Research:Spring 2015 Inspire campaign/Survey

A survey was conducted in April 2015 to evaluate the experience of participating in the Inspire Campaign, which focused on the gender gap and was hosted on the IdeaLab. The survey was conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Resources team.

The survey was delivered to editors' talk pages on Metawiki. It was open between April 13th and April 20th. Editors were selected to receive the survey if they had edited any pages within the IdeaLab from a dedicated Wikimedia account between March 1st and April 1st. Every attempt was made to exclude Wikimedia staff accounts and bot accounts.

In all, the survey was delivered to 698 editors, and 145 valid responses were recorded, for a response rate of 21%.

Overview of findings

• 34% of respondents were women
• 78% of respondents were veteran Wikipedians (1+ years editing)
• 44% of respondents were recruited through Central Notice banners
• At least 47% of respondents listed English Wikipedia as their home project
• Commenting on ideas was the most popular way of participating (70% of respondents), followed by endorsing ideas (50%)
• 38% of respondents submitted at least 1 idea during the campaign
  • 37% of these idea-creators turned their idea into a grant proposal
  • Only 21% of respondents joined an idea created by someone else
• Satisfaction ratings averaged between 3.2 and 3.6 (out of 5) for all measures
• No significant differences existed between the satisfaction ratings of:
  • idea-creators vs. other respondents
  • men vs. women
  • veteran editors vs. those with less than 1 year of editing experience

Key outcomes

Caveat: the survey was delivered to each participating editor's Metawiki talk page, rather than the talk page on the editor's home wiki. As such, veteran Wikimedians, and especially Meta-pedians, are likely over-represented in the response set.

Women were well-represented

Women participated at roughly double the rate of (estimated) female participation in English and other major Wikipedias.

Most respondents were experienced Wikipedians

The vast majority of respondents (78%) had edited Wikimedia projects for more than a year.

Around half of respondents were not English Wikipedians

Although English Wikipedia, the largest Wikimedia project by far, was well represented, approximately half of the respondents listed another project as their home wiki. Coupled with the high percentage of respondents recruited through Central Notice banners (44%), this suggests that Central Notice is an effective strategy for encouraging participation by editors from a diverse set of Wikimedia projects.

Idea creators generally appreciated feedback

Endorsements were motivating and criticism of the idea was valued, as long as it was constructive.

• "My core Idea was challenged for being essentialist, which had the effect of having to better understand what I was trying to do."
• "yeah very legitimate queries I received / endorsements were encouraging."
• "I liked that discouragement and opposition was moved away to talk page. That really helped others to analyze the ideas without bias."

However, lack of feedback was powerfully demotivating for idea creators.

• "No feedback, no help, from anyone. no instructions on how to turn it into a grant proposal... no guidelines."
• "one person responded in terms of participation and i got no feedback on my request for information about how to apply, how much money to request and how to implement my idea... I am new here but at least i was trying..."

And incivility and was a major issue.

• " I was deeply offput by the commentary around the project from Wikimedians opposed to this idea and preferred not to get involved."
• "The opposition posts were many and nasty."
• "The amount of anti-woman sentiment was very distressing."

Some commenters objected strenuously to the concept of endorsements

Although there was almost no negative feedback on the endorsement process from respondents who also created ideas

• "Facebook syndrome: You can state your enthusiasm, but not your dislike."
• "The problem with this campaign, is that there's not really a metric of disagreement."
• "Discontent on ideas is shifted out of view."

Many idea creators were unsure about expectations, next steps

Respondents expressed frustration about a lack of clear instructions, and confusion about what was expected from them after they initially submitted their idea.

• "I was confused that no-one followed up with me after I submitted an idea."
• "It was a difficult process to navigate in terms of understanding what the steps were, what exactly were the phases, when to add what additional templates."
• "Information was scattered across many pages. I did not realize that there were special granting abilities related to Inspire. Wikimedia grant stuff in general was confusing for me, and I was unsure of what scale of project to propose for any sort of grant."
• "I didn't understand what it would have implied to join an idea."

Others felt that the grantmaking process lacked transparency.

• "No indication on how Wikimedia would respond to the ideas. Would a response be offered to every idea? I find WM's lack of transparency frustrating."
• "I wasn't convinced by the process that this was a worthwhile endeavor. The selection criteria was absent, the reviewers invisible, and the credibility of the existence of funding sources wasn't established."

Profiles and matching were relatively unseen and under-utilized

very few people created profiles. One participant that did create a profile appreciated the ability to see other users' faces. However, other profile-creators were confused by the recommendations, and by the fact that their profile was not visible in other parts of the IdeaLab instantaneously.

Participants appreciated the gadgets... when they worked

several respondents indicated that they appreciated the ease of use of gadgets such as the FormWizard and AddMe gadgets, which facilitated idea creation, expansion, endorsement, and joining. However, other participants found these gadgets to be buggy and inconsistent.

Some commenters objected to the campaign as a whole

some respondents considered the Gender Gap theme of the campaign to be illegitimate, and/or the Wikimedia Foundation's role in soliciting ideas to fund gender-gap focused projects to be inappropriate.

• "I found the campaign insulting to all genders of editors."
• "I'd be pleased if IdeaLab ceased to exist."

Editors have lots of intriguing ideas for future campaigns

respondents suggested a diverse set of topics for future Inspire campaigns.

• "I'd like to see more multimedia projects."
• "Combating systematic bias with regards to low editing habits of Global south Wikimedians."
• "Paid editing, adminship reform, civility"
• "intellectual property/copyright issues, human resource-type processes and infrastructure for open communities, small language communities, open education, better coverage of marginalized forms of knowledge, gender gap again!"

Most respondents would participate in a future Inspire campaign

of the 93 respondents who answered the question "would you participate in another campaign?", 82 responded yes or maybe, only two responded negatively or expressed reservations. Among those who responded positively, some of the primary considerations were the topic chosen for the campaign, and having enough time to participate.

Basic information

return to top

Gender

What is your gender?

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

•   Female
•   Male
•   Another gender
•   Rather not say

Answer	# responses
Female	45
Male	83
Another gender	4
Rather not say	13
Total	145

Level of experience

return to top

How long have you been editing?

25

50

75

100

125

150

•   less than 6 months
•   6 months to 1 year
•   more than 1 year
•   I have never edited

Answer	# responses
<6 months	14
6 months - 1 year	5
> 1 year	114
I have never edited	12
Total	145

Home wiki

return to top

What is your home wiki?

Answer	# responses
English Wikipedia	51
Wikipedia (no language specified)	18
Wikipedia (non-eng)	15
Wikimedia Commons	9
Wikisource (any language)	4
Meta	2
Mediawiki	2
Wikidata	2
Wikiversity (any language)	2
Wiktionary (any language)	2
Wikivoyage (any language)	2
Total	109

Referred by

return to top

How did you find out about the campaign?

Answer	# responses
banner on a wiki	63
mailing list	12
blog post	1
social media	3
friend/colleague	12
WMF staff	10
can't remember	18
other	12
can't remember	18
Total	144

Creating an idea

return to top

Did you submit a idea?

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	54
No	90
Total	144

How satisfied were you with the process of submitting your idea?

