surveyed, Wikipedia’s presence comes mainly from search results - which is similar to what we found in the first edition. This is where we would like to see Wikipedia change to driving traffic from a variety of sources, rather than heavy dependence on search.

Sources of brand exposure for Wikipedia by country

Net Promoter Score (NPS) for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

Following on from the first edition of the MBHT, in this edition we again measured the Net Promoter Score, a widely-known metric used to measure the level of likely advocacy among users, which helps reflect the strength of the overall user experience. It is measured by asking on an 11 point scale how likely respondents are to recommend the brand to others - with 0 being highly unlikely, and 10 being highly likely. The NPS score is then calculated by subtracting the % of “detractors” (those who select between 0 and 6 to the survey question) from the % of “promoters’ (those who selected 9 and 10 on the survey question).

As with the first edition findings, in this second edition of the tracker, the NPS score for Wikipedia was positive (21.7 points in the second edition), indicating a net positive advocacy among internet users globally. When compared with other brands, Google and YouTube are the only platforms to have higher NPS versus Wikipedia, at +56.5 and +51.8 respectively.

NPS score for Wikipedia and competing brands

Comparing NPS in this edition to the first edition we saw slippage in this metric in three countries: US, Russia and South Africa. Elsewhere NPS remained stable or grew.

Promoters, Passives, and Detractors change since the first edition

Finally on NPS, worryingly in some of these markets (US, Germany, and South Africa) we see a negative score among 18-24 year olds - meaning more of this age group are more likely detractors versus advocates of Wikipedia. This points to some softness among how young people see the Wikipedia brand in these markets.

NPS by age group, by market

Purposes for using Wikipedia and emotional feelings users get when using the platform[edit]

Similar to the first edition of the MBHT, data on why Wikipedia users make use of the platform shows that the website is primarily used for fact checking purposes, as well as a means to keep themselves informed. No other platform we measured is used for fact checking as much. This is an important datapoint as it helps us see through the lens of the users to learn the reasoning behind usage and how the brand is perceived.

Purposes for why respondents use each platform

As with the first edition, to enable us to understand the perceived value that the Wikipedia brand provides for its users, we also asked respondents their emotional feelings when they use Wikipedia. Three strong feelings emanated from the data - Smart, Empowered and Inspired. This connects us to areas where we can take ownership of, and maybe should drive our brand positioning, particularly when we engage with younger audiences.

Emotional feelings users feel when they use Wikipedia vs other brands

Motivating factors for users to contribute to content on the internet[edit]

We also looked at the barriers that internet users have around contributing content on Wikipedia, to understand opportunities to bring more community members in. The top three editing barriers are: don’t feel I have the skills; don’t know how; and didn’t know I could. There is an opportunity for the foundation to address this knowledge gap that people have in what it takes to edit Wikipedia.

Barriers to contributing and/or editing content on Wikipedia

Findings from the first wave of the Brand Health Tracker[edit]

Brand awareness[edit]

The findings from the baseline survey on brand awareness for Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia clearly showed that awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation is low at 20%, particularly when compared with other social good organizations.

Aided brand awareness (prompted/close-ended list) for Wikimedia Foundation and other non-profits

On the flip side, global brand awareness for Wikipedia stands at 76%, which is a good level, though still behind the rich media giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but well above traditional knowledge content like Mozilla Foundation and Encyclopedia Britannica.

Aided brand awareness (prompted/close-ended list) for Wikipedia and competing brands

When we dive further into the awareness numbers, we see that awareness for the Wikimedia Foundation is high among older populations, while for Wikipedia, awareness was significant among younger audiences. For WMF, India, South Africa and the US have the highest awareness with Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, Philippines, South Korea, Russia & Germany scoring below average. Numbers for Wikipedia awareness shows it dips below average in South Korea, Indonesia and Brazil. Quora is gaining on our lead in Nigeria, South Africa, India and Philippines.

Brand values and attributes associated with Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

In order to understand the factors important for people to support or donate to social organizations, we asked the respondents to rank several factors in order of importance. These factors were divided into brand attributes and brand values, basically to enable us to see how attributes differ from values in the minds of the respondents.

Distribution of attributes associated with the Wikimedia Foundation brand

Top among the brand attributes ranked most important include having positive impact in the world, having a clear mission, and having a good track record as a trusted organization. When we checked how the Wikimedia Foundation is perceived in relation to the same attributes, we fell below average for the top 3 attributes, as respondents could only relate the Foundation to being open source and free, improving the quality of their lives, and being independent and free from undue influence (which are also good points).

