Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Italian Wikipedia
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Italian Wikipedia|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||it:Discussioni Wikipedia:Strategia/Ciclo 3|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||19|
The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s). Here is an example.
|Line||Week #||Key insight||Summary Statement||Overall||Keyword|
|1||1||A||Example: Knowledge needs to be more relevant. We need much easier ways to add images and videos. Many people want more diverse content, and we need ways to make these easy to crowd-source. We need new projects devoted to this effort that work well.||supportive||example|
|2||1||A||Example: If we start doing things other than long-form, cited articles, we will dilute the integrity of the projects.||concern||example|
|3||example||example||example table only||neutral||example|
Taken together, all the summary sentences should provide an accurate summary of what was discussed with the specific community.
Fill in the table below, using these 2 keys.
- Key Insight
- The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
- Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
- Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
- The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
- Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
|Line||Week #||Key insight||Summary Statement||Overall||Keyword|
|1||1||A||We are less visual than publishing houses 50 years ago. We don't need less text but more images, and more usable ones. Since we use very small images in article we may need a new atlas-like image-focused project. We need to be able to easily create diagrams, timelines, mind maps, etc. (Bramfab)||supportive||visual|
|2||1||B||It would be useful to have some tools to have a direct (maybe voice) confrontation with other members of wikiprojects.(Threecharlie)||supportive||internal communication|
|3||1||B||Community should be more open to innovations. (More) Telegram groups should be created. (Ferdi2005)||supportive||social innovation|
|4||1||B||Wikipedia is not a social network. (Mauro Tozzi)||concern||not a social|
|5||1||B||Social networks are often a source of fake news: fast interactions are not always a good thing (Bramfab)||concern||fake news|
|6||1||B||We should write quality articles, not exchange likes: readers are not interested in them. (18.104.22.168)||concern||scope|
|7||1||B||We don't really know what is the future of knowledge sharing. (Bramfab)||concern||future of knowledge sharing|
|8||1||B||We need to use social networks like Facebook to explain people how Wikipedia works. (Lombres)||supportive||social|
|9||1||B||We need a chat service and a smarter way to discuss and comment. (Superchilum)||supportive||internal communication|
|10||1||B||We can find ways to allow users to rate articles in a way that is both fast/easy and still non arbitrary/gratuitous. E.g. We can oblige people to leave a comment together with the rating. (Superchilum)||supportive||rating|
|11||1||B||Rating could become a form of trolling. We could limit it by allowing only to autoconfirmed users to rate articles. (Threecharlie)||neutral||rating|
|12||1||B||We should not spend money on social networks when we could spend them to grant editors better access to sources (e.g. sharing sources between editors). They are not a priority. (22.214.171.124 bis)||concern||sources|
|13||1||B||Chats and other way of communications are ok but there need to be someone responding. (126.96.36.199)||concern||users|
|14||1||B||A rating system is only useful if someone is willing to improve articles that have low ratings. (188.8.131.52)||concern||rating|
|15||1||B||Social networks are not the only new model to share knowledge (e.g. Quora). Social networks may not last forever (e.g. Second Life). Social network are over-simplifying and trivializing. Right not the principal "contribution" of social networks are POV campaigns, and I don't believe this can change. Our problem is not the lack of contributors, but of good patrollers (e.g. who are able to identify non-obvious vandalism). (Bramfab)||concern||social networks|
|16||1||B||There should be a Facebook page for Italian Wikipedia to share content and information on how Wikipedia works. (Lombres)||supportive||social|
|17||1||B||Links used as sources should be automatically archived so they do not become dead. (Lombres, joined by others)||supportive||tech|
|18||1||B||I would like to have a Facebook-like chat showing which users are online (e.g. to find an admin during the night in case of urgency), also allowing to invite other users. (Kirk39, bis)||supportive||chat|
|19||1||B||Chats should be organized by wikiproject. Users (especially admin) should be able to hide themselves. (Lombres)||supportive||chat|
|20||2||C||Oral traditions are also living in rural Italy, not just in Africa, but can we use it as a source for articles? (Bram)||concern||oral sources|
|21||2||C||Wikinews could be useful to record oral interview but the project is not working because of the lack of volunteers. And memories are not necessarily precise, they need to be verified. (184.108.40.206)||concern||oral sources|
|22||2||C||Oral interviews if they're reliable sources they're are sources just like others. They can be archived on Commons, or on a different platform. (Ripepette)||neutral||oral sources|
|23||2||C||The idea that the encyclopedia is Western-biased is absurd. (Bramfab)||concern||western encyclopedia|
|24||2||C||Countries with low penetration of Wikipedia are lacking structures and conditions that are needed to bridge this gap. (220.127.116.11)||neutral||gap|
|25||2||C||Before they can be used on Wikipedia oral sources need be recorded/written down somewhere else so that they become verifiable. (Lombres)||neutral||oral sources|
|26||2||C||Wikipedians cannot substitute to anthropologists in fixating oral sources. (Bramfab)||oral sources||concern|
|27||2||C||It isn't really important is a source is written or oral. It is important if it is reliable or not. Even written sources can be unreliable. Wikipedia however cannot become a primary source or a collection of sources. (Ilario)||neutral||oral sources|
