Grants talk:Programs/Wikimedia Research Fund/Extended: Opportunities for Supporting Community-Scale Communication
Add topic | Thank you for considering providing your input for the proposal. Although many applicants are not actively monitoring these pages and are unlikely to respond here, we will share your feedback with every applicant to help them improve their research. Please write your feedback in a constructive and supportive manner and note that Community Resources team's behavioral expectations as well as UCoC's expected behavior apply to this space. |
If possible, please keep your input concise. We'd particularly like feedback on the following questions:
- From what perspective or in what role are you providing your input? (For example: a Wikipedia editor, a representative of a Wikimedia chapter, a member of a regional committee)
- In what ways do you think this research can support members of the Wikimedia communities in their work on Wikimedia projects?
- Is there a particular project or affiliate in your country/region/project that can benefit from the result of this research and/or you recommend that the applicants seek to coordinate or collaborate with? If so, please provide details including the name of the project or affiliate and a short description of the relevance of the proposal to the needs of the affiliate or project.
- Do you have any other comments or feedback you would like to share with the Research Fund chairs?
Very important topic!
[edit]They propose to study the talk pages, generate a dataset, and publish results. They also propose to prototype tools to assist in navigating deadlocks. Nearly 15 years ago, I hired a programmer to create a structured conversation plugin for Wikimedia, but nobody paid any attention to it. That leads me to question the viability of that aspect of their proposal (I'd love to be proven wrong on that one). Taming conversations is an enormous problem. OSS software like POL.is and others have paved the way. Jackpark2 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
A Good Opportunity To Improve Editing and Collaboration
[edit]This proposal seems to address a very urgent need for creating, improving and editing articles with blocks more agilely. The proposal mentions "a socio-technical framework for supporting the communication process involved in community-scale collaborations". I would suggest thinking this framework exclusively for Wikipedia related projects because large-scale collaboration systems can have very different purposes and difficulties. Trying to address this enormous field, in my opinion, will leave little room for concrete interventions that may improve Wikipedia more directly. Along these lines, the proposal mentions the risk of "integrate(ing) into Wikipedia’s existing technical infrastructure or (...) face resistance if perceived as disruptive". Taking this into consideration, I suggest that part of the outputs of the research produces a non-technical tool (in the form of a written-graphic guide) that can be readily implemented independently by groups of editors on their own. The other output proposed of the browser extension, also seems to be a good tactic for producing results that are readily useful without waiting for these to be integrated into the formal infrastructure of Wikimedia. In my opinion having both a guide and a browser plugin will improve the probability that the results of this research are implemented in practice. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ventolinmono (talk)