Distribution of values associated with the Wikimedia Foundation brand

When we looked at the brand values, organizations that feel humane, those that take a clear position on advocacy issues connected to their mission, and neutrality in information were top. Very positive for the Wikimedia Foundation is the perception of neutrality and advocacy, whereas being humane was not seen as our strength.

Wikipedia[edit]

When the respondents were asked to rank attributes they consider when choosing websites for information and knowledge needs, top among the attributes are reliability, trustworthiness and up-to-date information on the website, quality of information made available in a variety of topics, as well as ease of navigation and use on both desktop and mobile.

Distribution of attributes associated with the Wikipedia brand

Though Wikipedia ranked above average in most of the attributes, particularly on quality of information on a variety of topics, users strongly affirmed the visual disappeal and unease of navigating through the site when compared with the other brands. This was done by presenting a list of attributes before the respondents and asking which of the attributes do they relate with Wikipedia and other brands. It should also be noted that this was done before the vector skin roll-out.

Brand exposure for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

We also measured Brand Exposure for Wikipedia, which is a metric that captures how much and where consumers feel they’re seeing the brand in media and elsewhere. From the result, Wikipedia has a strong brand exposure at 68%, which means that Wikipedia is seen well across the globe.

Brand exposure for Wikipedia and other brands (people who have seen the brand recently in any medium)

On the flip side, Wikipedia is almost entirely reliant on external search engines like Google for discoverability whereas YouTube has struck a healthy presence across channels - which includes search engines, social media, videos, app stores etc. This is where we would like to see Wikipedia, driving traffic from a variety of sources, rather than heavy dependence on one source.

Sources of brand exposure for Wikipedia and other competing brands

Net Promoter Score (NPS) for the Wikipedia brand[edit]

Being the first time we are instituting a brand health tracker, we also measured the Net Promoter Score, a widely-known metric used to measure the level of likely advocacy among users, which helps reflect the strength of the overall user experience. The metric is assessed by asking respondents how likely they would recommend Wikipedia to a friend or colleague on a scale of 0 to 10? It is measured by subtracting the % detractors, who are those who are against advocating for the brand by selecting between 0 and 6 to the survey question from the % promoters, those who selected 9 and 10.

How NPS is calculated and used in the tracker

The NPS result for Wikipedia was positive at 14.6 points, indicating a net positive, though weak advocacy among internet users globally. A clear indicator for the low NPS may not be unconnected to the high detractors and passives. When compared with other brands, Google and YouTube have the high NPS of +54.7 and +44.3, stressing the high number of promoters over detractors and passives.

NPS result for Wikipedia and competing brands
Promoters, Passives, and Detractors for Wikipedia in surveyed markets

When we analyzed further, we observed that mature and developed markets are the drivers of negative sentiments and detractors of Wikipedia, while emerging markets were more positive about Wikipedia advocacy.

Purposes for using Wikipedia and emotional feelings users get when using the platform[edit]

Data on purposes for which Wikipedia users make use of the platform shows that the website is primarily used for fact checking purposes, as well as a means to keep themselves informed, and to learn about current events. This is an important datapoint as it helps us see through the lens of the users to learn the reasoning behind usage and how the brand is perceived.

Purposes for which users of Wikipedia use the website

To enable us to understand the perceived value that the Wikipedia brand provides for its users, we asked the respondents on their emotional feelings when they use Wikipedia. Three strong feelings emanated from the data - Smart, Inspired, and Empowered. This connects us to areas where we can take ownership of, and maybe should drive our brand positioning, particularly when we engage with younger audiences.

Emotional feelings users feel when they use Wikipedia vs other brands

Motivating factors for users to contribute to content on the internet[edit]

We also looked at the factors that drive internet users to contribute content on websites and platforms. Top three among the drivers for editing and contributing include mobile experience and ease of contribution, clear instructions on how to write, edit or publish, as well availability in local language.

Importance for contributing and/or editing content online

Summary of findings from the Tracker[edit]

Fourth Wave[edit]

Based on the findings from the fourth edition of the MBHT study, we have been able to establish the following points:

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

  1. Limited Interest in Free Access to Knowledge: The fourth wave of the tracker highlights a continued lack of significant interest in free access to knowledge and awareness of the free knowledge movement across various countries.
  2. Primary Global Concerns: People's primary global concerns revolve around inflation, corruption, and climate change, surpassing other issues. Notably, inflation has newly emerged among the top four concerns, displacing war/violence to the fourth position, while corruption has returned to the second spot.
  3. Dominant Worries in Information and Knowledge: The main concerns within information and knowledge issues are centered on the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation.
  4. Declining Concerns: There is a notable decline in concerns related to knowledge and information compared to the previous tracker wave. The worries about misinformation/disinformation, lack of free access to knowledge, and corporate control have decreased.

