Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/English Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Information[edit]

What group or community is this source coming from?

name of group English Wikipedia
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) w:en:Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) local wiki
# of participants in this discussion 71

Summary[edit]

Key Insight
  1. The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
  2. Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
  3. Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
  4. The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
  5. Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
  6. Mobile will continue to grow. Products will evolve and use new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. These will change how we create, present, and distribute knowledge.
  7. As the world population undergoes major shifts, the Wikimedia movement has an opportunity to help improve the knowledge available in more places and to more people.
  8. Readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created.
Overall (either)
  • supportive
  • concern
  • neutral
Line Week # Key insight Summary Statement Overall Keyword
1 1 A We could work with Kahn Academy, or with Osmosis. supportive partners
2 1 A A particular way of facing these real world problems may threaten Wikipedia. concern threats
3 1 A We shouldn't compromise the quality of what we have built and we should keep striving for more. concern quality
4 1 A How do we balance the needs of the different audiences we serve? supportive audiences
5 1 A Simple well-written overviews as leads should be encouraged. supportive overviews
6 1 A Wikibooks and Wikiversity can host instructional content, but they need development. supportive sister projects
7 1 A What is the Western encyclopedia model? Is there an Eastern or Southern encyclopedia model? neutral model
8 1 B Given the "expert insights", do we believe that teenagers are intended to be the primary users of Wikipedia? Perhaps we should develop a project that would be targeted to youth? neutral teenagers
9 1 A Wikipedia should broaden its range to make it more lively by increasing the role of videos & integrating with other wiki projects. supportive videos
10 1 B Wikipedia and Wikimedia could have their own social media accounts specifically aimed at the younger generation. supportive social media
11 1 A We could have a comment section where non-Wikipedians can discuss issues and make suggestions to improve the article, as is done on YouTube supportive comment
12 1 A Modularize articles into parts that can be more easily read. Improve peer review to recognize good article. Assign editors more suggested targets. Strengthen rewards or professional editing to bring article series into completion. Connect to real identities. supportive concrete
13 1 A Launch Quickpedia, a companion version of Wikipedia which would give a mobile-screen-full of condensed information with links to associated quick access information and to Wikipedia articles for deeper discussion. supportive Quickpedia
14 1 A We could have flow charts showing where the information comes from tracing that back not to the cited sources but all the way back to the ultimate origins. supportive verifiability
15 1 A Educate Wikipedians to insert some kind of microformatting that would make the information available on demand for some application or gadget. This idea points to a database-oriented solution and a tech-oriented team that would cooperate with specialists of various areas. supportive database
16 1 A Delete the sentence in the "what Wikipedia is not" policy that says "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter". supportive teach
17 1 B Wikipedia can't deliver information in a manner that is accessible, understandable, engaging for everyone at once. We can ensure that the information is accurate, and partner with other organisations who deliver it to various audiences. supportive delivery
18 1 B The Wikipedia website is difficult to navigate as a reader or seeker of information. More thought is needed about the organisation and display of information. supportive navigation
19 1 A, B The Wikimedia community needs to strengthen it's mobile strategy. supportive mobile
20 1 A, B More active use of social media for Wikimedia users and content creators to exchange information and share. supportive social media
21 2 C To meet this challenge, each Wikipedia community would need to agree on specific definitions for "non-traditional" sources that would be considered reliable and what kind of content those sources would be reliable for. The only other real world option would be to have some articles or sections be editable only by people with validated authority. concern reliability
22 2 C Having information published in books, magazines, and newspapers isn't a Western, white, rich, or educated norm. It's a reliable norm. concern reliability
23 1 B The fact that children want to read poorly-sourced information should not incentivize us to stoop to their level; handing them poorly-sourced lies because that's what they want. We need to stick to sources. concern sources
24 2 C It is impossible to have these three aims: (1) anyone can edit; (2) reputable reputation; (3) published reliable sources are not needed. concern impossibility
25 2 C For topics such as cultures with oral traditions where published sources are unavailable, the WMF might consider a separate project with different aims and procedures. supportive separate project
26 2 C Concentrate on finding ways to improve and broaden access to sources – at the moment, most of us are dependent on the internet and resources which have been digitized, and those are biased towards the Western world. supportive access
27 2 C This is explicitly out of scope. The cynic in me says the outcome of this consultation has already been predetermined and/or the comments here will be selectively quoted. concern outcome
28 2 C Why do we need to capture the sum of all knowledge when we will not even check whether that knowledge is true? We can choose to be "culturally inclusive", or we can choose to be "truthful and accurate". concern truth
29 2 C The production or documentation of original knowledge is the job of researchers, and we as a community are not well equipped to do that job for them. Lowering our standards of evidence to attempt it would only compromise our core purpose. concern purpose
30 2 C Perhaps you could look at making grants available to scholars who are compiling non-written and/or difficult to access knowledge. supportive grants
31 2 C In order to legitimize an "oral history", experts would need to interview people to come up with a societal view of their own history. Even then, you still wouldn't know whether that history was actually true. concern truth
32 2 C Unless we want to ruin Wikipedia, this is absolutely unacceptable to accommodate. One can, however, think about a dedicated sister project. neutral separate project
33 2 C Oral histories are rarely if ever accurate testimonies of events in the past, but rather change and adapt to suit the needs of the story teller and their environment. concern oral histories
34 2 C WMF could consider funding scholars in third world universities to collect oral data and publish it. supportive grants
35 1 B There will need to be more live helpers at the Reference desk, and the format will need to be streamlined more for phone viewing. supportive mobile
36 2 C There are high existing standards for archiving oral historical sources; it's possible to develop a separate project that follows these standards and makes more content available for wide distribution and for sourcing encyclopedic content. supportive standards
37 2 C Beyond the main namespace, there could be "essay-space" to provide wider coverage of topics. supportive namespace
38 3 E Invest in AI-led audiovisual content generation. supportive audiovisual
39 3 E The answer is the same as the answer to challenges 1 and 2. We can generate and maintain high quality based on reliable sources. neutral reliability
40 3 E It would be helpful to have a tool to compare page text to sources and warn if text keywords were not found in sources. supportive verify
41 3 E Among the techniques which have slanted perceptions, there has been use of exaggerated coverage of some topics. supportive proportion
42 3 E Any artificial intelligence agent which is allowed to edit, will need a combination of skepticism and supervision (human and/or automated). concern AI

Detailed notes (Optional)[edit]

If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.