Jump to content

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2015/Community consultation/2015-03-03

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Warning! Please be aware that new comments posted on this page may not be seen or tracked by Wikimedia Foundation staff. If you have new comments or thoughts and would like to share those with staff, please open a new section on the main consultation page. Thank you.


Response by Jane023

Jane023's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I would say that because of mobile, more internet searches are being done on the run, when people are not sitting at their desk. There is a concept of "second screen effect" when page views of certain Wikipedia articles surge during TV broadcasts. This will only continue to occur, even as people start watching less and less TV, but are watching breaking news on their mobile devices. Accessing Wikipedia during a screencast could occur by opening more than one internet "tab" on a mobile device or by actually having two mobile devices accessing the same stories at the same time (phone + tablet, or maybe even 2 people waiting somewhere who start talking and sharing). In the shift towards a society that is online all of the time, I think that print media will become more expensive to make and deliver, making possible sources for Wikipedians scarce. Now the definition of encyclopedia-worthiness is already a bit haphazard and this will only become more difficult to define, especially as the concept of an "encyclopedia" becomes less and less well known by younger generations who have never seen one.

@Jane023:, thanks for the comment. One of my favorite cartoons is a librarian who asked a class of kids if they knew what an encyclopedia was, and one of the children raised his hands to say "Is that like Wikipedia?". I'm fascinated by the concept of the second-screen effect that you point out. I'm going to look around and see if we've got some more research into how Wikipedia plays into this environment. I think it's likely that we're going to see an increasing cost to "dead-tree" publication cost, you're quite right about that - luckily, our standards for references are likely to also adapt. That's the beauty of the wiki - the rules can adapt and change to meet the times.
I think your comments about social are fascinating. What can we do, in your opinion, to encourage that type of social "reading/editing" experience? I'm assuming you think that we should encourage that, in the first place. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure that we can do anything about this besides what we are already doing in terms of making it easier to edit from handheld devices. That is the bottleneck right now. The problem with editing from handhelds is not just with the difficulties of viewing on a small screen, it is also the problem of local file management. A typical workflow for me adding a painting to an article is 1) look for a suitable painting, figure out who actually owns it; 2) get the file off their website if possible (if not, another website) and save it locally; 3) trim whatever whitespace needs trimming and upload it from my local drive. This workflow doesn't work on most handhelds because you can't save the file locally and edit it before uploading to Commons. Jane023 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ah-hah. Interesting, thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jane023's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Thriving and healthy Wikimedia projects are where volunteer content curation hours are valued more highly than content production hours.

That's interesting. Why do you think that curation hours should be more highly valued than content production hours? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
A multitude of reasons based on personal observations of editor processes and workflows onwiki. Even though I believe I support the concept of enabling "the sum of all knowledge", most often I am just another page hit addict who likes to see how many have read what I have written. The current barnstar, thanks, FA-GA or whatever structures lead editors to take pleasure in the kudos of adding content more than curation. Lots of editors will blank an article and paste it into a new name rather than making a page move, because they want their username to be No.1 as the first editor. There is something wrong with the model when that behavior occurs regularly. There is also something wrong with the way old editors are shunted aside when formerly start or C-class articles are labelled stubs according to some "standard", only to be fixed up and brought from stub class to some other class with kudos. No one will thank anyone for setting up a list or maintaining a category structure or creating a WikiProject. In fact, one is more likely to be insulted in a collegial sort of way with some pedantic comments. It's a rare bird that can keep on plugging away in that kind of environment on a regular basis. Jane023 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have to admit that I'm a bit of a page-hit junkie as well. :-) We were just talking about that in the office (as a result of your comment here) and several of us were in agreement with you. I'd love to see this sort of feature emerge. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is funny to hear about other page-hit junkies! I don't think we are talking about a feature that can be realized technically - it's more of a culture change than anything else. We should not be rewarded for adding content so much as for creating structures that enable content to be added by others. To realize this change in values technically you would have to make it measurable, and that is just not as easy as collecting page hits. Jane023 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by SSZ

SSZ's's thoughts on question 1[edit]

one key concept for BOTH questions would be ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, NAMELY: HOW to extract knowledge from Wikipedia good articles to answer SPECIFIC QUESTIONS from public users.

1. I want to to know HOW to build a car engine. WP is expected to give me an answer!

2. I need to know if Martin Luther King, Jr. ever traveled to Europe. YES or No?

3. How many people live in Albania? The robot needs to extract this answer and give it to me orally instantly. No keyboard inputs!

Behind those simple examples IT programmers need to define what is information in WP, what is knowledge and what is expertise (through tags or algorithms)

SSZ 01:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (user:SSZ, not logged-in)Reply

Hi @SSZ:, great point. AI is a big question and in fact we are funding a small project specifically focused on this right now. However, "extracting" semantic knowledge is a bit of a bigger challenge. The first step is to actually structure it, which is what WikiData project is focused on. We are building a plan on how to evolve WikiData rapidly to provide the foundation for this type of search. What other AI-based user features do you envision? ...On another item, HOW (instructional) content is often not present Wikimedia and that is a separate issue that we may want to look into (at some point). And this is something that can be community driven as well! LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

HI Ms. Tretikov:)

I think you need to associate with M.I.T or the like for a project like that. My own expertise stops with artificial intelligence and artificial neural networks for the financial market/FOREX which i developed successfully. The rest, to be honest, is just ideas! I have also proposed, earlier in a WP forum, to have WP data (e.g. in economics) be updated automatically when associated with any given original source (in any format) in the "cloud" (e.g. GDP data and thousand others). My understanding is again limited by my own experience but suffice to say I designed a simple system that could be patented? Basically you need to identify each record in a digital file individually (thru tags/IDs may be) and call that mother record thru the internet for the update (each record field has an associate unique IP address). A central registry needs to be maintained to address each (automated) queries because that is how internet works (i.e. thru "packet switching"). I know automated updating for the internet exists already for Excel spreadsheet records for example.

I am sure you already know that but if you define where you want to go in terms of knowledge acquisition, it is simple to define automatically the path you need to take in terms of WP articles or (sub-articles/section) to get there. WP would need to define thru tags what is a per-requisite PATH for any given knowledge (i.e. Which WP articles are a prerequisite for any given knowledge). Probably someone has already this master model of all human knowledge figured out (in digital format) somewhere :) because they need that information since a long time to shift thru the gigantic amount of information they need to monitor every day (e.g. thru data mining). The rest can easily be automated!... you will need to cooperate with their scientists SOMEHOW...? ;)

Regrading the instructional part of WP, i agree with you and thought about it. The truth is WP and all other IT companies will have to re-define their mission statements somehow in coming years, simply because integration and efficiency will drive us all there. This will go at an exponential pace in my view. Do not look at past 5 years to predict the future (my guess only). Information is simply "consciousness/awareness" of something at its core. We cannot have artificial walls and say we are going to keep WP restricted to information and knowledge ONLY..

Dear Lila, I know a bit about your background in IT so I am not trying to compete with you or look smart because I know you know these things much better than I do, probably! Thanks. user:SSZ