5

10

15

20

25

30

•   very dissatisfied
•   dissatisfied
•   neutral
•   satisfied
•   very satisfied

Answer	Response	%
Very Dissatisfied	3
Dissatisfied	3
Neutral	15
Satisfied	22
Very Satisfied	11
Total	54	100%
Average	3.6

Was there anything in particular you liked about the Idea creation and submission process?

“

I was gratified and surprised by the amount of support provided by the community to help get my proposal up and running.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
some approaches in encouraging people to participate more
the interaction of the community on the idea was very rewarding
People actually gave feedback. Like a lot of feedback was receieved. It was particulary constructive which is why I found them rewarding.
Expanding this community activists
I was gratified and surprised by the amount of support provided by the community to help get my proposal up and running.
I really liked collaborating on an etherpad with the other person focused on the submission, but then being able to tweak it later on the wiki page.
I liked being able to add to the community in a safe space manner.
Cookies
Anyone was able to propose an idea This was enough to encourage me send an idea which i think may be useful
The idea s very artculate and explicit / Submission process became easy for non-wikimedians for that ready template
This project asked for ideas and I was happy to provide some.
Interesting mailing list discussions
I love the public grant-making process. Having a grant submission be public forced me to think more thoroughly about the framing and reception of the grants. Specifically, I think it made my grants more inclusive. I also like the ability to see others' grants, comment on them, find areas of overlap, and build connections for future grants.
Sharing ideas with other Wikimedia Users seems to be very useful for me. I think that it is very fructuous to find many people that are sharing extremely similar thoughts as mines.
Not really
The idea was to enclose women user in Tanzania through Wikimedia Tanzania as now we are talking about 1500 from to 0 number, and we still have a mission of running more Women conferences.
Yes, I like the idea of shearing ideas, that is most important
I liked that my idea was at least somewhat visible to random visitors to read and possibly endorse it (on the public list of projects). I liked that the form provided a basic template to work with for building my idea. I liked feeling like I was part of an interesting experiment.
The process was fairly user-friendly for those of us that had submitted other grants (i.e. NSF, NIH, etc.).
Liked being able to modify what was there as more info became available; pleased to find others with ideas worth supporting
The design was very user friendly (except when editing the page)
Yes, I would like to work on it in the future.
no - english isn't my "mother-language"

Was there anything in particular you disliked about the Idea creation and submission process?

“

It's rigged to favor "Diversity" promoters. They don't have to prove their case, but we who are opposed to using phony stats to justify some new way to impose arbitrary and unjustified policies, have to tiptoe thru their tulips, lest we get deleted.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
I'm a new editor and not used to straddling the gap between "main Wikipedia" and "other Wikipedia places". As a consequence I was confused about having a new user page and things like that. I was confused when my entry didn't display. I was confused that no-one followed up with me after I submitted an idea.
It's rigged to favor "Diversity" promoters. They don't have to prove their case, but we who are opposed to using phony stats to justify some new way to impose arbitrary and unjustified policies, have to tiptoe thru their tulips, lest we get deleted.
I previously had an idea on the IdeaLab, and moving it to Inspire was confusing. / / Information was scattered across many pages. / / I did not realize that there were special granting abilities related to Inspire. / / Wikimedia grant stuff in general was confusing for me, and I was unsure of what scale of project to propose for any sort of grant.

Submitting a grant proposal

Did you turn your idea into a grant proposal?

5

10

15

20

25

30

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	20
No	29
Total	49

Why did you choose to not submit your idea as a grant proposal?

“

I wasn't convinced by the process that this was a worthwhile endeavor. The selection criteria was absent, the reviewers invisible, and the credibility of the existence of funding sources wasn't established. I am very used to submitting non-profit style grant requests and this system bore no resemblance to that. I was also deeply offput by the commentary around the project from Wikimedians opposed to this idea and preferred not to get involved.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
because there is no enough time
I think it is too soon. I want to get more feedback first.
I'm not sure
Ignorance was bliss
I think there's people that may be willing to give it a proper follow up plus I don't really have the time to go in to it as vastly as I think it needs it, but I'm sure I'll be watching this development.
I didn't finish the monetary aspect.
Because it would be more expensive to enact than a grant would cover.
Didn't seem any point, mainly just made mine to vent my ideas.
I couldn't see any advantage for this.
I wasn't convinced by the process that this was a worthwhile endeavor. The selection criteria was absent, the reviewers invisible, and the credibility of the existence of funding sources wasn't established. I am very used to submitting non-profit style grant requests and this system bore no resemblance to that. I was also deeply offput by the commentary around the project from Wikimedians opposed to this idea and preferred not to get involved.
I just did not want to go thru a grant proposal process. I have worked with grant proposals at worksites and they can be very time consuming.
I sincerely doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation would pay me anywhere near enough for the headaches that I would endure
I did because my idea was not a one off activity it was geared towards a possible task force for gender that will do anything in their power to ensure the gap is bridged. / / It also requires the endorsement of the foundation and the formation of a team to institute this and to be recognized by other affiliates for their role.
I did not find the sufficient number of Users that are required for such works.
I will send later as now am trying settle some office problems
I already have a full-time job and do a lot of volunteer work in open content and open source online, and I wouldn't want to add a big new project by myself where I'm really not sure I could get adequate buy-in from the larger Wikipedia community. If I'd found a volunteer who were willing to lead this with some help from me, I would have been happy to do some work to help turn it into a formal grant proposal.
I thought someone else should do that. I am swamped and it was not a priority, but an idea someone else more passionate and involved would be able to take and run with.
I didn't have the skills to plan the steps or to calculate the amount of money/workforce required because I have no experience in those kind of projects. I wasn't planning to actually doing them, I just proposed an idea. I expected WMF to pick up there and do the planning/funding if they felt the idea was helpful. It seems now that that won't happen and seems like a real waste of time and effort...
I needed help, and no-one offered to help.
Have a regular job that requires my attention-- not a specialist in this area! Would have needed about two months full time to have a real handle on the situation and make contacts necessary for the project. Was hoping someone else would develop a proposal, which is what happened.
I was not instructed to
I didn't think about it
No I didn't, you have an error in inquiry.
- don't have so much time!
was not necessary, the idea does not require funding.
opaque grant process

How satisfied were you with the process of turning your idea into a grant proposal?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

•   very dissatisfied
•   dissatisfied
•   neutral
•   satisfied
•   very satisfied

Answer	Response
Very Dissatisfied	1
Dissatisfied	4
Neutral	4
Satisfied	7
Very Satisfied	4
Total	20
Average	3.4

Was there anything you particularly disliked or found frustrating about the process of turning your idea into a grant proposal?

“

No feedback, no help, from anyone. no instructions on how to turn it into a grant proposal... no guidelines

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
Someone else actually did this process.
It was a difficult process to navigate in terms of understnading what the steps were, what exactly were the phases, when to add what additional templates. What parameters must be in place. There was no up-to-date guideline for how to make an end-product.
Need of more investigation and lack of resources.
I had problems editing if I was logged in.
I dont know if the grant was accepted!
No feedback, no help, from anyone. no instructions on how to turn it into a grant proposal... no guidelines.
There wasn't any confirmation that the grant had been posted/submitted appropriately. However, editors from the WMF were incredibly helpful in this process and were able to assure me that the grant had been posted in the correct location. Navigation of WMF can be rather tricky for a Wikipedian that has only edited articles.
some ideas not tagged with Inspire campaign branding, had to convert them manually
See the answer I wrote about the previous question like this; it's the same.

