Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Meta
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Meta-Wiki|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 3|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||45|
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||B||We should consider the issue that youngsters seek knowledge in other ways then their parents. However, it doesn't seem to be new.||supportive||new|
|2||1||A, B||No one said encyclopedias are supposed to be interesting.||neutral||interesting|
|3||1||A, B||We only write where we want to go, but not how we get there.||neutral||means|
|4||1||A||The encyclopedia project is not helpful in bringing communities together well. Rather multiple language sites cater to their own audiences of specific languages but may not help bring communities together positively.||concern||multilingual|
|5||1||A||How would abandoning the Western encyclopedia model and adopting a newer encyclopedia model help improve scientific/expert articles?||concern||experts|
|6||1||A||WMF should lessen its dependence on the encyclopedia project and expand its role and energy in other projects.||supportive||sister projects|
|7||1||A||If this encyclopedic model is not wanted anymore or it will be worsen instead of improved by the future strategic direction of the WMF, I will be immediately out of this "movement".||concern||model|
|8||1||A||The strategy team should look up failed proposals related to social media, however, as proven, such "social media"-related proposals have failed.||supportive||social media|
|9||1||B||It wouldn't be a good thing, to lower its quality standards just to desperately reach Michael and Annisa. As long as this seems an option for the WMF, I loose my motivation||concern||quality|
|10||1||A||Wikipedia is not enough. We must go further in out mission of sharing knowledge. Educational videos and games are a perfect example. An encyclopedia is just one of the many possible educational resources. We need to go beyond an encyclopedia.||supportive||beyond encyclopedia|
|11||1||A||I would like to see the WMF build a new educational project as meaningful as Wikipedia. But the famous label is Wikipedia, and it will be tempting to use this label or the shelter of the big project for aims "beyond the encyclopedia", which will have side-effects.||concern||famous label|
|12||1||B||We need video versions of Wikipedia articles which are published on Youtube as well as Commons.||supportive||video|
|13||1||A, B||Many people get bored reading encyclopedic articles, and prefer watching well made videos. Making good videos would require a completely different kind of editors.||supportive||resources|
|14||1||A||Video contributors should disseminate articles to select according to target audiences and they should provide directing links to Wikipedia articles for further reading. The video produced should encourage them to read Wikipedia articles.||supportive||video|
|15||1||A||For more complex topics, people drift away from video after a few minutes. Most literate people can read the same content in less time than it takes to watch a video. It's difficult to search or to re-access particular video content.||concern||video|
|16||1||A||The encyclopedic model is not the one solution for all kinds of information needs. But I enjoy encyclopedias and that is why I contribute. WMF should focus on what contributors enjoy.||concern||joy|
|17||1||A||If our goal is to share knowledge, we can't just do the task we like. The number 1 rule in marketing is to do what the customers want.||supportive||customers|
|18||1||B||Must integrity and quality of the projects be sacrificed to appeal to mobile-oriented groups, especially the younger generations?||concern||integrity|
|19||1||A||Wikiversity could be a good place to publish original research, especially unorthodox or controversial document content.||supportive||Wikiversity|
|20||1||A||Wikipedia's purpose is to have well written, trusted, information that is a summary of reliable sources. If we try to be all things to all people we will fail.||concern||purpose|
|21||1||A||It's not our mission to change the way the developing world educates. Local education systems could use our content in a reform of how they work, but ultimately we help those who formal education has failed.||neutral||education|
|22||1||A||We need to be more open about what our failures are rather than just keeping the projects going and adding new ones.||neutral||failures|
|23||1||A||Self-starting communities from countries that haven't had printed encyclopedias in local languages are weaker than communities which are familiar with encyclopedias.||neutral||language|
|24||1||B||Making articles more readable (and editable?) through messenger apps makes a whole lot of sense.||supportive||messenger apps|
|25||1||A||We do need to make our content more modular. We do need to move away from wikitext. We started moving some parts away from wikitext, but we need to go much further, and much faster, if we want our content to be more reusable in other media.||supportive||wikitext|
|26||1||A||Articles connected by interwiki should be more consistent. The situation where communities are independent leads to high level of inaccuracy or at least un-checkability of the content consistency.||neutral||consistency|
|27||1||A||Provide an interface (an app, a tool) which drills down to (sub)section level, and attempts to extract a summary of that subsection - with a heading, a one-sentence text, and (often) an image.||supportive||interface|
|28||1||A||While having a quality-focused project is nice, what about civility? Does quality outweigh civility, or is it the other way around?||neutral||civility|
|29||1||A||Without civility the quality will not be as good as it could.||neutral||civility|
|30||1||A||Much of human knowledge is found in indigenous populations which do not have writing as a means of communication.||neutral||oral sources|
|31||2||C||Use WMF funds to support local scholars in the countries with a lot of oral history in an effort to record and publish it.||supportive||grants|
|32||2||C||Make it easier for volunteers to record, transcribe, and upload video or audio "citations". Partner with academic institutions or with foundations that donate to academic institutions, and encourage them to have programs for curation and classification of such collections.||supportive||grants|