One last thing I missed may be (among thousand others!) is that WP articles need to be re-structured may be (some of them). Knowledge has an inherent structure (think DNA), so i say we need to discover, understand, and apply that knowledge on to HOW WP article need to be structured (at present, each editor is free to structure his/her "own" articles the way they want). By editing repeatedly same country economy WP information over years, I came to the conclusion that there is a hidden structure to all of it!...:) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (User:SSZ)Reply
some more ideas only today...: The economy of Iran that I wrote from scratch entirely on the English wikipedia suggests that the entire human activity has an economic (or monetary) trace which can be quantified and encouraged/discouraged thru money alone to a large extend (like OPEN (e.g. subsidy) OR CLOSED (e.g. taxation) gates on a MOS chip which make computing possible at the electronic level).
The interesting part is to realize that it can be computerized at the informational level using this article and many other WP directly related article as a model by using a *relational database software* such as Oracle or SAP easily. Combined with existing company SAP models the entire economic activity can be unified at the informational level (and across the globe, since we are moving toward a one economic global system - see WEF meetings in Davos Switzerland where Iranian leadership is also present, if you had any doubt -- Note: I am just sharing my own independent observations but NOT advocating ANY economic/political system here.)
PROLOG or similar AI language can then be used to extract knowledge based on Section titles (please see my previous post on this subject) quite simply.
I have come to the conclusion that *INTENTION* greatly shapes the format knowledge is presented with. So, understanding intention of WP readers is as important as the information they are presented with because the former will directly affect the later in a AI driven software. My 2 cents as always :) 21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good evening, I think the BIGGEST challenge to the WP project is simply the degradation of WP articles over time because of lack of maintenance. Inevitably, all articles are going to need updating (not to talk about vandalism, erroneous or unsourced edits, etc.) It seems we have reached a critical mass: We need more good editors who are also EXPERTS in their fields. 05:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good day, experts want to own their work (maintain it and, speaking in simple terms, show it off), but Wikipedia does not let them to, because no-one is an owner of an article. Do you want the rules of Wikipedia to be changed in relation to expertise? If so, then how expertise is established by Wikipedians in other Wikipedians? I think the very idea behind Wikipedia was that it was going to work in a robot-collected fashion, where humans played the role of the robots, who are supposed to follow more or less simple procedures rather than care for meaning ("truth") of their work. Engaging humans like robots is more productive than engaging humans like humans; just compare Wikipedia and Citizendium by size, for example. - 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, "Robot work"? I don't think a team of 20 PhD & MBA Harvard & MIT graduates (Working for the CIA world Factbook or the IMF and with all their resources) have yet been ABLE to duplicate my work on Wikipedia! (false modesty aside) Using our brain as in editing is the most human work (the Bible says WORD came FIRST). The rest only FOLLOWED as a consequenceǃ
For the rest look at the edit history of this article and please tell me WHY expertise and open source Wikipedia collaboration CANNOT work hand in hand/harmoniously?
Why, they maybe can, but the question is how. I.e. what Wikimedia might do to make it more possible (for example, develop some guidelines or recommendations — which in this case?, or maybe do something else). Regards - 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Priviet?, Excellent pointǃ and you are the first person to ask me this question...and this is precisely WHY I told you above this is FAR from any "robot work" because by doing it for 10 years now I realize how many things/details I had to teach myselfǃ Not only in terms of technicalities but also in terms of relations with all other editors to make it work. Also I had to find a WAY to find all this information which did not exist in ANY book according to the US Library of Congress (ref. available upon requestː)̴̃. My original intention was to leave WP around 2012. However because I don't see ANY person able or willing to do this job so, i have to do mainly maintenance and expansion work myself. This is a SHAME for Iran (which has 70 million bright minds) for me to say that but this true and I say it for a good reason (namely, so somebody shows up (who is expert and can work with others) and takes this work from my handsǃ).
I am sorry because I realize id not give you a SPECIFIC response but it would take a book by itself for me to formulate that partǃ May be the WMF will ask me this information and I will write that bookǃ (in short be patent, know you "work for GOD not for other people (as per Bible)", learn by yourself, ask if you need help, be kind (try at least), teach yourself technicalities, learn something NEW everyday, be patient (2X), have vision and see the WORTH for others in your work, do it like a professional and passionately (i.e. do what you REALLY love to do), be detached from your topic so you can be neutral as much as possible, IMPROVE your work everyday & each day (like praying God), know your initial intentions so you don't fall astray, Obey God̈ even if it becomes unbearable (I am bad at that or its ̈beyond bear), put yourself in a position where "you CANNOT go back to your old self even if you wanted to" (<---a book by itself) etc...), be independent, don't put your "ego" in line when editing (& do many IP edits! --ideally 2/3 of your total edits on WP so you don't take things too personal.) Sorry for such pitiful answer but it is 10ːPM here in New Jersey and I have to go to my multi-engine online aviation learning now...
The main problem i see with Wikipedia (and it is not per say against the encyclopedia itself) is that it does NOT provide UNIVERSAL knowledge on important subjects like high finance and global news media control mechanism because these topics are CENSORED at the academic and educational level globally (i.e. problem with sourcing and verifiability/notoriety). I have the proof of it and it can change the worldǃ....
Kind regards,

Marcus Cyron[edit]

Response by Marcus Cyron

Marcus Cyron's thoughts on question 1[edit]

  • Stop hunting trends, only start doing good work! We are a free project, you don't have to sell us to the people outsite! We are not to sell - and definetly not by you in Frisco!

Marcus Cyron's thoughts on question 2[edit]

  • Restart the Wikimedia Foundation as an international Institution. Not centered in the USA, not only interested in english language Wikipedia. Everything has to be for the people who really doing the Wikimedia work. Again: these people are WE - not you in Frisco! You should be only service personal! The Media Wiki software should become really free. As long the WMF is sitting on it (why? Wikimedia projects don't depend to the software! The important thing is the content!), nothing good will ever happen. The WMF has shown in a lot of years, that the WMF is not be able to handle it. The WMF must be lead by the Community, not by 10 people, of them only 3 are Community elected. Never ever again a technical person should be in a leading position as now Miss Tretjakov. She and the by her leaded substructers has shown clearly, that the Communities are not of importance for her and them. But remember: without OUR work you will can not longer collect money on our back. And stop making the work of Google - Wikidata in this way is the dead of everything that's free and of our project. The knowledge graph cretaed of our data from Wikidata says everything. Why we should work for nothing for Google? And then we should talk about the Foundations attack on the net neutrality. Wikipedia Zero is NOT a good idea! It is a big step helping to create an unfree internet.
Or to say it easier: in the future we should do everything completely different than the Foundation actually does!
But at the end I know, the Foundation is not really interested in my opinion. This here is the yearly joke by the Foundation. The 5th or 6th time the Foundation ask us and then doing it in the way they want and not we want brings me to a point that I belive here nothing anymore. 10 years Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) has shown me, that the live could be so phantastic - if there would not be the Foundation, who hated us authors!
Stop making a kind of Facebook out of Wikipedia and the sister projects. We are here to work on educational things, not to doing thumbs up or sharing Lolcat images! And stop creating new rules for "Global south" (rassict word!) - scientific work is a must for Wikmedia projects. In englisch, french, spanish, german, arabian, farsi, chinese and bantu.
Dear Foundation: start really care about the author - not the reader and those, who maybe could give money to you - oh, sorry, "donate" for the project. We, the Authors, are still the main donators! Kiss our feet!
Dear Marcus -- thanks for trying to engage even though you believe it is futile :) We have deep respect of the Wikimedia editors (and we do believe you are our most important audience) and are especially focused on better understanding our communities this year. In fact we created a department focused on the our contributors and reorganized our executive team to have the head of the Communities Engagement department (who's job is to better hear and understand our contributors) at the top level in the WMF for the first time. We would like to hear more about programs or features you think would show "care about the author". While the Foundation obviously cannot accommodate all suggestions our plan is to triage them and integrate them into our plans going forward. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Suspect the take away message here is to invest more effort into supporting the smaller projects too. And make them bigger. (VisualEditor, Echo and some other stuff is centered around attempt to resolve big wiki issues, but many projects do not have such issues. And resolving them needs a different, more flexible, approach (more on this is included in my response).) Gryllida 10:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by 2A02:8109:9340:112C:C4AC:6054:BE26:2502

2A02:8109:9340:112C:C4AC:6054:BE26:2502's thoughts[edit]

I don't know what major trends there are going to be, but it's important for me to note some reservations regarding "mobile" and "the next billion users".

Reservation regarding "mobile"[edit]

It is only natural to want to adapt to new ways of access, all the more so when these new ways are becoming the major ones. But WMF must not let that set us back. As long as "adapting to mobile" means providing easier mobile interfaces for consuming, creating and improving content, one might debate whether it is worth the investment or not, but other than that there's little potential for harm. But if "adapting to mobile" comes at the expense of non-mobile, and if that happens when mobile interfaces - even if more frequent than non-mobile ones - are still inferior to them (in terms of ease of data exchange, such as the ability to enter or to read large amounts of text with speed and accuracy), that will be taking us backwards. It is important to consider not (only) the quantity, but (also) the quality: as long as accessing Wikimedia projects through non-mobile technology provides a qualitatively better interaction than through mobile, it will be a mistake to neglect such channels in favour of mobile access, even if and when the latter is more common. 2A02:8109:9340:112C:C4AC:6054:BE26:2502 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reservation regarding "the next billion users"[edit]

I believe Latin-Americans, Asians and Africans are people just like North-Americans and Europeans. I doubt that they have less "preconceived notion about any Wikimedia project" than any North-American or European who is new to Wikimedia projects or that they should have "new motivations for participating when they do". In fact, I find those statements offensive. At the very least, I expect whomever is making such statements to explain what they mean: what "preconceived notion" do North-Americans and Europeans have that Latin-Americans, Asians and Africans don't have, and what "new motivations" may Latin-Americans, Asians and Africans have when they participate? 2A02:8109:9340:112C:C4AC:6054:BE26:2502 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I find culture of editing different in the Russian Wikipedia than in the English Wikipedia. I won't talk now about which is better, but I certainly have this impression. Why is it? Because of different culture, different ideas of people. Everyone has preconceived ideas about everything, that's normal. Also, in different cultures people proceed with posing and answering questions in their thought and ointheir life in different ways, that's also normal. The question is what it might mean for Wikipedia. If I were to decide and act, I would attempt to do two things: 1) improve the basic explanations what Wikipedia is, make them more understandable to people who are not raised to the American culture (I also attempted already to write something slightly more concrete about that); 2) otherwise, let the matter grow wild and hope for the best. There may be no harm for the existing, already-made Wikipedias, like the English one or the German one. There either may or may not be a good, useful outcome for efforts in Wikipedias in languages like Tamil or Hindi or Zulu, but there is no real way to affect it: if the natives of these language are able to build a useful product, then fine for them, otherwise noone could help them. Wikipedia is an essentially wild project. - 21:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Public domain[edit]


Moved from lede section.