Was there anything you particularly liked or found rewarding about the process of turning your idea into a grant proposal?

“

I got very helpful technical support from the coordinator.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
feedback from fellow community members
Fine. Nothing much.
I got very helpful technical support from the coordinator.
Funding is the best reward
It helped me focus on turning the idea into a step-by-step plan of action as well as forced me to think what skills I needed to accomplish the grant.
yes the fact that one's idea is shaped to get a good project
My idea/ project was time sensitive so I moved proposal to PEG
There was a button and I had to just click it and add more information

Collaboration and interaction

return to top

Receiving feedback

Did any other editors comment on your idea?

10

20

30

40

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	35
No	15
Total	50

Did any other editors endorse your idea?

5

10

15

20

25

30

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	29
No	21
Total	50

Did any other editors join your idea?

5

10

15

20

25

30

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	24
No	23
Total	47

How satisfied were you with the endorsements, comments or participation you received from other participants?

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

•   very dissatisfied
•   dissatisfied
•   neutral
•   satisfied
•   very satisfied

Answer	Response
Very Dissatisfied	1
Dissatisfied	3
Neutral	12
Satisfied	13
Very Satisfied	8
Total	37
Average	3.6

Was there anything in particular you liked about the comments, endorsements and participation around your idea?

“

I had very substantial conversations with other editors/participants both on and off the IdeaLab Wiki. It's sharpened my thinking about the issues at hand here, helped me identify the people who are really interested, and think with a broader perspective about the range of issues and strategies for addressing them.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
Constructive criticism. / Extensive breakup of budget.
It was great to have people help out. I would have liked even broader reach and some discussion, but that would be up to me.
I liked how people asked questions -- both the topics and the tone.
I got support from two editors and comments from one editor. I liked the feedback and that is why I adopted the feedback.
My core Idea was challenged for being essentialist, which had the effect of having to better understand what I was trying to do.
yeah very legitimate queries I received / endorsements were encouraging
Yes, I liked the idea that others look at these ideas and take them seriously. Also, I think these ideas help others to create their own ideas.
I had very substantial conversations with other editors/participants both on and off the IdeaLab Wiki. It's sharpened my thinking about the issues at hand here, helped me identify the people who are really interested, and think with a broader perspective about the range of issues and strategies for addressing them.
The comments left by Wikimedia Users are important. They contributed to develop the idea and ameliorate finally the output.
Not really
No
4/5 people who endorsed my project are friends or acquaintances of mine who found it through me talking to them about my idea (on Twitter, Facebook, and IRC), but I still really appreciated that they wrote encouraging constructive comments. 3 people I didn't know commented on the talk page, and 2/3 had useful suggestions that helped me improve my idea. (The third suggestion was nice too, just not immediately useful.) I like that people liked my idea.
I liked that discouragement and opposition was moved away to talk page. That really helped others to analyze the ideas without bias.
The back and forth dialogue was incredibly beneficial in shaping the course of the grant project. This is a process that many other organizations neglect to implement.
Wiki-collaboration is nice and I expected it. The surprise was that the software mostly worked to allow this
That it _appeared_ as if people were reading the purposals, even though many were knee-jerk comments to the title. Those who did read remarked on the inflamitory title in comparison to the reasonable purposal and offering ideas and advice.
The comments were positive and constructive. I felt supported by the community and I liked the idea of reducing the gender gap and increasing the participation of women in this awesome internet space.

Was there anything in particular you disliked about the comments, endorsements and participation around your idea?

“

The opposition posts were many and nasty.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
one person responded in terms of participation and i got no feedback on my request for information about how to apply, how much money to request and how to implement my idea... I am new here but at least i was trying...
The opposition posts were many and nasty.
no
They were mostly annoying; none were especially mean, most seemed nit-picky, and a few provided some nice brainstorming. / / It was hard for me to tell based on the comments whether my project was appropriate for the campaign.
loss of momentum

Providing feedback

return to top

Did you comment on any ideas?

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	95
No	40
Total	135

Did you endorse any ideas?

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	67
No	68
Total	135

Did you join any ideas?

25

50

75

100

125

150

•   Yes
•   No

Answer	# responses
Yes	29
No	106
Total	135

How satisfied were you with process of endorsing, commenting on, and joining ideas?

10

20

30

40

50

•   very dissatisfied
•   dissatisfied
•   neutral
•   satisfied
•   very satisfied

Answer	Response
Very Dissatisfied	7
Dissatisfied	14
Neutral	28
Satisfied	46
Very Satisfied	10
Total	105
Average	3.4

Was there anything in particular you liked about process of endorsing, commenting on, or joining ideas?

“

I had very substantial conversations with other editors/participants both on and off the IdeaLab Wiki. It's sharpened my thinking about the issues at hand here, helped me identify the people who are really interested, and think with a broader perspective about the range of issues and strategies for addressing them.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
No, i never found anything rewarding.
Not particularly. I am accustomed to the way things happen on Wikimedia projects
Normal UX.
It was nice to see what others were doing. It wasn't always clear how I could help/I don't have that much time to help, unfortunately.
I liked the enthusiasm people had for getting hard data on how gender makes a difference in the workings on Wikipedia. Beyond the ideas themselves, there were so many gems in the comments for tweaks that could be made to get better statistics.
Failed to find any information on wth endorsing and joining actually means. Is the number of endorsements actually good for anything or ist it just like a "like" on FB? Why do I have to "join" a project, can't I just plunge in and start participating like I do everywhere else in the Wikimedia universe?
I liked endorsing ideas in their early stages as it felt like I was providing encouragement for others to further develop their idea into a full proposal
I was often confused if I should be using the buttons for easy joining, or just editing the page directly.
No.
The button was great! It made it easier to join the endorsement discussion without much thought or hassle, and made the process a lot faster.
the idea of endorsing is great
Again, people were taking all the ideas seriously and creating their own ideas.
Now, I feel I missed out on this piece of it. I didn't do as much endorsing of others' projects as I should have. There are a number of projects I think are worthy of the IdeaLab Grant and should throw my support behind them. What a n00b.
please be as specific as possible / please be as specific as possible / / I like the idea that volunteers can choose to work on a project that they didint start themselves. However, it would be much more efficient if the community were made aware of this ease of paarticipation. A lot of people would have come on boared even to volunteer if only they knew they could.
Yes it informed you whether you were on the right path or not
Not at all.
No
It would probably have been quite confusing to me that talk pages were part of this process if I didn't already have a lot of Wikipedia editing cultural experience already. Idea pages don't say anything like "If you want to talk about this idea in general, go to the talk page!" It might have made more sense to have a "discussion" section on the idea page instead of having discussion on the talk page.
I enjoy working with people who are new to the wikimedia movement. I had the opportunity to work with new users during the Inspire campaign.
Some very interesting ideas surfaced and hope to contribute them
I was not forced to use the interface for commenting, endorsing or joining ideas, although that option was available to me. I was able to reply and expand upon my thoughts easily, throughout the process duration of several weeks (3 months, actually).
What I particularly liked was the whole idea of wiki caring enough to try to do something about the lack of female editors
I liked how easy and neat the process was. It never failed, unlike the idea submission form...
No
It was encouraging that I could provide feedback on other grants under the same campaign.
Being able to share an opinion about a possible future project, getting to read what WikiMedia is involved with, and other peoples ideas for how to approach a project / create a solution.
It was pretty straightforward, which I liked.
Enjoyed seeing a platform for people to submit and comment on ideas addressing a very specific issue within the Wikimedia movement. It is good to let ideas incubate and/or gain traction and collaborate on possible experiments and solutions to a problem.
Trying to guide projects in a better direction
Glad to see others were already developing ideas for useful projects.
I was able to contribute to the campaign and criticize issues I found therein.
Well i felt involved, i guess. I like really like the idea of addressing the women's editing gap by disassociating it with feminism and making a jazzy ad. Might be a good project.
You got the chance to see what kind of support the proposal was getting and which proposals were getting more attention or support.
There are many brilliant people who have joined the campaign and that deserve a lot of trust and support
I liked getting feedback from others and seeing ideas develop. However, I came in near the end of the campaign, so I had to read what others had done, more than actively participate in discussion.
The chance to see the different ways people chose to tackle the problem and compare them. Interesting, since I study Sociology.
This just involved editing one wiki page, I think. Perhaps I don't understand the question?
I liked the ease of being able to do so - and to a large extent I liked that a wide..er..variety of comments were allowed.
Not sure what you have in mind here; it wasn't unpleasant or anything, but nothing stands out.

