Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Polish 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 Polish Wikipedia editors
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) w:pl:Wikipedia:Strategia Wikimedia 2017
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) local wiki
# of participants in this discussion (a rough count) 28

Summary[edit]

The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s).

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
  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 The problem is false as it is based on wrongly made studies focused only on several "third world" country experts; Nigerian and Indonesian experts and surveys has nothing in common with Polish Wikipedia; this was supported by 4 other users.[1] concern wrong research
2 1 A Traditional encyclopedic format is good enough for intelligent people, we are not going to change it just to make some lazy teenagers more happy. That was supported by 2 other users. [2] concern encyclopedic format
3 1 A That was idea of google Knol, so why is it failed and Wikipedia is the winner? Traditional encyclopedic format is still attractive to most of the people really looking for good quality knowledge.[3] concern Google Knol
4 1 A The perception level of readers is coming down; they are not able to focus for longer than 15 min; but should we lower our standards because of it? No.[4] concern readers perception level
5 1 A Wikipedia way of presenting knowledge is very old fashioned; we must increase its attractiveness by adding more multimedia well combined with the text like well made informative films and animations. This was supported by 2 users.[5] supportive multimedia enhancement
6 1 A The issue is poor general content in many academic topics which makes Wikipedia loose competition with professional academic education platforms and databases. This was supported by 2 users.[6][7] concern poor content
7 1 A We need external experts to produce good animations and other multimedia content; the volunteers capacity in this field is very limited. [8] supportive experts for multimedia content
8 1 A The Wikipedia policy not to link to commercial multimedia sources such as Spotify, makes Wikipedia poorer; how to lustrate articles about contemporary artist without linking to their works in commercial services?[9] neutral links to commercial multimedia
9 1 B Wikipedia is very popular thanks to high visibility in Google so the risk of readership decline is low even if more people are using social media; as long as it is high in google searches, readers and subsequently editors are still coming; we only need to be open for newbies to increase retention of them. [10] concern visibility and new editors
10 1 B The readership of Wikipedia is not given for ever, there are many examples of services which were very popular in the past but now they are forgotten; Google might start creating knowledge services (such as bot-created quasi encyclopedic articles based on their enormous databases) which can easily cover most of topics an push back Wikipedia visibility in their searches, especially in mobile apps. [11] supportive Google as our competitor
11 1 A Wikipedia is already used and treated as something different than typical encyclopedia; it is promotional (unfortunately) vehicle for many companies; it is also pretty fast news service, sometimes faster than traditional written newspapers; readers in fact enjoy these non-encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia but there is an issue of self-definition of scope and self-esteem of Wikipedia. [12] neutral Beyond encyclopedic format
12 1 B In order to make Wikipedia more readable and searchable, especially in mobiles we might consider cutting long articles into shorter ones + writing good entry paragraphs which might itself create "a concise, simplified version of WIkipedia"[13] supportive Conciseness of content
13 1 B There are topics which are hard to describe shortly and briefly, therefore it cannot be cut in smaller pieces or simplified without loosing their meaning just to make happy teenagers using Snapchat and communicators; the advantage of Wikipedia is that it contains such a topics and long, mainly textual content; [14] This was supported by 3 other users. concern Long topics
14 1 B Polish Wikipedia due to language is not going to be read in Africa or Indonesia, so we don't need to take Nigerian or Indonesian readers' problems into account. This is probably the problem for English Wikipedia mainly.[15] concern III world problems are not ours
15 1 B In answer to the above it was said that in any part of the world there are readers who need simple answers and readers who needs deeper knowledge; Wikipedia is good in providing deeper knowledge and does not need to support all educational needs of everyone.[16] neutral Deep knowledge more important
16 2 C No Original Research policy in Wikipedia is crucial for not changing it into a place of fights between supporters of various conspiracy theories.[17] concern Original Research