Wie bitte? Das ist nicht das, wozu ich im Bearbeitungsfenster zustimme (CC-BY-SA). Wer entscheidet da mal locker, die Lizenz zu verändern? Wer hat das autorisiert? Kann ich das dann auch, einfach mal schreiben: Jeder der mir antwortet, gibt damit unwiderruflich alle Urheberrechte an seinen Beitrag auf? Für meine "Forschung", oder weil ich daraus dann ein Buch bastele, dass ich proprietär verwerte/verkaufe? Was sind denn bitteschön "or other purposes"? Das fängt ja gut an mit der "user consultation"! Atlasowa

Translation: "I beg your pardon? That's not what I agree with in the editing window (CC-BY-SA). Who decides casually to change the license? Who authorized that? Can I do it as well, and simply write: Everyone who answers me, gives me irrevocably all copyrights to his post? For my "research" or because I tinker a book that I use/sell proprietary? What in gods name are those "or other purposes"? This is a great start with the "user consultation"!"
This is fairly common throughout the projects. see Template:PD notice, as used throughout the Help: namespace, especially at mediawiki (mw:Template:PD Help Page).
Re: "or other purposes", this refers to usages such as putting examples in annual/quarterly reports, or in the summary document after this has concluded, and outreach materials. It allows good ideas to be incorporated anywhere, eg. phabricator tasks, without the necessity of tracking down who edited what sentences.
Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Disclaimer: My following text contribution is solely released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. It is not released into the public domain.
@Quiddity (WMF): Sorry, but your answer doesn't really help me. Our projects are mainly based on the free license CC-BY-SA; its copyleft garantuees not only that free content will stay free but it also strengthens the license's visibility in the general public: Every re-usage of our content under the conditions of BY-SA is promotion for the idea of free knowledge. Like any other re-user, you can easily use our texts for any of your purposes by simply giving credit to "your" authors and naming the CC license.
I am not willing to answer your questions as long as you plan to use my ideas and statements as if it was public domain content. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
To not alter the licence agreement of the editing window is a simple matter of respect for the communities. I don't see how the foundation ever, ever learns to treat us with respect. If I would have read closely and noticed this alteration, I wouldn't have commented here at all. --Julius1990 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Can't you just check if the username in the section header added the text, and if so, credit that user? Really, I don't see why WMF doesn't want to give its community any credit for their ideas. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@PiRSquared17: There are a massive amount of comments coming in and the intent is to collect them and analyze them to see what is being said and what the foundation should do including a report (and quite possible more then one) out to the community on it. This research can include a lot of things from outside research to machine analysis to slicing and dicing the comments to try and find the themes interspersed among the whole 2 weeks and quite possibly analyzing it with comments from other sources such as staff, in person events and outside experts. Attempting to keep the license fulfilled through that process is a not insubstantial burden and I think it's entirely reasonable to do this under Public Domain. It isn't about not giving the community credit for their ideas it's about ensuring that the ideas can be used as easily as possible and can be analyzed in as many ways as possible and as broadly as possible in a way that allows us all to get the most use out of it. I'm sorry if you think that's out of line or disrespectful but... I just don't see it like that at all (I should point out that I was in no way part of the decision to do that). As an example regarding your comment (about checking to see if the text under the section header was added by a certain user/ip) we've had over 1000 edits so from over 400 users. Those first 2 days alone (really 1.25 days) is already difficult to parse manually and to go through the history figuring it out, that is likely to become much harder. Jalexander--WMF 02:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
My following contribution is solely released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. It is not released into the public domain.
@Jalexander-WMF: - It is WMF's decision to not want that contributors sign their edits on this page. Bots could have added eventually missing signatures. There'd be no need for anybody to search through the history for crediting. You still could run machine analysis and what not. Authors are not a burden; crediting them should not be considered as a "not insubstantial burden". If you do so, something is going really wrong. --Martina Nolte (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Let me summarize:
  • 1) As far as i can see from the PD templates, it is clearly NOT "fairly common throughout the projects". It's completely unheard of on Wikipedia. At meta, the PD template is used almost exclusively for "Wikimedia documents initiative" like WMDOC/Cheatsheet, a help flyer project which dates from 2005 and has been "dormant" for a long time. Only at mediawiki, the Template:PD Help Page is used, but used on help pages, that are written collaboratively, not on talk pages. Your use of PD here is new, and you're obviously setting a precedent.
  • 2) WMF can't be bothered to attribute the authors because "Attempting to keep the license fulfilled through that process is a not insubstantial burden". Wow, just wow. Who designed this talk page to show no signatures, to give every comment its own section etc., wasn't that WMF? You were free to make this easier or harder to attribute. You think that user contributions are "already difficult to parse manually and to go through the history figuring it out" - welcome to the wiki world, where Wikipedians are confronted with this problem every day! Why hasn't WMF build/productized any tool / feature for attribution or edit history visualisation in the last decade or so? Volunteers have actually built some amazing tools like WikiHistory by APPER, Schnark artikel-statistik, Xtools Articleinfo / Article blamer, Replay Edits by Jeph Paul etc. But the "technology org" WMF with the big budget can't be bothered and just slaps on a questionable, incoherent, inconspicuous PublicDomain-sentence? Wow. Maybe we should be happy because WMF finally noticed the problem? (Like when implementing the MediaViewer WMF suddenly discovered attribution and licence problems with media files...)
  • 3) '"We will read your contributions"[1] actually doesn't mean "read" but rather: "the intent is to collect them and analyze them to see what is being said (...) This research can include a lot of things from outside research to machine analysis to slicing and dicing the comments to try and find the themes interspersed". So we'll see yet another series of meaningless but colourful wordclouds, counting words. And some sentiment analysis by counting negative/positive words. Or a tally of languages used. This consultation is just text fodder, so WMF can pick out the "themes" they want to pick anyway "from other sources such as staff, in person events and outside experts", just so you can pretend WMF is "listening to the community".
  • 4) You didn't answer my question: "Kann ich das dann auch, einfach mal schreiben: Jeder der mir antwortet, gibt damit unwiderruflich alle Urheberrechte an seinen Beitrag auf?" (Can I do this as well, and simply write: Everyone who answers me, gives away irrevocably all copyrights to his post?) So, can i override the CC-BY-SA licence and replace it by PublicDomain / CC-0 (or CC-BY, or whatever licence i come up with) by just posting a short note on a wiki page? You obviously think that this is how it works here and "throughout the projects".
I'm dismayed by the attitude that WMF is demonstrating here. --Atlasowa (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Re 3) "read" I want to acknowledge that User:LilaTretikov_(WMF), User:Erik Moeller (WMF), User:GeoffBrigham (WMF), User:Mdennis (WMF) and others are engaging with commenters and i very much appreciate that. Really appreciated. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Disclaimer: My following text contribution is solely released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. It is not released into the public domain.
I agree that this decision by the WMF Board suggests that understanding the reasons why the Wikipedia is licensed on CC-BY-SA-3.0 by default and not on PD will have to be a criterion for judging candidates for the next Board elections. Jalexander wrote: "This research can include a lot of things from outside research to machine analysis to slicing and dicing the comments to try and find the themes interspersed among the whole 2 weeks and quite possibly analyzing it with comments from other sources such as staff, in person events and outside experts." I don't see how any of these processes are blocked by CC-BY-SA-3.0:
  • Outside researchers are allowed to cite their source material (in fact, a stronger word is usually used if they quote the source material verbatim, even if they slice and dice it and/or paraphrase it);
  • Machines can be made to automatically detect things such as author signatures (after all, a bot is a bot);
  • WMF staff should be aware of the importance of free licensing;
  • In-person event participants should be educated about free licensing (what's the point of them participating in a WMF event if they are not going to be introduced to the basic concepts?);
  • Outside experts can be warned that their comments will be free-licensed; or else their comments can be quoted within copyright-acceptable limits, e.g. Prof Bloggs stated "This idea is excellent and should definitely be implemented." could generally be included in a CC-BY-SA-3.0 document if the context is clear without requiring Bloggs to agree on a licence for her statement (BLP would be a separate issue; journalistic ethics would be another issue too).
Jalexander: please familiarise yourself with what Wikipedia and the other WMF projects are all about. Thanks. Boud (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Disclaimer: My following text on this comment page is solely released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. It is not released into the public domain.
I created a template: Template:Cc-by-sa-comment for use especially on these pages. This should make it easier for us to edit them. Boud (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Quite peculiar a decision indeed. Particularly hard to understand why CC-0 was not used, and instead the WMF chose to invent its own waiver text. --Nemo 22:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Idéfixetcompagnie

Mes réflexions pour la question 1[edit]

Les gens veulent atteindre une information le plus vite possible. Plus les années passent, plus les gens sont "impatients", en quelque sorte. En plein milieu d'une discussion, il arrive que l'on veuille ouvrir Wikipédia pour trouver une information sur un sujet que l'on traite, mais on ne veut pas non plus suspendre cette discussion pour allumer son ordinateur, ou se débattre avec son portable. Quand on voit l'application, qui est déjà très rapide à allumer, on se demande comment peut-on faire encore plus rapidement...

People want to receive information in the quickest way possible. As the years go, people are becoming more "impatient" in some sense. Right in the middle of some discussion, someone happens to wish to open Wikipedia to find out some fact on the topic of the conversation, but he does not want to wait while his computer boots or to fight with his mobile phone. When they see an application that is quick to start, they wonder whether it is possible to make it start even quicker…

Mes réflexions pour la question 2[edit]

Je pense qu'il est dommage que les différents projets Wiki- ne soient pas mieux liés entre eux. Si je cherche des choses sur la gastronomie française, par exemple, je ne regarderai sûrement que la page Wikipédia. Refaire la recherche 4 fois sur Wikinews, Wikivoyage, Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks prend beaucoup de temps. Et j'aurai peut-être raté du contenu intéressant... Avoir une recherche unique avec une page unique sur laquelle l'ensemble des 10 sites Wiki- apparaîtrai serai une révolution à elle seule (à mon avis). Ensuite, avoir des partenariats avec d'autres bases de savoirs participatifs serait génial ! Être mieux inséré dans la toile. Avec des recettes (base de savoirs participatifs en France : Marmiton.org), des astuces (Wikihow.com)... Enfin, faire entrer les jeunes dans cette dimension en donnant à Wikimédia une image plus moderne. Créer un Wikipédia plus simple à lire, plus accessible aux enfants. Peut-être même publier sur des réseaux sociaux des articles très intéressant et d'actualité.