Was there anything in particular you disliked about process of endorsing, commenting on, or joining ideas?

“

The process was unfamiliar, very different from discussions that take place in the various wikis.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
please be as specific as possible / I saw that there was a strong wave of opinion that I was unlikely to affect. If Wikimedia and Wikipedia are open to all why is there so much angst about different levels of participation by women and men? There is no comparable angst over many other activities. Program producers find out what their audience is and then work with them. The current concern to attract more women users makes me as a guy feel unwelcome.
Conversations around ideas were rather one-sided and unopen to debate around the merit of an idea.
No indication on how Wikimedia would respond to the ideas. Would a response be offered to every idea? I find WM's lack of transparency frustrating
Facebook syndrome: You can state your enthusiasm, but not your dislike
The problem with this campaign, is that there's not really a metric of disagreement.
There was nothing in particular. Just the utter backlash to innovation and brain storming that is encountered on almost every Wikimedia project. Some people just yell louder than the others.
None of the ideas seemed really innovative. One was pretty stereotypical and could be considered sexist.
maybe that other commentators were misogynistic, blatantly offensive, and disrespectful
A number of proposals seemed similar, but it was hard to sift through them to find the good ones.
I was not really sure how to participate, if commenting was enough or if online participating was ok, I was unsure if ideas was intend to local and offwikis events then not global or online
The amount of anti-woman sentiment was very distressing - ironically the degree of over-the-top anti-woman commentary was probably sufficient to justify the campaign by itself
The amount of attention given to a nonexistent "problem"
the process seemed to be anonymos.
Segregating the endorsements section from the critical commentary section made it difficult to figure out how popular and how controversial some proposals were
I could figure out how to see the ideas that actually submitted grant requests, let alone what project would receive grant funding. A couple that writes grants for non-profits are good friends of mine, so I know that a grant is a complex endeavor that must exhibit certain criteria to be considered. Were the brain-stormers given any help with grant writing or was it a sink or swim proposition? How do I find the successful grant applications?
no, I just left a slightly sarcastic comment about the Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire concerning the banner - I guess that s why yoz invited me to comment. / But I am not sure!
It is just time-consuming and not a hobby I was able to invest time in. I was permanently banned from Wikipedia for being too closely involved in the articles I edited when my indefinite block appeal asking for the standard offer was denied.
attacks by other editors
Discontent on ideas is shifted out of view.
To be blunt, I found the campaign insulting to all genders of editors. Not only did I think it was ineffective, but I feel it had the potential to negatively impact Wikimedia projects. Lasting solutions to gender gap issues involve preventing barriers for female editors, and not making them feel like they have a specific place that they should or should not edit. In other words, it would have been better to look at why women might not edit any given topic, rather than listing topics that female editors might be interested in.
It was disallowed to constructively critisise any idea. The only thing which was allowed on the main pages, was support, and any logical complaints were consigned to the talk pages.
The fact that it was not possible to include opposition on the idea pages bothered me much. So, whilst my supports were clearly visible on the pages that I supported, my opposes were only visible on the talk pages.
The fact that this whole campaign existed.
That the best way of attracting people was with clickbait titles. The worse, the more people who that joined. The downvote/opposition "disabled" only fueled discussion. This increased viability which attracted more people, amplifying the issue. / / I tried looking for proposals in the convoluted interface. Made a few posts, only half got replies.
Endorsements were published on the main article page, while dissent was removed and placed on the talk page. This gives an illusion of entirely supporting comments. Also, endorsements on some ideas were blatantly sexist and full of logical fallacies. These unhelpful comments were allowed to stay while pointing out the errors were removed. Very frustrating and utterly disappointing.
The process was unfamiliar, very different from discussions that take place in the various wikis.
Lack of subsequent dialogue, possibly because the pages were not organised in the usual wiki way, and also because they were on meta and we still don't have global watchlists, so people make a comment but then go back to their home wikis and don't return to reply.
The project is multilingual and it is frustrating not to understand the proposals or answers in languages I don't understand (automatic translation is not always useful). I didn't understand what it would have implied to join an idea.
The questions and comments put forward by others are generally poorly thought through and show that the questioners are not qualified to ask questions about the project!
Comments on bad ideas had to go to the talk page where they were less visible than positive comments. And some ideas were just spectacularly bad and embarrassing.
Creeping political correctness.
I have not enough time to read all ideas. I wish I could see several ideas on a single page.
the mediaWiki discussion is a cumbersome tool for browsing so many ideas and discussions at once
too many ideas, very confusing, not a clear deeadline, an overall summary and a clear voting system like "image of the year" could help.
Can't comment on the *process*; I found several ideas to be stupid and the one I considered to be the stupidest, I commented negatively. The very processof commenting was just like any other discussions, AFAIK.
You bet, the project doesn't appear to have any focus. Many of the projects are heavily biased. The WMF doesn't appear to have any meaningful way to coordinate or organize these tasks. The whole process heavily favors people who have an obvious bias about something and want to use WMF money to pursue that POV.
Well, first of all, the obnoxious banner that stood up there for a month no matter how many times you closed it got annoying quick. That's the only reason I decided to comment. So, I clicked on the rather obvious link and took it to the talk page, where I noticed criticism of the project had already gained traction, so I chimed in. Despite the overwhelming majority of comments reflecting disapproval of affirmative action on Wikipedia, comments were forked and ignored. If we don't want to draw criticism to a page, then the link should point to the page on which we are allowed to comment. / / I've made it clear before, but I'll make it clear again: If Wikimedia wants more female editors, fine, I have no problem with that, in fact, I encourage it. But don't change Wikipedia as a result in the name of equality. If female contributors want to edit, great, if they don't, fine. Wikimedia has always operated under the philosophy that the background/identity of our contributors don't matter. That said, I see no problem with campaigning outside of Wikimedia, just don't bring that baggage and negativity to the editing sphere, and don't shed a negative light on Wikipedia to make it out to be some "boys' club". One reason I found this project particularly futile is that nearly the only people defending it on the talk page were people who favored making Wikipedia "less hostile", and that the "neutrality" and "tolerance" of Wikipedia was the real issue. Now, that's not necessarily disagreeable, but, all of those people were A-class, textbook examples of people who were butthurt by having their precious contributions deleted. People who don't understand Wikipedia's core policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. / / I sure hope this project exceeds only in its more positive aspects (extra-site campaigning), and fails to have any effect in its more negative aspects (affirmative action/changing Wikipedia fundamentally).