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

  1. Low Awareness of Wikimedia Foundation: The fourth edition of the tracker indicates that awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation remains low at 23%, with a slight drop from 25% in the third wave.
  2. Brand Attributes: Wikimedia Foundation is strongly associated with positive brand attributes such as 'supporting the creation or sharing of free knowledge,' 'being open source and freely distributed,' and 'leading the movement for free access to knowledge.' However, it still lags in associations related to 'spending donations wisely,' 'transparency in donation utilization,' and 'having a positive impact in the world.'
  3. Positive Connotations in Descriptions: Responses to an open-ended question about the Wikimedia Foundation reveal positive connotations, with the majority emphasizing 'free,' 'open,' 'educational,' and 'informative' aspects.

Wikipedia[edit]

  1. Global Brand Awareness for Wikipedia: Wikipedia's global brand awareness is robust at 77%, although it has seen a notable decrease from 83% in the third edition. Despite this decline, there is an overall upward trend in various brand metrics, suggesting a strengthening of the brand's presence.
  2. Comparison with Other Platforms: Wikipedia's brand awareness falls behind major media giants such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok but surpasses other knowledge content platforms like Yahoo, Twitter, ChatGPT, Reddit, Quora, and Encyclopedia Britannica.
  3. Regional Awareness and Presence: Awareness of Wikipedia has declined in nearly every global region, with a significant drop in North America and Northern and Western Europe. Wikipedia's presence mainly comes from search results, and it has a consistent presence in Central, Eastern Europe & Central Asia and a slight increase in East, South-East Asia & Pacific.
  4. Brand Exposure: Wikipedia maintains robust brand exposure, with 70% of respondents indicating recent awareness. Presence drops across most regions, with only a constant presence in some areas since the last wave.
  5. Net Promoter Score (NPS): Wikipedia's NPS remains relatively high at 16 points, indicating a net positive level of advocacy among global internet users. Google and YouTube have higher NPS values, emphasizing Wikipedia's strong brand. There is a decline in NPS compared to previous editions, attributed to a decrease in the number of 'Passives.'
  6. Primary Usage and Perception: Wikipedia is predominantly used for fact-checking and staying informed, standing out as the most extensively used platform for fact-checking. Positive perceptions include being 'free,' 'open,' 'educational,' and 'informative.'
  7. Trust Dimensions: Trust in Wikipedia is primarily associated with providing up-to-date and accurate information, reflecting a strong trust in the platform's content.
  8. Editing Barriers and Opportunities: Barriers to editing Wikipedia include not feeling skilled, not knowing how, and not being aware that one can contribute.
  9. Perceived Value and Emotional Experience: Perceived value of Wikipedia includes feeling Smart, Empowered, and Inspired while using Wikipedia.

Third Wave[edit]

Based on the findings from the third edition of the MBHT study, we have been able to establish the following points:

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

  1. People continue to be more worried about other issues in the world versus free knowledge, with the top three global concerns being war/violence, climate change, and corruption (the same top concerns we saw in the second edition of the MBHT).
  2. Within information and knowledge issues, more than double the percent of people are concerned about mis/disinformation (22%) compared to lack of free access to knowledge (10%).

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

  1. Wikimedia Foundation awareness is unchanged compared to previous editions of the MBHT - and remains very low compared to other social organisations.
  2. However, those who know the Wikimedia Foundation continue to see it positively, associating it with being open source, leading the free knowledge movement, and being a neutral organization. This positivity remains unchanged from the previous edition of the MBHT.
  3. The Wikimedia Foundation continues to be less associated with having a positive impact in the world, having a clear mission, and spending donations wisely. If increasing awareness of the Foundation, it may be worthwhile to communicate its mission and the impact it has to help shore up these associations.

Wikipedia[edit]