(Machine translation, please improve it) "I think it is a pity that the various projects are not wiki- better linked. If I look for things on French cuisine, for example, I certainly will look at the Wikipedia page. Redo search 4 times Wikinews, Wikivoyage, Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks is time. And I may have missed interesting content ... Having a single search with a single page that all 10 sites will appear wiki- be a revolution in itself (in my opinion).
Then have partnerships with other databases participatory knowledge would be great! Be better inserted into the canvas. With revenues (basic participatory knowledge in France: Marmiton.org), tips (Wikihow.com) ...
Finally, bring young people in this dimension Wikimedia giving a more modern image. Create a simpler Wikipedia to read more accessible to children. Maybe even publish on the social networks of very interesting articles and news."
Merci ... une idée superbe. Je vais répondre en anglais, et peut-être vous pouvez traduire a la Google. Mais si vous voulez une réponse en français, n'hésitez pas a me contacter. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Idéfixetcompagnie - In my opinion: your point is exactly right. We are doing a lot of thinking about ways we can innovate, and one idea is "search". "What do we mean by 'search'" is an important question. I think your proposal that we improve our capacity to search Wikipedia and its sister contents and deliver the results in an intelligent way for the reader makes lots of sense ... especially, as you say, with projects that intersect. If I search a Wikipedia article on Lyons, France, it would be great to see a connection to Wikivoyage on the city. Also we could build on that and start bringing in search results from other sites that share our values - other sites with freely licensed content, for example. Anyhow, though we will need to consider variables like cost, available technology resources, competing priorities, your idea is well developed, and I can assure you that we will discuss and seriously consider it as part of the strategy process. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I believe strongly that the internet will be accessed largely by wearable devices (and increasingly-miniaturized embedded devices) for the current, and next billion, users. I believe extremely agile content responsiveness is essential in order to 'right-size' the response from an internet request. Specifically, my suggestion is that all content pages could be CSS-filtered (or some other technology) so that portions of the content is distributed to wearables, while more content is available to phones, yet more is available to tablets, and complete content is available via desktops.

This is notionally similar to responsive design wherein visual content is filtered and re-sampled to meet screen/display and bandwidth constraints...an iOS device sees more pixels and fewer colors than a laptop screen with lower resolution but full gamut, for example. In my major trend above, I propose that every 'thought' or 'atom' in each wiki content be characterized by which group of consuming devices will retrieve the 'atom.' In this way, a page can be rendered specifically for each consuming device.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

Healthy Wikimedia projects, first and foremost, must be financially supported; not necessarily self-supported nor community supported, but not UNSUPPORTED. If this means ranking proposed projects and crowdfunding the projects based on reaching funding thresholds, then so-be-it. If it means selling advertising on a per-project basis, that is likewise acceptable. The key here is that non-financially supported projects simply should not be prioritized nor attempted. Also, funding (if it be per-project accepted) should not be re-allocated to cross project boundaries.

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm interested to hear more about why you feel this way. For many years most Wikimedian projects have been quite healthy with minimal or no financial support. Instead, many other forms of support - mostly personal communication among friends/community members - has been the primary form of support. Obviously this is changing, since we now give out millions of dollars a year in grants, but we also do many forms of non-financial support, like the communities of learning around project evaluation. Is there a reason why you think financial support is so key? For example, are there specific projects or needs you think all communities have in common? If so, I'd love to hear more. (I can think of a few but I'd love to hear yours first.) Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Yukon1990

its great but needs color

If you check out the Android mobile app (coming soon to iPhone), we've been experimenting with making images a bigger part of the experience. It's not quite the same as color, but it definitely makes the articles more beautiful to engage with. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yukon1990's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I think the major trends will be wiki compatable with smart watches and other devices. If people can access it, it will keep going and be a success.

That's an interesting idea. Wikipedia is probably already compatible in some ways -- we have tools (APIs) that software developers can use to interact with Wikipedia content. This means that anyone could build an app for a smartwatch. If smartwatches really catch on, the Wikimedia Foundation will probably end up building apps for Wikipedia to improve the experience of how people can use them. But you're right - we should always be looking at what's next in the ways that people are accessing information. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Rasmus.mattus

Rasmus.mattus's thoughts on question 1[edit]

digital glasses. so it gets easier to feel that you`re in it.

Like Google Glass or something more like the new virtual reality glasses? If digital glasses become popular, I expect Wikipedia will evolve to reflect that. For example, we have tools (APIs) that software developers can use to interact with Wikipedia content. This means that anyone could build an app for a digital glasses. We should always be looking at what's next in the ways that people are accessing information. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rasmus.mattus's thoughts on question 2[edit]

its more then just flat screen this are a new way to look in things, you can see whole picture like it were around you. its like it was real

Myamoto Musashi[edit]

Response by Myamoto Musashi

Myamoto Musashi's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Wikipedia is becoming a greater resource for Homeschoolers. They have suggested some tools that would help them to learn more efficiently. These may be even more important for those who do not have access to much outside assistance. Some of these tools may not be possible given the nature of the website, but they may eventually be incorporated.

  • Automatic Reader: a tool that will read the page for you. This would especially help auditory learners.
  • Vocabulary Tool: a tool for memorizing words and listing un-recognized words for familiarization. It can directly be connected to Wiktionary with a "Look up using Wiktionary" option for highlighted words.
  • Personal Study Agenda: a tool for recording specific study information such as completed articles, notes, and future study topics. It could be run through an other website if needed.
  • Translation Tool: a tool related to Google Translate that is directly connected to Wikimedia for quick access.

Someone also mentioned 3D tools. I agree, and I think that would help visual learners as well as give wider perspective. With technology advancing, it may not be long before most 3D tools will be compatible with mobile devices. An other thing for mobile device use is to have the option the read a shorter version/summery of an article so information can be gained more quickly. There should also be more connections to resources for further study.

Myamoto Musashi's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Many homeschoolers rely on the facts they get on Wikipedia, so it is important that they can distinguish witch facts are accurate. I think the mere presence of uncorrected information is not bad so long as it is separated from the main body of information. We want to grant the freedom of speech, but not give false information to the un-suspecting. There may be a place on or near the page for public discussion, opinions, and questions. This may be a good place for suggested additions or revisions by visitors/non-writers who are handing it off to someone who knows what they are doing. Qualified writers can volunteer time to ensure that all information is agreed upon. You may give special license to particular volunteers to make larger decisions about content.

I think that what is foremost necessary are more visible disclaimers and more accessible informations on how to use the project with least harm and most productivity. The mechanics of Wikipedia are such that it cannot be reliable, that's where it takes its strength. But people ought to be not un-suspecting, that is a job both of school teachers and of Wikipedia itself. - 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Sinuhe20

Sinuhe20's thoughts on question 1 and 2[edit]

I think Wikimedia is influential enough to define trends, so you have not to hunt them. The biggest deficit I see is that Wikimedia is too much centralized, so you should support more the diversity of the Wikimedia projects in the different countries (especially in Asia and Africa), but also try to bring them better together. A special problem that is connected with that: on Commons only media files can be uploaded that are in the public domain of the United States because the servers are hosted there. So users from every country have to take into account the US copyright law, which prevents uploading some files beeing in public domain in their own country. So in reality Commons is a US media server. Give the other countries and communities more freedom to spread their free knowledge and to decide how they want to spread free knowledge. Give them more chances to realize their own ideas and to achieve their special aims.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sinhe20 - you raise a great point, and, as you probably know, we have done quite a lot of thinking about this and related issues. Here is a related background piece, illustrating one nuance of the issue that you identify. We definitely need to keep thinking about this challenge as we think about strategy, especially in the context of freeing content. It is not challenge-free with simple solutions, however. For example, there are other types of laws in other countries - including sometimes restrictive content laws where otherwise public domain periods are shorter for other works. That said, as part of the strategic planning process, I'm always open to considering new ideas in this area that are consistent with our mission and with other considerations in serving up a user-generated content site. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by 不可定向


(Machine translation, please improve) "Besides this first translated into Chinese"
Hello. Please accept my apologies if I misunderstand, but I think you're requesting that we have this page translated into Chinese. Translations are largely done by a team of dedicated volunteers, and we have requested that they translate this page. As with most things, though, we're limited to what they choose to translate. My hope is that they will fill in the translations for Han Chinese soon! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by SchreiberBike

SchreiberBike's thoughts on question 1[edit]