Creating a profile

return to top

Did you turn create a profile on the IdeaLab?

Answer	# responses
Yes	17
No	39
Total	56

Did you receive recommendations for ideas to check out on your profile talk page?

Answer	# responses
Yes	4
No	0
Total	4

Was there anything you particularly liked or disliked about the process of creating a profile?

“

I liked seeing pictures of other people, it is very comforting to know that behind the nicks there is a real person

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
I found it kinda confusing when my profile did not appear on the main IdeaLab Inspire page for some time
Who was placing theses recommendations?
Others ideas brighter or maybe weak scope
I created it awhile ago and don't remember
No
It was fine.
No.
I liked seeing pictures of other people, it is very comforting to know that behind the nicks there is a real person
When I needed to find a contact for a particular organization, I used the profiles of the people who had endorsed the project to find people who had worked with that organization. It ended up being easy to get in touch with the organization and I didn't need their help, but it could have been very helpful.

Overall experience and opinions

return to top

Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience as a participant in the Inspire campaign?

10

20

30

40

50

•   very dissatisfied
•   dissatisfied
•   neutral
•   satisfied
•   very satisfied

Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience as a participant in the Inspire campaign?
Answer	Response
Very Dissatisfied	12
Dissatisfied	14
Neutral	47
Satisfied	46
Very Satisfied	12
Total	131
Average	3.2

Future campaign topics

return to top

What other topics or issues would you like to see an IdeaLab campaign focus on in the future?

“

I would like to see some focus on attrition of editors, abusiveness in the community, administrative abuse and its effects on retention, the growing toxicity of the editing culture.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
Nothing specific at this stage
please be as specific as possibl / More non-American topics, fewer articles on every trivial detail of TV programs and such
Fix the templates!
Telling more about idea campaign more and spreading the idea
Relationships to traditional scholarship and open access.
Something to do with the uncomfortable truth that more pop culture articles do not make Wikipedia better. If we could somehow make sure that no TV shows has pages about individual episodes, that would be great. Shift the focus toward real education.
real community stuff, content maintainance, arbitration
intellectual property/copyright issues, human resource-type processes and infrastructure for open communities, small language communities, open education, better coverage of marginalized forms of knowledge, gender gap again!
More people from the global south.
I'd like to see more multimedia projects, which DON'T start with text entries.
Non-Wikipedia projects, GLAM, internationalization, improving connections between separate wikis.
I can not think of a subject.
Statistical collection.
I'm sure I posted on whatever this is, but I don't know what this is
Campaigns focused on students and school children.
1. Why America (North, Central and South) is disconnected itself in comparison with Europe or Asia whose exchange knowledge, resources, opportunities despite the idiom, culture, etc? / 2. Why America (Central and South) condemn the failure in comparison with North America where the mistakes are new ways to discover hidden paths? / 3. Why in the world the corruption rules the progress of the society and envy between social classes built up the gap greatest every time.
I made a logo specially for the theme in case it may be considered adequate
Technical contributions and development work.
Stopping the biting of new editors / Stopping the biting of new editors, a comprehensive easy guide of Wikipedia policy that can be read by new and old users alike, or new users to a wiki. Would not just say how to say, rename a section, but what to do first, e.g. that doing so doesn't violate BLP and that incoming redirects will be fixed.
the teamwork in writing articles, especially criterions for the qualitiy
language specific campaigns, creating knowledgebase for lesser known languages
Projects that appeal to gamers and social media addicts who could be converted into Wikipedia addicts
Not sure at the moment.
Frankly I don't know. My initial interest in the work of Wikimedia is through gendergap. I'm actually interested in learning what other issues are being investigated.
No
Ways to address and eradicate Talk page bullying, aggressive gate-keeping, and sending e-mails to personal addresses when they should be entered on the Talk pagees. It doesn't matter the gender of the bullies or of the victims. Also, it should not matter if the bullies have adminitrative friends that they can get to rally to their aide when reported; the the cases should be evaluated on the merits, not who one knows. The worst case I've seen was of a gang of aggressive gate-keepers (three males, I think) who ganged up on another male who had the nerve to suggest changes to an article. Several posters chastised the bullies until a batch of their administrative friends came along to ALSO pick on the bullied complainer. It was a shameful display of which WP should be thoroughly ashamed. I feel very badly for the guy who was bulldozed..
please be as specific as possible / Combating systematic bias with regards to low editing habbits of Global south Wikimedians
The need to fund editing research (aid those willing to do the research and put the work on Wikimedia Projects) instead of outreach to recruit new members
Education
To help the African Continent on shaping the image with community integrate
I would like to see campaign about educational program and GLAM. Also, I have to mention that CEE (Central East Europian) Wikipedians started mutual contest in creating and improving articles about their countries. Collaboration of this kind in other part of the world could be useful.
Increasing friendliness and kindness and reducing assholery on Wikipedia (phrased more nicely than that, of course).
Voter education
1) A campaign focused on converting readers to users. /
paintings, arts
Another women's issues campaign please? I am a female Wikipedian ;o)
I'm not sure of the scope, so I can't say..
abrasive nature of the community, bullying
continue on women in WP, NEW TOPIC: the problem of advocacy editing on WP
Many of the projects are intervention-based without a complete understanding of the problem. We need to better match our proposed programming with addressing the core of the problems we see on Wikipedia. We're still just skimming the surface.
Finding ideas for moving the community to a place where we generally don't tolerate users who treat others like shit.
meetups - encourage them locally, offer grants for people to do this
I have no suggestions for this question at this time.
Edit-warring and how to handle personal disagreements in editing, as well as conflicts of interest.
Improving Wikimedia project accuracy and lessening the systematic bias.
Improving the quality of the wikis instead of trying to create gender quotas.
Editor retention? Other identified content gaps and/or underrepresented groups of people, ie. minorities or specific regions of the world, languages, etc.
--A campaign to digitize source materials about Africa, and editathon projects on Africa content! This is the major gap in the encyclopedia, and it can only be filled in by making a systematic effort to digitize the available source materials, make them accessible, and organize volunteers to turn these materials into better article coverage. This could be combined with a campaign on African diaspora communities, who are under-represented. Might even be articles right now under WikiProject Manga than WikiProject Africa ... / --A campaign focused on improving community processes and policies, reorganizing the policies to make them simpler to use, and training administrators. / --A campaign focused on building community on and offline, with topics like: "What is a volunteer-- recruiting and recognizing participants." "Real life events-- creating a sustainable Wikipedia social network." "Responding to unkind remarks online-- what are our standard protocols?" A campaign focused on diversity training! "Things to remember when working with people who are not like you ..." "Dealing with people from other cultures, races, or religions ..." "Training for working towards maintaining a NPOV on politically controversial articles" "Being polite to women-- why it matters" etc. (Yes, you would think people would start figuring these things out around age 12-18, but it doesn't always happen ..." / --A campaign for "What training materials are needed ..."
Attracting disenfranchised users (read this all the time on Slashdot) /
Improving site aesthetics and design, changing the administration to be more user-friendly, and improving Wikipedia to be less difficult for new users to use via tutorials and new user programs.
Is there a way to facilitate communication with my project? Within Wikipedia, like a syndication on my talk page i guess which users can decided to do or not. notification when someone edits a talk page i've talked on? I also liked the idea about a quota system for administrators, a bit of affirmative action.
Paid editing, adminship reform, civility
What software enhancements we need as a community and how the community could prioritise them rather than the WMF
International issues about governance by the community, becoming a real-life community instead of only digital, supporting volunteers in unconventional ways, increasing the interaction between volunteers through other activities, and so many more!
Language management on commons. There are a lot of village pumps, since last year I follow the german, french and english one. They hardley ever discuss the same topics and after several years of participation I still do not know if there is any place where important points like category structures are discussed. Last month someone said that what he did was a community decision, but was unable to link the page of it. How could people speaking two or more languages could help to organise a better information between different languages?
I don't actually know.
Improving reuse of GLAMwiki content
Topics from an intercultural perspective / approach all diversities (not just cultural ones) / traditional knowledges / break the digital divide
Well, I would better dont run IdeaLabs. As I am a chapter member I know how many difficulties came, with this project, as WMF cut the possibility to requst grants for other topics. It was a shock. If youd like to run IL in the future, there should be the possibility to have to lines of grant proposals. As I am from Wikiversity and using a lot Wikimedia Commons, also sometimes participating on Wikipedia, I feel the still the biggiest problem in how MW is still very "techy". We have VisualEditor, but we dont use it in Talk pages. So I would love to see more people working on tools for editing and extensions for other projects like Wikiversity, where the software mediaWiki should be a little bit change for different purpose. / / On the other side, If I have a look on social site of wp, I have a dream that one day, edit wiki will be so normal as write e-mail. One is techy user mentioned above. Still contributing to our projects is like a course of Technical Writing - which is specific and not for everybody. Does Facebook, Twitter, Livemocha, StumbleUpon, Path, Patients like Me, - basicaly other social networks like Wikipedia push their participants to use kind of wiki text? No they never did, but wp is still doing it even in 2015. And from this long term orientation and contenten orienttion, come that just one forth of population, even less might be interested in contributing. So other ILs should be focusing in opening Wikipedia also for other motivation groups of people, such as sociable people.
a team - or a group -, which is going to help users with questions or at irritations, especially, if something like "mobbing" on WP..., espacially in germany(?) i see/perceive/apprehend networks of political right oriented persons or groups infiltrating the project.
Something that I can provide useful research towards
Ideas based on some real data. Not just politics
The above point is nonsensical to me, as my whole participation was one comment.
I would like to see some focus on attrition of editors, abusiveness in the community, administrive abuse and its effects on retention, the growing toxicity of the editing culture.
I did like the GenderGap focus and idea of focusing on one topic. Although, I would want to see more data on needs identified by the community to feel comfortable suggesting another topic.
culture change
Put a majority if not total focus on campaigning outside of Wikipedia to try to encourage women and other minorities to get involved (but don't expect a change of Wikipedia's philosophy/culture).
I have no idea.

