Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Dutch Wikipedia
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Dutch Wikipedians and Wikimedians from the Dutch community|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||w:nl:Wikipedia:Strategie 2017/Cyclus 2 and attached theme pages|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki (nl.wikipedia)|
|# of participants||14|
- Theme key
- Healthy, inclusive communities
- The augmented age (Advancing with technology)
- A truly global movement
- The most respected source of knowledge
- Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem (Participating in the knowledge network)
- Questions key
- What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
- How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
- Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
- What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
- Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?
|Line||Theme (refer to key)||Question (refer to key)||Summary Statement||Keywords|
|1||B||4 + 5||A very important but often underestimated subject is comprehensibility. Wikipedia articles are often written by semi-experts that write in the language of experts. A lot of articles are difficult to understand and put into context. What can we do about it?
All this could be done together with universities and secondary schools that often face the same problem.
|2||B||4||For the English Wikipedia there is a nice solution for comprehensibility of articles: alternatively providing articles in Simple English. Laymen should be able to understand an article. Placing a red link is not a replacement for explaing the term within the article.||comprehensibility|
|3||B||4||There should be a way to integrate a Simple Wikipedia into the normal Wikipedia, that shouldn't be 2 completely seperate Wikimedia projects. When clicking on a blue link for explanation you just open another article that's difficult to understand. There should be more overview articles / tutorials.||comprehensibility|
|4||B||4||Articles about mathematics are too difficult to understand for non-mathematicians. They should be written so that non-mathematicians can understand them.||comprehensibility|
|5||B||4||As a non-mathematician you are not interested in a mathematical article anyway, so there's no need to improve the comprehensibility.||comprehensibility|
|6||B||4||For historical and political articles timelines and maps would help. Those are difficult to make, so it's more like a mid-term or long-term project.||comprehensibility|
|7||B||4||There should be more featured articles, but not all articles are suitable for a featured article status.||quality|
|8||B||4||Red links could be explained by linking them to Wiktionary.||comprehensibility|
|9||A||3||We should abandon using pseudonyms. Many of my bad experiences here have been with anonymous users. There might be users who cannot reveal their real name for a reason, but then they should not be able to hold a high positon here.||real name users|
|10||A||3 + 4||Strangely enough discussions about Wikipedia in closed groups of social networks like Facebook have a much less agressive atmosphere than discussions in Wikipedia. We should learn from that.||Discussion atmosphere|
|11||B||2||This theme could be one of the most important for the coming years. We could need a new interface with focus on simplicity.||interface|
|12||B||4||If we want to have more non-technical content we will have to have more tools that are easy to use for users. The Visual Editor is one step, but it has to be improved.||Visual Editor|
|13||B||3||We need less hobby projects from the technological WMF staff. Necessary features are developed, sometimes asked for by the community, sometimes unsolicited. But we need less failed projects like especially Wikipedia Zero, and Flow and Cross Wiki Uploads, just to name a few. These were not developed for the users but for the tech staff. It would be nice in the coming years to have a more communicative tech staff so that they can work better with the communities. Wikimedia Germany for example manages that quite well. We need to stop the hobby projects of the WMF technicians, because they are an unnecessary burden for the communities.||failed projects|
|14||B||3||These machine translations: kill them with fire.||no machine translations|
|15||C||3||A Wiki in all languages and dialects is not possible because of the reality of life of some tribes (lack of internet, electricity).||unrealistic|
|16||C||3||Oral history as a source does not improve the quality of Wikimedia projets.||Oral history|
|17||D||3 + 5||More original research should be allowed. It is frustrating for new users that they often get reverted, because they don't know how to supply sources. Experts could add lots of detail to an article, that works in Wikinews and Wikivoyage, but not so in Wikipedia. 2 to 3 users could confirm the original research of the editor. Like this it becomes reliable as well. This will show a lot more involvement with the subject which will increase the quality.||original research|
|18||D||3||Often enough even the scientific literatur is an original ressource although it calls itself a secondary source. The accusation 'original research' comes too quickly.||original research|
|19||D||3||The most desirable strategy is to significantly reduce amount of current policies that we have. And we should focus on more traditionally encylopedic subjects. In 2030 nobody will be interested in some flashs in the pan from the entertainment world that are forgotten a year after they were famous. We should focus on making the articles better that we have instead of always getting more, more and more articles.||Reduce policies and amount of articles|
|20||D||3||Really improving articles would be a full time job. But it should not be done by radically pruning, not with a 'blunt axe'.||Improving articles|
|21||A + D||3||The idea of inclusion by the WMF will be counterproductive. Not everyone is able to contribute on a level that is required. Some people clearly do not understand what an encyclopedia is about. Although we are expected to guide these users with patience and experience it's not worth the effort in many cases. If they are deaf to criticism it will take too much effort. Users who can't even write proper Dutch should not be encouraged but rather discouraged from participating. That everybody must be able to particpate? That's just a "pink dream".||exclusion|
|22||D||3||We should even have more patience for newcomers. That would increase the quality.||patience|
|23||D||1||There are governments (for example Turkey) that forbid the entire population of a country to use Wikipedia. What can we do about it? That's an important question. How can we convince governments that this is bad for their country?||government bans|
|24||C||5||Wikivoyage and/or Wikiversity should work together with www.part-up.com .||collaboration|
|25||D||3||Wikipedia is supposed to be only a first step to knowledge. The most relevant source of knowledge should be in specialized encyclopedias, written by professionals. That will not happen, but we should have only good summaries of specalist content.||summaries|
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.