  • The maturing of Wikipedia and the need for new decision making processes
    • I'd consider temporary dictatorships to break log jams. Vote for a person or small team to make final decisions and write clean concise guidelines. I see this need especially on Help and Manual of Style pages. It's also necessary for overall "look and feel" and Mainpage. These people might even receive stipends.
    • Paid support staff (professional technical writers and coders) should help do the work.
    • I've seen attempts outside of Wikipedia to redesign the look and feel. Such things could be formalized and rewarded and similar things could be tried for other needs.
  • I worry that some language editions of Wikipedia have been co-opted by political groups. Wikipedia should consider pulling the plug on editions which no longer follow the Wikipedia movement's goals.
@SchreiberBike: Hi there. Out of curiosity, where do you have this concern about co-opting of projects by political groups? I'm not sure I really see "pulling the plug" as a viable option, but if a language/community does get dominated by a single political faction, I do think we need to think about ways to work together to resolve that -- ideally with the input of the Wikimedia community at large. I remember one example where this kind of thing was resolved in a collegial, open fashion -- when the Urdu Wikipedia ran a sitenotice which had a verse from the Quran, the banner was removed after a cross-wiki conversation.
@Erik Moeller (WMF): Kazakh Wikipedia is the one which I've read about, and I've heard of similar problems in the Russian and Chinese editions. I worry that there are others which have not risen to the level of media coverage.
In the Russian section, what exactly group do you mean? There are two major groups, pro-state and anti-state, that clash. So I just don't know which group you mean. Given that you seem to speak native English, you probably mean the first one, but still… - 08:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the design/style type of issues, I agree that we need to find ways to make changes more quickly and break through accrued complexity and log jams. Communities have demonstrated a willingness to delegate in certain areas (e.g., featured article selection in some projects), and if we can work together with empowered volunteer groups to improve parts of the site experience, that could be an interesting model. Jared, our Director of UX, and Luis, who is responsible for community engagement, may have some thoughts how to make this work ... --Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, "empowered volunteer group" sounds much better than "dictator". New decision making methods are needed or our fear of change will leave us stuck in the past. Also, collaboration does not create good writing, especially when the target audience is new editors. The model in my head is from US history when the Continental Congress talked a lot, then Thomas Jefferson was given the job of writing the Declaration of Independence. That sets pretty high standards, but it's a model we might follow. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

SchreiberBike's thoughts on question 2[edit]

  • The next billion users are going to be different from the existing users. We need to know about those people and what their needs are. Focus groups of those people should take place (in those countries, cities or villages). There should also be input from leaders and aid workers in those countries. Innovation is most likely to come from for-profit enterprises serving those markets; watch them and partner with them for research purposes.
This is a good idea and something we're been thinking about. There's a lot of great research out there on things like "ICT4D" (information and communications technology for development) that explores how people in developing countries are using technology to solve their own problems and meet their own needs. We don't have this information in-house, but that sounds like a good opportunity to partner or work with organizations that have great experience here -- for example, IDEO's Human Centered Design practice, or the Dalberg Impact Group?
  • Serious change in the standards of civility meaning lower tolerance for rudeness etc. I see no way of accomplishing that though.
Would this mean banning or blocking users? What would you think about extending the Friendly Space Policy that already exists for in-person Wikimedia gatherings?
@Katherine (WMF): Yes to make an impact at the beginning there probably would be a round of banning and blocking. The Friendly Space Policy seems focused on preventing bad behaviour related to a person's membership in something like a protected class. The incivility I see most commonly is among people who disagree on substantive things but don't make the effort to do so collegially. An insult is easier than presenting evidence and our current standards don't punish people unless their behavior is egregious.
@SchreiberBike: I'm definitely bringing in @LVilla (WMF): for some thoughts on this. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • A way for typical readers to see how stable a passage is. Without looking at page histories, I can't tell if I'm reading the most recent vandalism or longstanding content.
That's a good idea. Have you seen the feature on mobile web that lets you see the last time an edit was made? Would something like that work?
I don't think that meets the need. If I'm reading an article with many parts, I can't tell which content is probably trustworthy and which was added by a vandal 5 seconds ago.
Right. It's an interesting idea... we're talking about it here in the room. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Good PR. I have Wikipedia on my Google News feed and almost everything I see is negative. If one stays off the "drama" pages, I see that the vast majority of Wikipedia works great and is a testament to the good of humanity.
Unfortunately its true that we do get negative press. There's an expression in the media, "If it bleeds, it leads," which essentially means that if it's negative, dramatic, or terrible, it's more likely to get attention from the press. That being said, Wikipedia gets great press too! The articles about the Black History editathons this month, for example, or the New York Times article about Wikipedia's page on Ebola. I'd personally like to focus more on campaigns about what is great about Wikipedia, including how people around the world use it, how it sparks and supports community, culture, and sharing. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
The article in the Boston Globe was excellent too. I don't know what kind of efforts are made to promote the movement, but I hope they are being made. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Definitely. I'm actually responsible for it. One of the challenges is actually keeping up to date with everything that's going on around the world in the movement. For example, there was an editathon at the White House yesterday, organized with Wikimedia DC, and we didn't even know about it in advance! But we do work hard trying to keep bad stories at bay, and sharing good stories -- for example, next weekend will be the global Art+Feminism editathon in 55 cities -- we're working with the team there to help get the word out. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Katherine (WMF):Good for you and thank you. It lead to a nice thread at w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#A reminder .... Without things like this conversation, I'm not aware of the good things you're doing. Maybe PR needs PR. Keep up the good work. User:SchreiberBike 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yair rand[edit]

Response by Yair rand

Yair rand's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Major trends? I can think of quite a few. Some important ones to focus on:

  • Interactive and/or very dynamic content, where applicable, is becoming a must. Simple images (and videos) often don't do the trick. I recommend spending some resources on mw:Extension:EmbedScript, or something like it. Data visualizations, interactive educational material (preferably some hosted on Wikiversity), 3D content, well-done community-built scripts that make readers amazed, at least for a few moments.
  • In several years, there may be numerous ways of reaching Wikimedia content other than through desktop or mobile browsers. Certain large corporations such as Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Sony, are investing heavily into virtual reality and augmented reality. Interfaces will have to change to work well on these platforms. Both Mediawiki as a whole and Wikimedia content will have to adapt, and of course this brings us back to the necessity of having ways of adding advanced non-text content like embedded scripts.
    (This just occurred to me, but has anyone considered building some way of enabling uploading of 3d photographs to Commons? Is there even a standard file format for that?)
  • People are consuming content in different ways, some of which aren't compatible with having a simple article on a topic. For example, some users just want a straight answer to a question. In order to accomplish our mission of optimally developing and disseminating educational content, further effort should be made toward developing Wikidata so that contributions are made quickly and easily.
@Yair rand: These are great observations, and very aligned with how we're thinking about this stuff. Re: mw:EmbedScript, perhaps User:Brion VIBBER can weigh in on what the remaining issues would be for using it in production. From my perspective, I think we need to carefully consider the experience on older clients/devices as we add new capabilities, so we don't accidentally exclude large numbers of users who can't run modern JavaScript (on low-end mobile devices widely used in developing countries, for example). We're close to bringing mw:Extension:Graph to wider usage, which comes with a fallback to static graphs for this reason. Does that make sense? If that approach works, perhaps we could expand it to new file formats like COLLADA (an open 3D file format) as well, so we could have a static rendering & an interactive viewer (cf. phab:T3790).--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Erik Moeller (WMF): I agree that it's very important not to exclude users whose systems are unable to run the embedded scripts. As I mentioned on the extension talk page three years ago, printed pages, audio versions, WikiReaders, and other non-browser based versions of articles will also all not be able to run the scripts, so fallback content is essential.
Thank you for the link to the Phabricator task. If Extension:Graph has a system for handling special types of data and presenting fallbacks when necessary (I don't actually see fallbacks on the extension page, by the way. Is that still in progress?), and is able to be extended to handle Collada files, then it may be the best bet for displaying 3D models for the near future. Or not :/ . Either way, on the longer term the increased flexibility of presentation and possible interactivity offered by free javascript is still important. --Yair rand (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: Yep, the fallback is still in dev, see demo, phab:T90487.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yair rand's thoughts on question 2[edit]

  • A thriving and healthy Wikimedia project tends to have a good balance between very active contributors and rare contributors, with a decent speed of rotation among the core community (that is, many new users continually replacing old ones) (I would consider a good rotation to have most of the admins having less than 3 years since adminship), along with generally friendly interactions between the participants, a welcoming attitude toward newbies, and a heavy focus on content creation above all else. Such a community will develop a healthy attitude of "everyone has the same goal/is on the same side", with no clear "insiders" or "outsiders", so long as there is no large and/or powerful group that has private or external communications channels and/or has easily stated difference of goals. (Such problematic groups tend to either be a "cabal"-ified core of admins, a group of users that has extra-Wikimedia social associations or intra-Wikimedia associations from outside the project, or, with alarmingly increasing frequency, the Wikimedia Foundation.) Participants of a healthy community spend very little time focusing on either vandalism-prevention or inter-user conflicts, most work is done with some level of helpful collaboration, and participants hold the goals and methods of project as a whole in high regard. Everyone is equal, the goal is clear and everyone's, and the door is open.

Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your feedback, @Yair rand:! I agree with most of your points, and I think many of these issues are pretty central to the new Community Engagement department at the Foundation (announcement here). I'm particularly sensitive to the "cabal"-ification problem - you are correct to call it out. I'm very sensitive to the need for us to become involved and supportive, without becoming too central ourselves. Do you have any thoughts on how the Foundation might helpfully move in this direction (either on the cabal issue or any of your other suggestions)? For example, it is easy for me to see how we might de-emphasize vandalism prevention by building better anti-vandal software, but some of the other issues you identify are harder for the Foundation to take direct action on, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how we can best act. Thanks! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@LuisV (WMF): Potential "cabal"-ification is probably the area where the WMF is least able to have an impact. Beyond the area of general editing system improvements (VE, etc.) in order to help the flow of newcomers, WMF intervention would probably little good and potentially a lot of harm.
The other areas are easier to act on. Intra-Wikimedia "otherness" can be lowered by removing barriers to transparency between projects. The limitations of watchlists in the area of cross-project dealings have caused a lot of antagonism against the Commons, Wikidata, and Meta communities. For example, certain projects decided strongly against using Wikidata in certain areas, due to their inability to keep track of Wikidata changes that impacted their content. Since Wikidata interwikis weren't something they were able to reject, this resulted in unhealthy interactions and attitudes between communities. Similarly, various projects have had difficulty keeping track of things on Commons. The presence of what I understand to be now called "shadow namespaces" and its predecessors, and the absence of associated cross-wiki communication, notification, watchlist, "related changes" (!really important), and whatlinkshere functionality has generated much hostility and frustration.
Outside of inter-wiki issues, interactions with the WMF itself can be improved in a number of ways: Increased transparency and openness (ie, reduced usage of private wikis and private or obscure communications channels), less forced intervention (try asking for communities to volunteer to try out a new system going forward in its development, rather than selecting a bunch of wikis and turning it on, even if it's a bit harder to work with), and, although this is unrelated to my previous points, less use of the CentralNotice. Seriously. It's annoying, and usually isn't worth it. But I digress.
Regarding anti-vandal software: I'm not sure. Assuming that better software would help things (which I'm not sure about), the WMF might be best off trying to further enable local coders and designers to build the (frequently very specialized) tools, by working more on the back end. For example, an easy-to-use live feed accessible to simple javascript would help. A good edit filtering/sorting systems would also be useful. (The Wiktionary and Wikidata communities have both been wanting by-language filters for years, and setting up hundreds or thousands of abusefilter tags isn't feasible. I suspect Wikipedias may also find by-Wikiproject RC feeds helpful.) However, I am not especially confident that vandal-prevention tools should be a priority for the WMF. --Yair rand (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

More of the same, mostly.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

A healthy project has a coherent administration, who keeps fairly hands-off, but intervenes when major, active efforts are being made to bias the content or structure of a project away from reality (as adjudged by the preponderance of the evidence).

Administration is unavoidable and bad administration is trouble. The attempts to avoid administration in Wikipedia have led to bad administration, and as a direct result, Wikipedia is sick.

There are, as is well documented, cabals of "editors" on Wikipedia who have been completely screwing up a large number of pages, and getting away with it. Uncontroversial and obscure pages survive fine. But pages with controversy are where these gangs of editors get going, and they end up with masses of bias -- the sexist biases have been well-documented, but there are plenty of others. The bias creeps in because "neutral point of view" and "no original research" *invite* bias, which substitutes for the prohibited evidence. Wikipedia editors refuse to recognize the value of primary sources... when it suits their biases.

An *evidence-based* standard is the only one which can prevent cabals of editors from using their own biases to edit Wikipedia. And it can only be implemented with actual management of some sort, whether elected or appointed... not with self-appointed, self-perpetuating cabals.

Some of the other projects are much healthier. Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiquote and Wikimedia Commons have a clear remit and do not have the same problem with biased selection. (Though Wikiquote has issues with *attribution*, which is a matter of research and requires primary sources.) If they ever start being picky about what they include, however -- and they probably will someday, whether due to lack of space or due to harassment from governments -- they *will* end up with the same problem: it is fundamentally an administration problem.

You can't bypass the administration problem. Indeed, you need to research it intensively to figure out the right thing to do. There's a vast literature on it, both in business and in government and politics. Please stop attempting to bypass it.

I'm afraid I disagree with this suggestion. "Management if some sort" is always going to be an officially sanctioned cabal and worse that what we have now. Citizendium tried this and ended up chasing most of their editors away and allowing advocates of Alternative Medicine the last word on all articles about that topic. The current system may not be perfect but it does seem (to me) to be better than all the others. Filceolaire (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Pbsouthwood

Pbsouthwood's thoughts on question 1[edit]

  1. Voice and voice controlled input and output on mobile devices (also but less extensively on non-mobile workstations.)
  2. Admin crisis. Loss of admins for various reasons and shortage of replacements.
  3. Escalating dramah mainly by anonymous participants. POV and political gaming of the system.
@Pbsouthwood: Yeah, lots of possibilities re: voice. There's a neat prototype of a voice-enabled, Wikidata-driven search engine at http://askplatyp.us/ (developed by a third party), still a long way to go but definitely pointing the way to what's possible.
Are you seeing these community problems in all the wikis you're active in, BTW, or just Wikipedia?--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pbsouthwood's thoughts on question 2[edit]

  1. Structure articles to allow comprehensible voice output. Provide alternative descriptions at beginner, lay and expert levels for each article as many technical articles are becoming incomprehensible to the average reader.
  2. Make it easier to get and lose admin rights. Split them and allocate only those which the applicant asks for. Remove those which are not used well. Make it less of a big issue than it currently is.
  3. Difficult to make anonymous participants accountable for their actions. I don't have any simple solutions to this problem. It could kill or cripple the projects.
On the first point above; In theory the lead section of each article (the bit above the table of contents) is meant to be a general summary of the article at 'beginner' level. Do you think we achieve this often/sometimes/never? Filceolaire (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Federico Peinado[edit]

Response by Federico Peinado

Las ideas de Federico Peinado acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

La interacción con la web es plenamente WYSIWYG, muy interactiva y fluida. Nuestra exigencia por la calidad y el feedback visual (e interactivo) del ASPECTO de los sitios web va a ser mucho más alto. Será imprescindible poder compartir y conectar todo lo que hacemos en la web con redes sociales y otros servicios web. También buscaremos separar y controlar totalmente la información pública de la que no debe serlo tanto (como ciertas discusiones o comentarios... teniendo en cuenta por ejemplo el derecho al olvido). Otra cuestión importante es facilitar mucho que se puedan desarrollar servicios y complementos personalizados que funcionen por encima de los servicios web que ofrezcamos. A nivel tecnológico, las técnicas de Big Data se van a convertir en una necesidad. También habría que considerar el uso de repositorios que hacen merging automático y demás (tipo GIT)... o algo incluso mucho más inteligente para cotejar datos, versiones, etc. Y no hay que perder de vista la Web Semántica y el razonamiento automático sobre (aunque WikiData ya es un buen paso en esa dirección).

(Machine translation, please improve...)
"The interaction with the web is fully WYSIWYG, very interactive and fluid. Our demand for quality and the (interactive) visual feedback of the APPEARANCE of websites will be much higher. It will be essential to share and connect everything we do on the web with social networks and other web services. We will also seek separate and fully control public information that should not be so (as some discussion or comments ... considering for example the right to oblivion). Another important issue is that much easier to develop services and custom plug-ins that work over web services we offer.
At the technological level, the techniques of Big Data is going to become a necessity. We should also consider the use of repositories that make automatic merging and others (GIT type) ... or something even smarter to collate data, versions, etc. And we must not lose sight of the Semantic Web and automatic reasoning (although Wikidata is already a good step in that direction)."

Las ideas de Federico Peinado acerca de la pregunta 2[edit]

Los proyectos Wikimedia deben volverse visualmente mucho más atractivos, con posibilidad inmediata de difundir y compartir por redes sociales y con otros servicios. Por supuesto deben ser totalmente WYSIWYG, y debería ser infinitamente más cómodo tener partes "privadas" (en el sentido de páginas en construcción que todavía no hemos terminado y cosas así) y poder discutir en unos foros de verdad, que funcionen debidamente. También imagino proyectos gamificados, en los que resulta realmente divertido y retador participar, en los que hay una sensación de progresión, una identificación fuerte con la comunidad, con grupos que colaboran y obtienen recompensas juntos, etc.

(Machine translation, please improve...)
"The Wikimedia projects have become much more attractive visually, with immediate possibility of disseminating and sharing on social networks and other services. Of course must be fully WYSIWYG and should be infinitely more comfortable to have "private" parts (in the sense of pages under construction we have not yet finished and so on) and to discuss some forums truth, properly functioning. Also imagine gamificados projects, which is really fun and challenging part, where there is a sense of progression, a strong identification with the community groups that work and earn rewards together, etc."
@Federico Peinado:, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I did want to let know that the Foundation is continuing its work on visual editor and there was a volunteer who did some work on gamification on a project called The Wikipedia Adventure.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Jayen466

Jayen466's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Net neutrality and plurality of information sources will become increasingly vital to societal well-being.

Wherever the commitment to net neutrality and a plurality of sources is abandoned, manipulation of information by vested interests will flourish.

Jayen466's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Wikipedia Zero, often bundled with Facebook Zero, is a step in the wrong direction. As AccessNow have put it,

Wikipedia Zero and similar services are playing into the hands of incumbent telecoms, who already have a stranglehold on markets around the world. Zero-rated offerings make these telcos’ services more attractive, solidifying their already overly-dominant positions in most markets, and further advancing the idea that websites should have to pay extra to reach users, which once again runs afoul of net neutrality principles and further hurts the development of online content and services.