|33||2||C||Let readers and writers stage the quality of information: Information – weighted Information – sourced Information – reviewed Information.||neutral||assessment|
|34||2||C||There needs to be a discussion about sources in general, not only oral sources, shifting from reliability and reputation to plausibility and community-consensus. But with a system based on notability, this wouldn't be possible.||supportive||sources|
|35||2||C||If WMF want's to use oral sources, that must be in a new project, not in a Wikipedia.||supportive||separate project|
|36||2||C||To protect from fake content, we need to learn from the experience of (partner with) those who have been collecting oral history (academic institutions, archives). We should strive to preserve and prominently present the metadata of said content.||supportive||partners|
|37||2||C||This kind of interview should go to either Wikinews or Wikiversity. The latter should serve as a platform for peer review.||supportive||Wikiversity|
|38||2||C||It might be possible to create an entirely new project that allows such context, but having that debate on Wikipedia seems to miss the point.||supportive||point|
|39||2||C||The en.Wiktionary solution was to mark the languages for which little written documentation exists as "limited documentation languages", for which the rules are more lax.||supportive||policies|
|40||1||B||Building the video Version of Wikipedia was considered impossible because videos once uploaded cannot be edited. However, VideoWiki cracks this problem||supportive||video|
|41||1||B||WMF could run video servers and the video should be allowed to be replicated on Youtube.||supportive||video|
|42||1||?||Make Wikipedia articles the same and only translated to language versions, and thus, create an encyclopedia with same unbiased reliable language-independent content in all offered languages.||supportive||translation|
|43||2||C||It's not true that verifiability can only be satisfied if the source somehow is printed. We should focus on whether the source can be verified and then whether it can be trusted.||supportive||reliability|
|44||3||E||We could keep as far as possible from the discussion on what sources are reliable, and only publish information by others, without judging, but then we'd spread lies.||neutral||truth|
|45||3||E||The idea of bipartitioning sources into reliable and not reliable is inherently flawed. It dismisses what can be learned from "unreliable" sources, and creates vulnerability to all manner of flaws in "reliable" sources||neutral||flaw|
|46||3||E||Restrict Wikipedia to facts of the form "According to source X, Y" and let the reader decide whether or not they want to believe Y on the basis of X's authority.||supportive||reader|
|47||3||E||Interested parties might deploy sophisticated approaches to manipulate content, so that the 'misinformation' is not directly identifiable. Develop mechanisms to eliminate such interest led editing from within the community, e.g. by reducing the levels of anonymity of authors to identify/avoid conflicts of interest.||supportive||mechanism|
|48||3||E||Derive a method to capture the quality metrics in easy accessible scores, that everyone understands, interprets correctly and can influence based on one's own knowledge. Integrate the scores into MediaWiki, so content becomes “ratable”, and flag good information as such.||supportive||score|
|49||1||A||Stay relevant indicates that we should loosen notability (everything existing is notable).||supportive||notability|
|50||1||A||Establish some kind of fair use policy and guidelines concerning these on a worldwide scale.||supportive||global policies|
|51||1||B||Make the reuse as simple as possible (simplify the attribution of many authors).||supportive||attribution|
|52||1||A||As for the quality of sources, "the truth" is whatever the consensus is of the group who wields the biggest stick.||neutral||quality|
|53||4||F||Mobile apps of the office suites are decent for "quick editing" but not conveniently for extended creativity. Wikimedia projects may be convenient on mobile for quick editing, but not much for further creativity.||concern||convenience|
|54||4||F||Phones are very comfortable to record audio or video, so that's a new opportunity.||supportive||audio/video|
|55||4||F||Resolving the disadvantages of mobile electronics should be up to electronics/phone companies, and not the Foundation's or the projects' goal or intent. Focusing too much on mobile editions would be detrimental to our development.||concern||focus|
|56||4||F||The "mobile view" developers should focus not on editing aspects, but on readability, which would lead them into being concerned about the layouts of the "mobile view".||concern||readability|
|57||4||F||Personal assistants (AI) don't tell where (or how) did they get the answers, and that's unacceptable for us, since we must provide the source of the data, and the criteria that we used to compile the result||neutral||personal assistants|
|58||4||F||No clue how to reach to the "emerging" ("developing"?) areas, given that creating more wikis with smaller communities would be overproduction or burdensome.||concern||emerging areas|
|59||5||G||The predicted numbers of specific-language speakers miss the point that the speakers surf around different Wikipedias, and don't tell the whole story about the whole world. The numbers aren't well researched and/or analyzed and/or broken down into groups.||concern||percentage|
|60||5||H||How to build progress? Must we continue to tempt readers to become newbies, or force them to learn how projects work? Our projects started out with no rules, but now have rules and almost everything that readers would like to search for.||concern||progress|
|61||5||H||We can do much better to provide information to readers. Also, we need to provide information in other formats||supportive||readability|
|62||5||H||Recruit newbies from each social group all around the world. We must think how to integrate them into the editing community. The best way to encourage them to become editors is to teach them one by one (perhaps editathon format must be improved).||supportive||editathon|
|63||4||F||"The internet is mobile, and mobile is the internet" is a false statement supported by the industry (for-profit entities). The internet is multiplatform, and efforts should be made to keep it that way.||concern||platforms|
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.