17 2 C "Sum of human knowledge" is a good general goal, but it cannot to be understood too directly, as we shouldn't put to Wikipedia everything. All spoken tradition is in fact a kind of OR, so it should be examined by experts and turn into reputable, referenced works to make it valid to cover in Wikipedia and it is not a work for Wikipedians but rather scientist. [18] concern Spoken tradition is OR
18 2 Out of scope? Artificial support for use to be editors communities in poor countries is waste of resources; we need rather to concentrate on regions where there are potential editors, which needs a certain level of development; but they are neglected by WMF. [19] concern waste of resources
19 2 C If some knowledge cannot be well sourced, then it should not be included in Wikipedia; we should rather focus on not well covered and not well sourced topics which are important and can be well sourced. This should rather been supported than trying to cover issues which cannot be well documented.[20] concern quality not the amount of content
20 2 C Wikisource can and should be used more extensively as it is place to put many things that cannot be placed in Wikipedia and then can be linked from Wikipedia articles. [21] neutral Wikisource
21 2 C In fact there is no big difference in audio/video recording of spoken knowledge and written transcription of it, and in fact one can argue that all written sources are the transcriptions of someone's toughs; the issue is if the author and/or place of publication is trustworthy; we can use audio/video recording as a sources with the disclaimer that it is opinion of the author, not the generally approved knowledge.[22] supportive recordings of spoken knowledge
22 2 C The issue with audio/video material is that there is very little of it available on-line and being somehow verifiable to the similar level as written; if they exists it is OK - we can use them as a sources, but at the moment there are much more written sources. [23] supportive audio/video material
23 2 C Audio/Video materials for non-scientific themes does not need to be trustworthy as much as for scientific themes. It is is enough they are published by trustworthy authors or on trustworthy platforms.[24] supportive audio/video material
24 2 C But still written sources are of primary importance, video/audio materials can be only an addition to this. [25] concern audio/video material
25 3 E Liberal and leftist sources are especially biased, so we should stop using them.[26] supportive liberal and leftist sources
26 3 E Above was counterpointed by saying that right wing sources, are equally or even higher biased, so we should stop using them as well. [27] supportive right wing sources
27 3 E This was again counterpointed by saying that we can use them but by clearly stating that they are biased and present only one side POV, and also showing the other POV based on the other sources. [28] neutral Biased sources and NPOV
28 3 E Religious sources (i.e. publications issued by religious organizations or financially supported by them) are especially biased and it was like that by centuries not only recently. [29] supportive Religious based bias
29 3 E Political correctness is an issue by itself as it dilutes the meaning of many, originally simple terms and makes harder to clearly express facts.[30] neutral (?) Political correctness
30 3 E We should focus on using as much as possible of high quality sources such as scientific papers, books published in established publishing houses and resign from creating articles about current issues, which can only be based on probably highly biased news sources.[31] supportive High quality sources only
31 3 E Above was counterpointed by statement that it is expected by readers that Wikipedia is updated and covers current issues. Traditional encyclopedias can be delayed even for 10 years, but we should be as current as possible but maybe only have temporary embargo for "hot controversial current issues". [32] neutral Up-to-date of Wikipedia content
32 3 E However, the access to high quality sources is economically limited as they are behind paywalls or not available on-line at all. [33] neutral economical limitations
33 3 E It was pointed out that WMF is helping Wikipedians to get access to paid, high quality sources and databases (:w:en:Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library) but for some reasons very few people are applying for this. [34] supportve The Wikipedia Library
34 3 E A user explained that for him taking advantage of "The Wikipedia Library" is problematic due to complex procedure and language barrier, however he thinks it is a move in good direction but it should be somehow made more multilingual and simpler to apply. [35] supportive The Wikipedia Library
35 3 E The discussion was about having similar page as "The Wikipedia Library" but locally; It was noted that Wikimedia Polska donate access to sources via its Wikigrant project but it is not fast enough for single and fast fact checking; It was suggested to organize "self help source" page in Polish Wikipedia, when Wikipedians can share access to sources between them for free. [36] supportive sharing access to sources