Wikimedia has always been a champion for open access to information, but it’s crucial to call out zero-rating programs for what they are: Myopic deals that do great damage to the future of the open internet. As more and more users come online and with active battles around net neutrality being waged around the world, it is the responsibility of respected leaders like Wikimedia to ensure that new users discover an internet that actually represents “the sum of all knowledge.”

If it takes off, Wikipedia Zero can, with one fell swoop, change the course of the open internet — and not necessarily for the better. No corporate or single platform — whether it's Facebook or Wikipedia — should be put in charge of curating access to the world's information. Simply put, zero rated content makes zero sense for the future of the open internet and the rights of those who use it.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has raised similar concerns.

A thriving and healthy Wikimedia movement would assist international efforts to make all of the internet available to citizens around the world, rather than building a walled garden and installing itself as a gatekeeper deciding which information is allowed to reach people.

Hi Andreas! While we disagree with this characterization (see Wikimedia blog), we've been thinking through transforming the Wikipedia Zero program into a broader access to knowledge coalition which is less about free access to a specific site (even if that site is Wikipedia) and more about free access to and awareness of high quality, freely licensed knowledge sources. See the last Wikipedia Zero quarterly review for more background on this; more to come soon.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Erik. I look forward to further developments on that front. To expand on the above point, are you familiar with the recent Wifione case on the English Wikipedia? It's a very practical illustration of the potential downside of privileging Wikipedia through zero-rating, with real-world effects on a large number of people.
Whatever we may hope and wish, Wikipedia is wide open to undisclosed paid editing and other types of manipulation (especially in the smaller language versions; recall the Croatian Wikipedia fiasco), and always has been. Much of its content simply wouldn't exist without such contributions. In Wikipedia Zero countries, Wikipedia has (or will have) an even larger footprint than it has in the first world, where people have access to the full range of what the Internet has to offer. I understand that at present, a good number of subscribers in those countries (i.e. subscribers who do not have a data-enabled smartphone) actually get their Wikipedia articles via SMS. This means editing Wikipedia is out of the question for them (even assuming that anyone would muster the perseverance to try to edit a Wikipedia article on a smartphone). Nor will they be able to check a Wikipedia articles' sources, or find alternative sources.
The potential for abuse is simply stupendous. All that political and economic elites (who of course do have full read/write access to Wikipedia) in those countries have to do in order to manipulate public opinion in their populations is to "fix" the relevant Wikipedia articles. As the Wifione case has demonstrated, this is no idle or purely theoretical concern. We know that the average Wikipedian is a young white Western male with little interest in and even less knowledge about the business and political affairs of countries like India or Kenya, meaning that articles on internal business or political matters of those countries easily escape scrutiny by the wider community. The community process completely failed to stop the manipulation at the IIPM articles in the English Wikipedia, which continued for the best part of a decade.
Internet users in those countries should not be restricted to a single, very vulnerable source like Wikipedia. They need broad and affordable access to a wide variety of mainstream media sites, whether their content is freely licensed or not, the same as us (after all, very little of Wikipedia could be written if Wikipedians in the West did not have such access: those are their sources). Food for thought? Andreas JN466 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Purchasing information on topics predating the era of wikipedia. There seems to me to be ample room for old print and cd type encyclopedias to be included to improve the value of "standardized" and past wikipedia entries. Obviously the next billion users will not speak english. Since I only speak english my contribution might be naive but a universal translator like google translate might be a helpful standard tool in the wikipedia mask.

We do have GLAM projects that are working on including historic data in Wikipedia and the other Wiki projects.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites should contain less data while retaining the same amount of information, so the sites will load faster in mobile devices. Mobile users are also generally not interested in reading the entire Wikipedia sites as they are too long to be read on a mobile devices. As such, Wikimedia could consider adding a feature to its search function by giving relevant answers from different pages whenever users ask a question. If the user types:"What's the tallest building in the world?", Wikipedia should return several search results which highlight the possible answers from different pages/ topics. It's similar to Google but there is the additional "highlight" features which helps mobile users to find the answers they want, instead of clicking on a search result but find themselves landing on a very long page on a small screen. It is annoying and could be even worst for those with slow connection to load the whole page. Therefore, Wikipedia not only serves as a huge, up-to-date encyclopedia, but also intelligently giving specific answers to the user's questions.

Yes, this is definitely something we're thinking about -- Wikidata opens up a lot of new possibilities here. Check out this third party effort: https://blog.wikimedia.de/2015/02/23/platypus-a-speaking-interface-for-wikidata/ --Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Suryaday

Suryaday's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I think a major trend would be people wanting a more detailed explanation on parts which they don't clearly understand. Let me emphasize, suppose I have a wiki page on C programming. And I don't understand a code snippet or a definition. Wikipedia should have a box next to complex scenarios where a user might be able to post a question and he may get clarity on that topic on his email.

Also I feel people should be able to communicate with the Wikipedia team for clarifications on something. I have seen Mr. Jimmy Wales to be a hot favourite among Quora users. 4 out of 10 questions are directed at him and is also promptly replied to, by him. So why not get that same feature in Wikipedia also? If people do get to communicate with Jimmy or someone from Wikipedia, then they would be more drawn to this site because they will feel more connected with it.

I think the GUI should be changed or users should be able to have the option to change the theme of their wiki. People love themes, trust me.

Hi Suryaday! I want to be sure that I understand you correctly - as I understand it, on your first question, you're suggesting an "ask the experts" type of feature by articles so that readers could ask follow-up questions. Is that correct? If so, that's an interesting idea. I'd be a little worried about our capacity to guarantee an appropriate service level (asking a question might not do you much good if someone finally got around to answering you six months later, for instance), but that might be an interesting way to integrate some real-time collaboration, at least on high-traffic articles.
For your second question, I'd point out that Jimmy's actually pretty good at responding to questions here, as well. You (or any other person) can drop him a note on his Wikipedia talk page, and he frequently responds there. Even better, though, his page is watched by over 3,000 other Wikipedia editors, and I know that he leans on them for answers. So the end result is that while the question may not get an immediate answer from Jimmy - it's likely to get a response from someone quite knowledgable very quickly! Thanks for your thoughts. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Suryaday's thoughts on question 2[edit]

So based on future trends, a thriving wiki page should 1. Have an option for custom themes and text fonts. 2. Option to ask questions to Wikipedia admins directly.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Make push to academic professionals, to make site reputable for school and professional research purposes. In addition, tighten up on on questionable, fake or unproven information within website.

The Wiki Education Foundation is doing work on the area of outreach to academic professionals.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Mothflight

"I come to learn!" (quote from Earthsea quartet, le Guin)[edit]

Hello, my name's Mothflight. I think that (forgive me if I'm wrong and there's one already) the main admins should consider a Wikipedia app. I do think it would be wiser to create separate apps for the different branches of Wiki, as one may not relate to the other... If there already is, then we should consider creating the same app in different languages, perhaps.Perhaps we could have a Wiki paid app, which costs perhaps one pence/penny/yen/10 won/ or vague equivalent (again forgive, I'm very bad at money conversion...) and that could go towards supporting further contributions to Wikipedia and other wikis (my main Wiki domain is Wikipedia) so that we can keep the website going as well as doing other things. (Or perhaps if we don't want to hurt our own pride as a Wiki community, an in-app purchase which donates a certain amount to the website? Again, I'm not an expert in coding but maybe somebody could look into that.) One big attraction of the app as opposed to the website is the appeal on mobile devices; the app uses less data etc. which is another reason why separate languages Wikipedias should be made into different apps. The code should ensure that the app is updated whenever the user uses it or perhaps over a certain time period. This is turning into a small description of the potential app; the admins may wish to create a new discussion page about potential features, if they find it suitable. Although it is true that Wikipedia does have moderators and there are a few rewards such as Barn stars (if that's what they're called)people don't know about this. It should either be more competitive or more explicit about the rewards and social part of Wikipedia. I'm only a lowly middle-ranker myself with a rather embarrassing record of a few minor edits, but I like Wikipedia. Thank you and if you're reading this, in case nobody has said it to you so far; HAVE A NICE DAY AND YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL!

@Mothflight:, The Wikipedia iOS app and Android app do have multi-language capability. The can be found in the iTunes store and on Google Play. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and this consultation.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by RussellXPD

RussellXPD's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Wikipedia does best what it does: but it can do more to inspire others ...write here… Q1

Fully mindful of Wikipedia's net neutrality, I see Wiki(pedia) being pressed to respond in three major areas. Education: for wide, objective, broad education and information, Wiki is unsurpassed. There are and will be pressure groups in all countries and cultural spheres attempting to shape received information and bend it towards political, religious or other viewpoints rather than to strict objective truth. I predict that some issues will be prosecuted by partisans with extreme forcefulness, but I believe that Wiki's core membership will be able to see off such challenges. But the pressure won't let up for fifty years or more, if ever. The trend, I believe, will be of increasing pressure to conform to national priorities as perceived its leaders. There is a related area where Wikipedia's net neutrality could be put under pressure: Political Change. I'm fairly clear that in most cases political oppression comes from the arrogation of power by powerful groups of individuals. The power is reinforced by the restriction of information within those regimes. We saw in East Germany and the Communist bloc in the 1980s that public information is the most powerful tool for shining a light into corrupt places and enabling public mobilisation to enforce political change. Information is generally a neutral tool, but will the leaders of Wiki be tempted to direct the searchlight? And should they? The trend will be for increasing crowd-sourcing as a way of enabling political change and the providers of information including Wiki may find themselves tempted (rightly or wrongly) to take part in campaigns. The third area of concern is health. The existence of reliable and accurate information on health can in some cases be as helpful as living next door to a doctor (that you can afford). And this leads into the answer to question 2:

RussellXPD's thoughts on question 2[edit]

...write here…

Q2 Unlike politics and possibly education, health is only rarely controversial (abortion, blood donorship, circumcision, being exceptions). This is a superb field for Wikipedia to contribute to wellbeing around the world. I find American health sites generally flawed at the present time because financial interest seems to underlie the advice that is given, and it can be suspect. A better lead is found by websites inspired by the British health service which is based on objective disinterested accuracy about health.

