Identify the impact of Wikimedia projects & content
Research how our content is used, measuring the coverage, quality, and verifiability of content, the public's trust, and their ability to access and understand our content. This will give us a better understanding of the different ways in which Wikimedia content can make an impact on improving people’s lives.
- Understand how our projects can be misused or abused by detecting threats with significant potential for harm (such as misinformation, disinformation or scams).
- Conduct and support research and analysis to identify topic areas that have a high impact on the world and on knowledge consumers.
- This requires developing tools to analyze content, creating a shared understanding of impact among Movement stakeholders, and developing relationships with specialized partners.
- Support this initiative as a priority. We collaborate with Wikipedia and other projects because we think our contributions will in some way have a impact in the world. And as some topics have more impact than others, having a list of most impacting topics can make the volunteers focus their contributing in those topics and not spend too much time in topics that has low impact. Danilo.mac talk 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia has already impacted most of the whole world. Due to Wikipedia, number of print encyclopedias have been declining for years. Not only that, some repressive governments have interfered people's activities on Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia has impacted governments, prompting them to suppress further impact on their citizens. Hopefully, the Movement can measure the impact that sister projects have made on people and their daily activities. Otherwise, I would find this initiative completely redundant. George Ho (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Improving the coverage of topics relating to the digital transformation of society and the economy in the context of the UN Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. --IBits (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Danilo.mac, George Ho, and IBits: I have taken the liberty to copy your comments into the discussion space for implementing this cluster, where I think they are sitll relevant to shape the immediate steps around the potential implementation of this recommendation. If interested, you're kindly invited to check out the results from the events and to continue the conversation there --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC).
List of high-impact topics
- Map topic areas in close collaboration with projects, partners and local communities to benefit from their expertise and ensure their autonomy and independence.
- Implement initiatives and prioritize resources to fill content gaps on topics which may have more impact, while respecting our long-standing principles of welcoming everyone who wishes to contribute to any topic within each project’s guidelines. This might involve community initiatives, outreach, stipends, grants and other funding, partnerships, and employing methodologies supported by technology, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Support this initiative as a priority. Some entertainment related topics have many volunteers editing, but they does not necessary make who read the article more intelligent. On the other hand, some scientific, academic and educational topics that do have potential to make the readers smarter persons have fewer volunteers contributing. That is a gap we need to pay attention if we really want to improve the abilities of our projects to impact the world. Danilo.mac talk 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I appreciate the attempt to close the gap. However, I found this initiative too redundant, isn't it? We already have high-impact topics, like w:iPhone (and w:iPad), w:Apple Inc., w:Google, w:smartphone, w:tablet computer, w:Arab Spring (unless it wasn't, despite related violent events), w:Iraq War, w:Cold War, w:World War II, etc. Those topics are highly influential among and highly focused by many editors. The category is "high-impact" topics is very broad IMHO. Furthermore, the "high-impact" category is too impossible to narrow down, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Another thing: this is an attempt to change content on the above topics that I brought up, isn't it? Any attempt to implement this initiative would invite more bias and more possible falsehoods than other attempts to invoke bias and falsehoods have. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Danilo.mac and George Ho: I have taken the liberty to copy your comments into the discussion space for implementing this cluster, where I think they are sitll relevant to shape the immediate steps around the potential implementation of this recommendation. If interested, you're kindly invited to check out the results from the events and to continue the conversation there --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC).
Content initiatives in underrepresented communities
Advocate for and build capacity around content creation and quality writing in areas where both editors and content are missing (or content is known to be biased), for example through regional and thematic hubs.