36 3 E Answering the topics raised in points 27-30 it was mentioned that some scientific, well established sources such as literature studies published by Routledge have also their own strong bias (in this particular case: towards left wing and political correctness POV) and it changes over time following the current "fashions"; but there is no reason not to use them as sources, we just have to be aware of this bias.[37] neutral scientific bias
37 3 E Answering the topic raised in point 31, 4 users discussed how to write good articles on current, controversial topics; the idea was to write articles about topics "around" the hot, current issues in "timeless" way, i.e. to put there as much as possible well sourced neutral content and do not tailor them to the curent events, but rather just stick to basic facts, which are not going to change. [38] supportive timeless way of editing
38 3 E However it was found that during the hot events it is hard to be neutral; therefore the idea was raised to predict what might be "hot" in the near future and prepare good articles about it in advance, before the audience's focus is triggered due to political or other events; the example was given: article about Polish Constitutional Tribunal [39] supportive predicting hot topics
39 3 E Finally, the idea of creation of the lists of such "potentially hot topics, which needs to be well written" and wiki-project around it was suggested, but it was also found that such a list might attract POV fighters.[40] neutral (?) lists of potentially hot topics
40 3 E The problem is not with access to offline sources, but with ability and willingness of people to read paper sources. Reading longer texts in general is less and less popular - among general public and Wikipedians as well, which results in using poor quality internet sources and Wikipedia is in fact just an aggregator of online sources. [41] neutral offline sources are not popular
41 3 E It was contrapointed by 2 users claiming that the issue is not ability but rather using online sources is simpler and faster; moreover many originally paper sources are available online for free but more difficult to search. [42] neutral ease of use of online sources
42 3 E It was contra-pointed again by user who said that many most valuable sources are behind paywalls and many of them are extremely expensive such as "Recent International Opera Discography", which might be very useful for articles about Opera but costs over 700 USD per volume. [43] neutral costs of access to sources
43 4 F Suggestion was made that in due future content in Wikipedia will change towards higher modularity with olnly led-section and then hyperlinked expandable sections in pop-up windows or clouds and much more multimedia should be added.[44] supportive (a bit) modularity of content
44 3 E A user pointed out the Polish project "Academica", which collects and provide free access to contemporary high quality sources - through on-line catalogue and off-line but digital access from computers in state owned libraries; suggestion made to organize some sort of collaboration with this network. [45] supportive Partnership with "Academica"
45 5 G The future is unpredictable, demographic and technological changes might be as predicted by reports or not, but they are too vague and too long to be a basis to built reliable strategy. [46] It was supported by other user [47] concern unpredictable future
46 5 H Increasing awareness and knowledge how Wikipedia works is very important, however it is equally important in all generations; 50+ generation might be more useful as editors than teenagers. [48] supportive 50+ generation
47 5 H Global awareness media campaign about how Wikipedia works for general audience is worth supporting, but it shouldn't be focused on only one generation. [49] supportive Global awareness campaign
48 5 H & G The reports and documents are about diagnosis and challenges, but they are too vague produce some real solutions. [50] concern No solutions only diagnosis.
49 5 G Polish Wikipedians can do very little for support for African or East Asian users, but we can focus on our own problems - fast aging society and aging Polish Wikipedia community, which might soon create a situation when generation 50+ is about to take control over the project, which might create even more conservative attitude. [51] concern Aging Polish community
50 5 G Wiki is in general "old school" attempt and it is hard to find our how effectively modernize it, so maybe the better idea is to focus on older generations, which might be easer to reach and engaged. [52] neutral Engaging older generations
51 5 G Support for small languages does not make sense by creating new language versions of existing projects (especially Wikipedia) - as wikis need of critical mass of users and content to be really useful, which needs at least of 10 milion of native speakers using internet, so the other approach is needed to reach these audiences.[53] concern small languages
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.

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.