  1. At a global level Wikipedia’s brand is strong and is strengthening, with awareness, consideration and claimed usage up in this latest edition of the MBHT. We also saw improvements in Wikipedia’s brand strength at the country level, including in the US, Germany and Brazil.
  2. The one country where the Wikipedia brand is clearly weakening is in Russia, something we will continue to monitor closely in the next editions of the MBHT.
  3. As found in the previous editions of the MBHT, Wikipedia outperforms other text-based knowledge platforms in terms of brand awareness and other brand metrics, but is outranked by bigger media giants such as Google and Facebook.
  4. Wikipedia’s Net Promoter Score of 23 is on a par with the previous edition of the MBHT. Google and YouTube continue to have the most positive NPS scores, however outside of these two platforms Wikipedia is stronger than any other platform we measure. And in a positive sign, NPS among 18-24 year olds has increased in this third edition across the PROTECT countries, including the US. Note however, this age group still tends to be the weakest in terms of NPS out of any other.
  5. Wikipedia’s presence continues to be high: people are seeing Wikipedia regularly, helping keep the brand top of mind (a predictor of brand usage in other product and service categories). The largest source of brand exposure continues to be within search results, although people are also seeing the brand in social media and on the web in general. However, Wikipedia’s discoverability is still largely reliant on search.
  6. Wikipedia’s strongest brand attribute - the thing that people associate with it above any other platform - is its provision of quality information about a variety of topics. It’s important for Wikipedia to continue to deliver on both quality and a breadth of different topic areas if the brand is to remain strong and relevant. Quality itself is clearly defined by respondents as being driven primarily by the reliability of the sources used within Wikipedia articles, and the fact that articles are sourced and well referenced in the first place.

Second Wave[edit]

Based on the findings from this second edition study, we have been able to establish the following points:

The Free Knowledge Movement[edit]

Concern for access to free knowledge and awareness of the free knowledge movement are relatively low across countries compared to other concerns people have in their lives. This presents a challenge for the Wikimedia Foundation to grow interest in the movement.

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

  1. Awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation’s brand name continues to be low compared to other international humanitarian, development, and not-for-profit organizations. However, since the first edition, awareness of the foundation appears to have increased across a number of countries, especially in Indonesia and Nigeria.
  2. When people know the Wikimedia Foundation they associate it with being open source and leading the free knowledge movement. They also associate it with being neutral - all attributes that mean the foundation’s overall purpose is generally understood.
  3. On the flip side, the Wikimedia Foundation is less associated (relative to other organizations) with having a positive impact in the world, having a clear mission, and spending donations wisely. These suggest the Wikimedia Foundation could do a better job communicating the link between its work in driving free access to knowledge and the tangible impact this has in countries, as well as increasing transparency in how donations are used.
  4. People are more likely to consider/donate if they are aware of our brand name and our impact. This means, awareness and affinity doesn’t just drive product use/consumption, it can also drive donations and other support. Therefore, when the Wikimedia Foundation invests in brand awareness and affinity, it will contribute to donor engagement.

Wikipedia[edit]

  1. Wikipedia has a strong brand overall, with high and growing awareness across almost all markets, and with positive associations across all attributes with the exception of ‘using video’.
  2. Wikipedia awareness tends to be lower than average in markets that are typified by limited or poor quality local language content (e.g. Egypt 69%), or where there are more established alternatives (e.g. South Korea 41%). This correlation was previously established in the 2020 Readership survey.
  3. As found in the first edition of the MBHT, Wikipedia outperforms text-based knowledge platforms in terms of brand awareness, but is outranked by rich media giants. This may be to do with a number of factors, including the relevance of what these bigger media giants offer (e.g. access to the world’s information for Google, social connection for the social media giants), and higher marketing and advertising budgets.
  4. Wikipedia’s Net Promoter Score of 21.7 is higher than what we found in the first edition of the tracker, and not far below proxy–category averages (communications and media industry: +24 and software/apps +31). Google (+56.5) and YouTube (+51.8) have the most positive NPS scores by far, while other platforms have a lower NPS than Wikipedia. This reaffirms that while there is room to improve Wikipedia’s perception among users, overall Wikipedia’s brand is strong.
  5. Perhaps most concerning for Wikipedia is weakness among 18-24 year olds in the PROTECT countries - the US, Germany, and South Africa in particular. This could be due to a number of factors, including less use of Google search because of higher app usage among this age group, and a higher affinity for more visual and social platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. The direct implication of this is that we are at risk of aging out of relevance by losing Gen Z at a time in their lives when Wikipedia usage should be high.
  6. Wikipedia’s largest sources of brand exposure continues to be search results (49%), by contrast discoverability on social media (23%). This implies that Wikipedia’s discoverability is largely reliant on search. Google Chrome’s 92% SE market share means that most people discover Wikimedia content through Google search results. New research suggests many are unaware the content is from Wikimedia.
  7. Reliable information about what’s happening right now is in high demand and Wikipedia continues to be the # 1 destination for checking facts. Fact Checking is followed by current events, and generally keeping themselves informed about what’s happening in the world. In a fast paced world that is increasingly filled with dis/misinformation, Wikipedia provides a verification service. Worth noting that fact checking is a high-frequency, nano-session knowledge journey, which many of our competitors are increasingly good at providing (Google in particular).