Future campaign participation

return to top

Would you be interested in participating in a future IdeaLab campaign? Why or why not?

“

Yes - Very interested to help identify possible ways to improve and expand the Wikimedia community and movement.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
QRpedia and Odisha tourism. If this project will be approved by the state government of Odisha then the QRpedia project will be a long term project and will be the first in the world where entire tourism of a state/province will be under QRpedia. But am not getting any kind of local support as our community is small and scattered and there is no follow off work to my projects from any officials as these are government institutes and a minimum MoU is required to take forward these work. I personally wants to coordinate this project but For this I have to organise more Workshops to bring contributors to Wikipedia. /
If something useful comes out of this one, Yes
Probably.
yes , I would be interested to contribute and help innovation at wikipedia
Well, I wanna improve the community. So, why not? :)
No, not clear it is going anywhere
Of course I would be.When I have free time I mostly spend my time here or there
Yes. It seems like a good way to learn about and be involved in the community.
In principle, but time is always an issue.
depends on topic
Yes - I was inspired by WMF staff and volunteers, their commitment to the campaign, and their competence in handling issues (e.g. abuse from within the community). I also felt like it was more productive to create, refine, evaluate ideas from the same campaign and trying to address the same issue
I would comment and endorse, but I couldn't do anything with a legal aspect, as I'm underage.
Yes, diversification
Possibly. Time is, as always, of the essence. I like the idea, but lack the space in my schedule.
Perhaps. It depends on what subject is the center of the campaign.
Yes. To help turn ideas into real projects.
Yes, I would be interested in assisting or testing an idea because it would be a method to support Wiki in a non-leadership role.
Yes, because it's to improve some issue or question
Yes, because I think there is still a lot to do that is better done by grants than WMF teams.
Yeah, this one seemed cool
Maybe - depends on how naturally it flows from Wikipedia.
How the hell should I know
Yes, I just felt lost because seems too local maybe
depends on the campaign
Yes, as it gives new experiences.
Yes. Depends of the topic.
I would gladly comment as far as someone who's been in the advertising and marketing ares for more than thirty years
yes
Because I want to become used to the IdeaLab Campaign
Maybe, some people have more realistic proposals than my own.
Sure, if time allows
No, not sure what I could actually do
Yes I will, for it is necessary for Wikipedia to be enforced with ideas, which are more actuell and foreleading, than the traditional ones for encyclopedies.
This experience was so unsupported that I am reluctant to take part again.
Yes, I think the way idealab works is great. Funding for independent and alternative ideas is not something we see happening frequently anywhere in the world. Working with Idealab gives us such opportunities
Yes, it was something interesting to me.
Perhaps, if it were a topic of interest to me.
yes, especially for research aspects
Maybe
Maybe, but I wasn't fully aware or active in that discussion.
Yeah, sure. This was a great experience and, if I can contribute to other campaigns, I'd like to.
Yes, because I like the idea of helping to improve Wikimedia projects.
Maybe--women in Wikipedia is something very important to me.
I an not an administrator. I don't even know if I was allowed to post comments on the idea pages or not. The comments I wrote went through and were posted, though, at least on the evenings when I wrote them I don't know if they were removed later as being inelligible.
Yes.
Yes, because its an ideal way for all community members to participate in decision making and idea building.
Yes, this experience had developed my thoughts and ideas.
Yes because it offers the opportunity to learn more about wikimedia and its workable projects
Of cause yes
Yes. I would like to help people to make their idea into real project.
Maybe. A problem is that now that I have this interesting idea, I don't really know where to take it next since it's not a grant proposal. I was hoping that other people could be interested in taking up the idea, or maybe even that IdeaLab people might help me get connected to how to move the idea forward in the Wikipedia community. I would be hesitant to spend a lot of time on another idea where I figured the result would also be "well hmm, I wonder now what".
yes, although I doubt I could commit much time
Yes
yes, i would love to participate in future
Yes! It is a direct way for an individual to have a personal impact on Wikipedia, regarding something of a meta nature.
Yes. It gives us the chance to get involved in the future of the projects.
whats the point? no help, no feedback no ideas and no guidelines... it was a waste of my time
maybe, depends on the topic area
maybe, depends on teh topic
Yes because the process was fairly easy and I like the community-based approach to the grant submission process.
Sure, because I want to help people get funding to carry out their good ideas on the Wikimedia projects.
yes, starts conversation
I'm generally interested in new ways to help out Wikimedia projects, so I find it likely that something else might peek my interest. I might not have time, but I have no shortage of interest.
No, I felt like my input was completely useless, because the campaign only allowed positive support. I supported projects which I liked, but my voice was silenced everywhere else.
I suppose, so long as I supported it and was able to devote time to it.
No.
Yes - Very interested to help identify possible ways to improve and expand the Wikimedia community and movement.
Only if idea-creators will be more open to issues raised and suggestions put forward. Very frustrating to comment on fatal flaws in an idea and be ignored or steamrolled. :(
Sure. Very interesting to see what other community members would like to do in the way of projects.
Considering there's money involved, yes.
I would be willing to participate either to criticize the campaign and/or its Ideas, or to contribute my own.
Maybe.
Yes because in an area that I am more involved in I'd love to bring my own ideas to the table.
I think I'll generally stay away from such campaigns. It was a distressing reminder of how ridiculous some people's thinking about gender is. The attention given to the non-statistics about gender ratios among wikipedia editor has fueled a storm that I've just witnessed have the effect of outing a long-term editor as female and driving her away. She is a huge loss. People of all genders should feel safe to hide any gender affiliations that they might have from this sort of scrutiny, and should feel safe to hide any other private attributes from these loud calls for all editors to identify themselves as soon as they set up a signon.
It would depend on the campaign. There also seemed to be an attitude that this was a cabal that could override consensus on much larger communities elsewhere. If that turns out to be the case then I'm wary of having my username included in the cabal - even if I wasn't endorsing whatever contentious project that is imposed on the community as a result of this.
Yes, it is so much fun, how wouldn't I want? :)
Yes, if I have enough time at that moment.
It depends on what the project is. I'm interested in brain science and social justice. If anything comes up in those areas I could get involved, if I have time.
It depends on the topic.
No. IdeaLab appears to be principally concerned with damaging the process of collecting unbiased facts.
yes. to promote everybody can access to an extensive knowledge
Yes, why not. More people, more ideas and some of the ideas might be revolutionary.
Yes, because it is good to participate.
Barrier: Language
Yes, because I like being paid for my work.
yes, I have many ideas. But a group of local admin in my home wiki target me since I enrolled, so I don't even dare. It will end uo with nasty comments and so on.
I don't want to give my time to anything, the WMF has to do
Depends on topic.
why not :)