|28||2||D||Technologies allow faster spreading of of information, but they also make it easier to manipulate them. Also, since on the web we find only a little part of information, it is not always possible to verify what you find. (Ilario)||neuteal||technology|
|29||2||C||The problem with oral sources is verifiability. (Lombres)||concern||oral sources|
|30||2||C||Wikioedia must stay true to its pillars, specifically those about sources, but still Wikimedia can do something related to oral sources: we could build a project (similar to Wikisource and Commons) to archive primary sources in textual, audio, video or other format. In particular cases those could be also referred on Wikipedia. Another possibility would be to support GLAM doing this job. (Lucas)||supportive||oral sources|
|31||2||D||Many sources are still not easily available online or offline. (18.104.22.168)||neutral||availability of sources|
|32||3||E||We should develop tools to emphasize sources in order to fight fake news. (valepert)||supportive||fake news|
|33||3||E||We could fight censorship by developing Wikipedia.onion (valepert)||supportive||onion|
|34||2||C||We should pay attention that oral sources are truly genuine and not contaminated; see Dogon astronomical beliefs. (Bramfab)||concern||oral sources|
|35||3||E||Hoaxes were casual, often they were just games. Today disinformation is systematic, organized and has a purpose. We could blacklist disinformation websites, create an observatory or partner with observatories on disinformation to keep editors and patrollers updated. We could also focus on topics that should be expanded/improved to fight disinformation. (Bramfab)||supportive||disinformation|
|36||4||F||Voice-activated and voice-response systems will be integrated in browsers and OS but are not going to be developed directly by Wikimedia. AI could help has in categorizing photos on Commons and in finding PD photos on external websites. Machine translation and spell-check already exists and should be applied to Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia apps could provide users tailored content through machine learning, reinforcement learning and school content through CSP and scheduling.(Ruthven)||supportive||tech|
|37||4||H||People don't know how Wikipedia works. This is a problem because it can create distrust, thus reducing readers and writers. We should do more outreach through social media, internet, TV, press. We should also target young people by teaching Wikipedia at school. (Samuele2002)||supportive||awareness|
|38||4||H||Young people know Wikipedia only as the first result on Google were they're researching for school assignments. We can and must do more outreach, through press and TV, and also with meetings in schools and public places. Every meeting could start with a walk-through video. (Ferdi2005)||supportive||awareness|
|39||4||H||People do know how Wikipedia works, but they don't care. They just want to vandalize, impose their own POV or complain about the lack of articles they would like to see but are not notable. (22.214.171.124)||concern||awareness|
|40||4||H||We could improve awareness by showing tooltips about the functioning of Wikipedia, especially to mobile users. (valepert)||supportive||awareness|
|41||4||H||WMF should stop to make misinformation, especially with fundraising banners. Namely: wrong translations; the idea that "Wikipedia" and not WMF is receiving money; the idea that the best way to help Wikipedia is donating money, and not contributing with content; the idea that readers are producing a cost on us; categorizing readers as just readers, and not as users, as if as they are not expected to be also contributors; the idea that donations are needed as an emergency; using black banners as if wikipedia.org was draped in mourning and full page banners as it was not accessible. (Nemo bis)||concern||awareness|
|42||4||H||People sees Wikipedia as the Yellow Pages or the Who's Who and they think there must be an articles about them (this may also be enwiki's fault, since its notability criteria are broader). We should do a campaign to explain it's not like that. (Ruthven)||concern||awareness|
|43||4||H||The fact that students use Wikipedia without contributing is not a problem. (Ruthven)||concern||users|
|44||4||H||It should be made clear that Wikimedia Italia does not pay for the servers. (Ruthven)||concern||funding|
|45||4||G||Population growth does not mean that infrastructures will grow too. Since it is easier to build antenna than fiber internet will be mostly mobile. This means that we need to drastically improve mobile apps and mobile browser interface. (Ruthven)||concern||mobile|
|46||4||H||We should explain that money has intermediary and does not go directly to Wikipedia. (Bramfab)||concern||funding|
|47||4||H||We should say that the money goes to Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia. The brand in itself is not an objective. (Nemo bis)||concert||brand|
|48||4||H||We should explain how Wikimedia works. There is the risk that it becomes a refugee for professionals instead that a place for volunteers. (Bramfab)||concern||Wikimedia|
|49||4||H||People do not understand the use of sources: readers don't understand that they should trust information on Wikipedia only when they're sourced, and new editors don't understand they have to cite sources when they write. We should publicize our method on Wikipedia itself and on social media. (Lombres)||concern||awareness|
|50||4||H||People don't understand the encyclopedic style. They don't understand we are an encyclopedia and not a fansite or something else. Editors waste a lot of time in making corrections. (Lombres)||concern||awareness|
|51||4||H||Many editors are in fact experts, but they have problems with other editors. (Geoide)||concern||experts|
|52||3||E||There is no absolute neutrality. We can just try to be as neutral as possibile. Censorship can also be not neutral. I feel that disinformation/censorship can be dangerous for our privacy. (Geoide)||concern||neutrality|
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)
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.