First Wave[edit]

Based on the findings from the baseline study, we have been able to establish the following points:

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

  1. Awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation brand name is low compared to other international humanitarian, development, and not-for-profit organizations. This shows that what is common amongst the more established organizations is the concerted efforts to brand and market the organization NOT just the mission.
  2. When it comes to unaided brand awareness/recall Google and Facebook are more known for “sharing knowledge and information” than the Wikimedia Foundation (or Wikipedia). Therefore, The Wikimedia Foundation should create stronger associative links to our core mission and by so doing offer a counter-narrative to the dominant view that knowledge and information should always be proprietary.
  3. The Wikimedia Foundation has higher awareness in countries we are active in beyond our project. Language support, partnerships, community grants and marketing show higher levels of brand name mission and impact awareness. This implies that other international humanitarian, development and not-for-profit organisations share more about how their mission is realized on the ground, as this contributes to higher awareness levels.
  4. Attributes of an international NGO most valued by respondents include evidenced and tangible impact, clarity of mission, and a good track record of trustworthiness. This also confirms that International humanitarian, development and not-for-profit organizations lead with how their mission is realized on the ground and how it responds to the real threats and issues, using practical and relatable examples.
  5. The Wikimedia Foundation has strong associations with open source and neutrality. This connects to the fact that there are strong associative ties to the ideas of open knowledge and open technology and neutrality, but we are yet to leverage these in our story and brand positioning.
  6. People are more likely to consider/donate if they are aware of our brand name and our impact. This means, awareness and affinity doesn’t just drive product use/consumption, it can also drive donations and other support. Therefore, when the Wikimedia Foundation invests in brand awareness and affinity, it will contribute to donor engagement.

Wikipedia[edit]

  1. Wikipedia awareness is lower than average (76%) in CREATE and BUILD markets that are typified by limited or poor quality local language content (South Korea 58%, Brazil 67%, Indonesia 67%). This correlation was previously established in the 2020 Readership survey.
  2. When it comes to unaided awareness, Wikipedia is known for being a website/app that provides free information and knowledge about many subjects (3rd recalled after google and youtube).
  3. When prompted, Wikipedia outperforms text-based knowledge platforms in terms of brand awareness, but is outranked by rich media giants. This confirms that search has fundamentally changed, and internet users now prefer rich media answers to their search queries.
  4. 18-24 year olds in the US, Germany, Indonesia, South Korea, Nigeria, and the United States have below average Wikipedia awareness and lower awareness compared to other age groups. The direct implication of this is that we are at risk of aging out of relevance by losing Gen Z at a time in their lives when Wikipedia usage is ordinarily high.
  5. Wikipedia’s Net Promoter Score of +14.6 is lower than proxy–category averages (communications and media industry: +24 and software/apps +31). Google (+54.7) and YouTube (+44.3) have the most positive NPS scores by far, while Wikipedia +14.6, Facebook +11.8, and Khan Academy +14.0 have similar below average scores. This shows that there is a room to improve Wikipedia’s perception among users by converting passives into promoters and decreasing detractors.
  6. Mature markets (US and Germany) are the biggest negative drivers of our global NPS score, while Indonesia has the highest number of passives. NPS in South Korea where awareness is extremely low, is dangerously low and signals project failure. The 18-24 cohort's negative or very low scoring of Wikipedia (-3.2) poses a high risk for the future of the brand. Passive respondents are mostly young adults, particularly those within 25-34 years and 55+. There is also a high number of 18-24 Passives, in Indonesia, Germany, South Korea, Brazil, India.
  7. Wikipedia’s largest sources of brand exposure are search results 67%, by contrast discoverability on social media is 17%. This implies that Wikipedia’s discoverability is entirely reliant on search. Google Chrome’s 92% SE market share means that most people discover Wikimedia content through Google search results. New research suggest many are unaware the content is from Wikimedia.
  8. Content quality (trustworthy, variety, language, written by knowledgeable contributors) matters more to respondents than content accessibility and experience (easy to use, ad-free, low bandwidth). The sheer breadth of high quality information in a variety of topics is both a key feature of Wikipedia and a valued attribute when it comes to knowledge and information sources - unfortunately, the negative trust narrative persists.
  9. Reliable information about what’s happening right now is in high demand and Wikipedia is the # 1 destination for checking facts. Fact Checking is followed by current events, and generally keeping themselves informed about what’s happening in the world. In a fast paced world that is increasingly filled with dis/misinformation, Wikipedia provides a verification service. Worth noting that fact checking is a high-frequency, nano-session knowledge journey, which many of our competitors are increasingly good at providing (Google, Quora).