Maybe if in the future it appears useful and not just the WMF's way of burning through some extra cash.
I am very intrigued by the idea - and find it more "friendly" than similar processes in non-WMF land.
yes
Maybe. It depends on where the project heads and what type of thing it turns out to be.
Yes -- it's important to me to provide feedback on what happens with Wikimedia projects.

Suggestions for improvement

return to top

Do you have any other suggestions for improvements to the IdeaLab experience?

“

Criticisms of the campaign itself, even those which call for the termination or opposition of the campaign, should be considered.

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
No
Fix the templates and assign staff members to each popular campaign to keep bugging the idea participants.
More user-friendly explanation of what is going on. People don't have infinite time. I have a class to go to now
A more intuitive way to create ideas under the umbrella of a specific campaign.
The obvious sore spot that came up was that idea front pages can have "pros" but not "cons". Marginalizing the critics to the talk page may be appropriate for things that are canvased to Reddit. Women-only spaces being an example. But if the front pages can be more balanced that would be great. Maybe get WMF staff members to "impartially" summarize the points being made on the talk page so that every idea has pros and cons listed.
make clear in how far the lab idea could grow to something real
providing training (grant-writing workshops) and information sessions (IRC sessions); provide more time between promoting campaign and accepting grant proposals; promote outside of wiki and online communities
Tell people about profiles.
I like that there were folk who responded and asked questions. Dedicated community == great!
Better translations, less graphical frills.
no.
Better discoverability of projects. Make clear what role endorsements will play in selection.
Make the IdeaLab link a part of the left-hand menu rather than a transitory banner. When the banner first popped up, I wasn't ready to act (I wanted to add a comment to a Talk page first) - but then once I was, the banner had disappeared with nary a breadcrumb in sight.
Create surveys with enough background to know what you're commenting about
Inform if is a local thing (language or place), if people can help abroad
the process seemed somewhat disorganized, partly because of timing and partly because it's the first time it's being done. I expect that this will be one of the key findings during the internal debriefing, and that improvements can reasonably be expected in future campaigns
Visibility in other media (Twitter, Facebook) or local newspaper of TV News, maybe written.
not at the time
While the button to endorse was great, it might be better to have a way to differentiate between an endorsement (sort of yes/no?) and a full conversation. It seemed that some of the ideas in the wiki had actual discussions and arguments within the endorsement section, and it could be confusing when going over ideas.
Enforcing the dialogue in different ways (platforms, meetings) in regional and national groups.
Study how non-profit grants are usually made. Perhaps using the Wikimedia infrastructure is *not* the best way to achieve your goals for idea submission and enhancement.
I think for future assignments peer grading will be a good idea in parrallel to a committee review
Metrics would be nice. How many ideas were submitted? How many were apporved. Did the approved ideas contain milestones, and if so, were the milestones reached? Et ceterea.
Do not disrupt the normal flow of grants for other grants programs
Not sure at the moment.
One suggestion I'd make is to the forms that pop up for submitting ideas and for turning ideas into grant proposals. My suggestion is to have a hotlist of Wiki markups like [],**, and {} for posting the ideas. It was frustrating having to switch through pages to get the markup right for the propsal and then, after publishing it, have to clean it up even more.
Making it very easy to flag and remove spam/stupid suggestions; I noticed a lot of people who seemed to be mocking the whole process.
Maybe there should be a filter, or a down vote? I saw some suggestions for which would have been nice if they could have been removed
Make things clearer. How were ideas nurtured and mentored? How were they prepared for passing up the ladder? What ideas were deemed winners?
Letting the discussion of grants seen by all users.
no
i have been saying always about users to use their real names for respectfully of our wikis community consumer.
No
Please find some way to hide really terrible ideas more quickly.
the survey should include a memory refresher
No
YES, please please please fix the submission form or rewrite it in another language... it failed continuously from any browser after the first idea I submitted. I ended up adding a new one manually (and figuring out I had to set the parameter Needs_participants = YES to get it listed)
Try helping people who are new to the process and have a good idea and ask for help... dont just ignore them!
I think people are entitled to state their own opinions about a proposal, but not to attack others for holding their opinions.
no foreign language submissions and discussions
A "tips" page for submitters might be helpful. I'm not sure that this exists.
develop software, remove "grants" labeling for ideas which are not grants, because that discourages people from sharing ideas
Oversight of the comments to cut down on the nastiness, and to help people who aren't used to the process/format.
I have no suggestions for this question at this time.
Try to include all members of communities, instead of only specific groups (for example, all women, instead of just feminist women).
Make sure that both positives and negatives are allowed to be weighed. Community opinion should be noted by the Wikimedia Foundation as well rather than just what supporters have to say.
Stop.
Maybe more explicit calls to action? Ask people to add ideas they like to their watchlist so that they can see how discussions continue beyond their own comment.
When you meet someone and know nothing about them except a few lines of text, that isn't really enough to commit to accepting thousands of dollars of grant money for a joing project. An option for "are you willing to discuss your ideas by telephone with others?" could make it much easier to incorporate new people into a proposed project.
Design better software, think ideas more thoroughly through,
Criticisms of the campaign itself, even those which call for the termination or opposition of the campaign, should be considered.
Maybe.
Encourage submitters to engage with and reply to commentors, and to get consensus on their home wiki for changes before proposing them in an idealab, and deprecating things that would overturn consensus in the community.
Activate the visualEditor!
With the default pages that come with each new project add a todo list, with a sign up, so people can sign up for specific tasks and it's easier to see what hasn't been done yet.
No, sorry.
I'd be pleased if IdeaLab ceased to exist.
an easier way to read all ideas: a list? several ideas per a single page? several ideas per subthemes (required pre-filter?)? is it a good idea to translate the Ideas to several languages? is it a good idea to filter the ideas (avoiding duplicate ideas)?
Run IdeaLab locally on the big projects. Still Czech Community does not go much on Meta, but they would diploy more ideas on wp.
yes
kick out all the people, who think, they are Wikimedia, but they are only staff and live of our flesh and blood
Not at the moment.
Yeah but I don't really think they will matter. I brought some up in the talk pages. Not the least of which was the WMF's insistance in hiding all the Oppose votes and making it so only supporting comments were visible which obviously biased the end decision so that only people who supported would even bother to comment.
My only real complaint was the unfortunately hostile and disproportionate comments by male participants - who I found ill-informed on the subject. As a male, I found it awkward the "expertise" some claimed to have on topics they clearly knew nothing about once you contemplated their remarks.
some facilitation would be nice
I'm afraid not.

Additional comments

return to top

Do you have any other questions, comments, or concerns?

“

I probably wouldn't have bothered to write down or think deeply about this idea without the Inspire campaign prompting me to try to come up with something, so I do appreciate that the campaign exists...

”

Click 'Show' to view all responses
Not at this stage
None yet!
Keep on getting women to join.
superprotect must go
What are profiles?
no
Out of sight, out of mind. Currently too much of a black hole
Yeah - what is the Inspire campaign? I've comment on some Meta pages, but none seemed to have used this name.
How to interchange knowledge, experiences, ideas, etc between people from other countries?
It's taking me a while to be able to study the way to upload my logo but I know where and how to study about it in your very clear help pages
I'm concerned that well meaning efforts can easily backfire. I believe any singling out of non-male/non-masculine editors may backfire even when trying to encourage them, and that's before any backlash by borderline sexist editors comes in.
The critique of authors, readers and administrators is more often than not a determining 'No'.
Funding should be released solely on the basis of project idea and past records and keeping aside any bias such as number of edits in wikimedia projects or familiar names.
The gender gap thing is not a big deal. I did see some comments on the project page, but didn't share my views (I don't believe anyway).
I think this was a great experience. Thank you!
I would just love to see the bullying issue addressed.
Yes, I think that all the projects should be discussed in the future and not only the ones that had the InspireLab grants.
no
WMF to focus on Africa.
No
I probably wouldn't have bothered to write down or think deeply about this idea without the Inspire campaign prompting me to try to come up with something, so I do appreciate that the campaign exists. I definitely appreciate that as a random Inspire campaign idea contributor, I didn't directly have to deal with anyone making cruddy dismissive comments on my idea or talk page. I am definitely in favor of you all doing more experiments like this and to keep trying new ideas.
No
How do I get an Ideas Lab profile?
I care about this idea in particular because it is about listening to ideas of how to increase female participation and some of the ideas acknowledged the disagreeable or revolting behaviors of others and how that disproportionately alienates females. Stop behaving badly or else.
None, thanks
The very public nature of the process and the ability to be the subject of attack by other editors as a consequence makes me suspect many people would not make a comment in the first place.
No.
I'm pleased that you have shown leadership, and made a very strong statement that women will be supported in WMF initiatives! However, I am concerned that we still don't seem to be serious about improving the atmosphere for women on the site, and that there appears to be no political will at WMF to enforce against sexism or sexual harassment. It's like standing at the Bridge to Selma all over again when you recruit female editors here ...
Your survey's CSS uses background-color without setting a font color. You should customizing your machine so it isn't using same defaults as everyone else (in the office). #NoMonoculture
I have mixed feelings about wikipedia. I think in general it should be scaled down.
Like many I'm wary of being associated with a top down WMF initiative. I was one of the testers on the Visual Editor a couple of years ago who were first overruled when software was rolled out despite our saying it was too buggy for roll out and then blamed for not spotting the bugs prior to said rollout. So I'm well aware that even a project that one strongly supports can go very sour and of course as a volunteer we are there to take the blame when the WMF gets things wrong.
Buy some chocolate boxes and ship them to the volunteers that are participating in the comitee. A digital banner is nice but a chocolate box is an even nicer reward ;)
How much time will it take to analyse all proposals and additional ideas in the comments, and what will be the next step?
I appreciate that you started this project and the fact that it exists makes me feel like participating more, even though I'm pretty passionate about access to knowledge and accurate information. However, some of the stuff that was said on the discussion boards exemplifies why I don't edit that often and when I do I stick mostly to grammar corrections and translating technical language into common language. / / I've never actually been harassed here or on wikipedia, but when I see it happen to other women, it makes me very hesitant to say anything. It's not that I'm scared and I can't take it. I work in a male dominated environment, but this is my free time and it's not something I'd choose to deal with.
No. Thanks for the initiative. I'm just starting to participate in Wikimedia, so I'm learning just now how to participate, and exploring... thanks!
thank you for questioning! .-)
No
Provide option "don't know" or "no opinion" in the question woth scales. My "neutral" answers simply mean "I have no idea / can't possibly comment" and should be discarded, unless you want fake results
Please continue to try these types of campaigns.
Can't think of any.