Here are some things Wiki could lead on: Determine standards for public health in its own country and throughout the world. Organise campaigns to support the worst failures in health: WaterAid, epidemics and the shortage of medical drugs to save lives and secure health. Shine a light.

I mentioned Education and Politics above. This is trickier. It might well be that well-wishers of the Wikipedia would want to interfere in the murky ground of extreme politics and extreme religion. And perhaps it would be best to keep the left hand clean while the right hand engages in worthy moral crusades.

Political manipulation is commonplace on Wikipedia even today. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Andreas JN466 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Taking a page out of IFLS the famous FB page the trends i saw is the content was things that was new and going on in science now. Things that was funny quirky, short FYI things that pricked my interest. Wikipedia is great but short and sweet factoids that has and is happening now in this day and age is what really sparked my interest.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

They should be interactive, that is the next cutting edge tech. Back and forth responses is what im after. An interactive way of communicating. For instance in the movie starship troopers u watch news and it says click here for more info. Tweet lenght items and then theres a click here for more info. All this being funky and interactive like a small popup. The text based interface is great for browsers but i think for mobile devices make it a "kid" like interface. Adults like pretty colours as well. ciao

Heya, thanks for your comments. I agree showing information in context, with short summaries, can be great for certain use cases -- think "second screen" uses while you're watching a movie, as you say. Would love to hear more people's thoughts on how this could work for us in practice.---Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by DovahGirlie

DovahGirlie's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Anything on the level of education should be legitimate for intellectual users to check on every other week. This is definitely ideal, especially when teachers, ironically, don't trust Wikipedia to give the accurate results and detail it was intended to give to its readers, anymore. I don't know if I read the question incorrectly, so forgive me if this answer is vaguely related.

Many editors watch over certain articles, using something called "watchlists." This lets them check in on articles to see what happens and changes. We're experimenting with how we can offer readers the same opportunity -- how they can create collections of articles that they're interested in, and watch for updates or changes. For example, teachers could create collections of articles about biology, or a subject they follow. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

DovahGirlie's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Seeing how people tend to look to Wikipedia so often, everything within Wikimedia should be considered useful and as a priority. The content organization is almost always perfect, given that the writers/contributors know how to use HTML-style input for information, and always have a site to back up the information gathered. Whatever the type - biography of a group or person, explanation to popular theories, explanation of anything - they should be written clearly and carefully. English skillsets aside, I am implying that it would be much wiser if Wikimedia notifies those with articles written on them (such as currently living actors, scientists, etc.) to be checking their own articles at least every few months. Articles based on a deceased figure should be analyzed by someone who knows the given topic well enough to challenge and study any possible errors and flaws. I find this would help, since the article would be verified completely every other month, ensuring the page's correction.

A "right of response" has been talked about before. Organizing this - and making sure it stays on the talk page, not in the article, would be an improvement. 19:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's an interesting proposal. We know that lots of people who have articles written about them often check on those articles. Sometimes they use the Discussion (talk) page to talk about what should and shouldn't be on there. It's possible that creating some sort of "hey, it's me!" space on the talk page would be a good way to raise awareness that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

You'll want to make Wikipedia a part of an internet user's day. Give them reason to come to the site, more than just looking up miscellaneous information. On the home page, display what recent searches have been trending to give the user the ability to get lost in a Wikipedia wormhole.

Hi - You are absolutely right. We need to get smarter about how we attract people to the site and (even more) encourage people to edit the site. We are seeing no significant increase in our number of active editors when we really need to increase the number. We need to find ways to attract editors and writers from outside the US and Europe in greater numbers as well. I like your idea about featuring data - like recent search trends, maybe - that encourages people to not only "search" but also "discover" our content. This is an important observation on your point, and it will be part of our strategy discussions at WMF. (As a side note, there are some interesting sites that track some Wikipedia trends - like the articles most edited in a week. See here.). Thanks for taking the time to contribute your ideas. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by H-stt

H-stt's thoughts on question 1[edit]

This is the wrong question. But it is symptomatic for the state of WMF.

Dear H-stt, you may wish to replace the word "trends" with "issues". Basically they mean the same thing: things that are happening. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Discussing semantics won't help. WMF must address its relationship with the authors first and foremost. Only then it can look at other issues. --h-stt !? 12:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

H-stt's thoughts on question 2[edit]

The fundamental asset of all projects are the volunteer authors. Those who are already there and contribute the amazing content. Without the authors, no content, no readers, no donors, no WMF, no staff. Don't look so much into the future. Don't look at the next billion readers. Don't focus energy to readers at all, as long as you don't look after the authors. We create everything WMF relies on.

We're here for the readers - no author gets anything out of having no readers. Please feel free to donate your work, but it does not give you the right to demand anything. 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's not how Wikipedia works. All of the authors are intrinsically motivated. We wish to compile knowledge about "the world" and give it freely to "the world". I don't care much, how many people read my contributions in the short term. "My encyclopedia" is useful, even if almost no one reads it. And that is how Wikipedia began: Until about 2006/2007 Wikipedia was more like a curiosity than a useful work of reference, it was full of gaps, and you could contribute useful information by simply adding single sentences of definition about household topics. It is of course no coincidence, that WMF emerged at that very time. Over the years since, the professional staff has moved far away from the volunteer authors. So far, that right now, we don't even agree about the most pressing issues. --h-stt !? 12:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

I think you should have your web site on facebook and twitter those type of web sites.

We are! Please follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts from[edit]

Contributed by

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."[edit]

Had George Orwell lived today, might he not have said: He who controls the data controls... everything?

Probably! I like Cory Doctorow as a modern day Orwell on these subjects. His books Little Brother and Homeland explore some of these themes. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I think one of the most important (and disturbing) trends is the increasing polarization of politics. It's seen mostly in the US, but it's echoed elsewhere in varying magnitude. What it means for Wikimedia is that Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Commons (and possibly others) are going to see, if they haven't already, a marked increase in the sort of organized and deceptive tactics of various political groups that seek to rewrite Wiki material in favor of their worldviews. Protected and semi-protected status, RFCs, bans, and the like may not be enough to deal with the sort of concentrated propaganda efforts we've been seeing lately. People paid to maintain dozens or hundreds of accounts on forums, discussion sites, blog comment sections, pushing one or the other point of view, for one.

I don't think anyone gets paid, actually. There are really people with opposing worldviews, who don't even care to know anything about the views of the opponents, because they "know everything better". If you are like that, you don't need to get paid. CIA or FSB only need to collect the fruit, they don't need to put any effort into it. History is driven by people not by agencies, it has always been… And people, on the majority, have never been rational and will never have. - 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Some reasoning on this point, which is only marginally on-topic (from the side, ¿what is the nature of the phenomenon?, ¿what are the motivations behind it?), but still somewhat useful here. If we take, for example, the arguments between Russians and Americans on the Internet, then, different as they, they go though beyond the questions of Crimea or Ukraine and beyond mere throlling; there is real and not fake disagreement in those arguments, and this disagreement has more in them than only special questions. Basically, they disagree often enough on two essential questions: 1) ¿why do people act?; 2) consequently, ¿what is just?, ¿what constitutes justice?. Arguments, based on these kinds of disagreement, do not need to be paid; and I guess that disagreements in the Internet among many other groups, both big and small, similarly have real and not fake contents beyond them, that go beyond special and, let me say the word, “operational” questions. So, when we deal with these arguments in Wikipedia, it is important to understand that we deal with people who are for real passionated. - 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Given this, it might be wise to begin a project to design and implement a sort of Wikipedia Editor Academy, where new editors can familiarize themselves with the founding principles, intent, history, and most importantly rules and guidelines that govern proper editing. Ranks awarded for good editing and proper conduct could be used to increase the granularity of edit protection. I know I've wanted to become an actual wiki editor for years now. I even have an account lying around somewhere. Somehow, though, the rules, guidelines, and markup language all seemed like too much to figure out all at once, and I didn't know what was the most important or where to start. I've since learned a tremendous amount simply by reading talk pages, but a set of well-defined, interesting tutorials would allow me (and hopefully others) to start contributing appropriately and competently. Making sure an editor has gone through interactive training that can't just be skipped through before they can edit would be helpful. A billion people coming online will include many who won't (and might not want to) understand that Wikipedia is not something they can manipulate to push their beliefs, political or otherwise.

Aaaaaaaand I just saw that The Wikipedia Adventure exists. Well, now I know what I'm going to be doing for the next hour. The rest of my post stands, though. It's getting hairy out there, with political groups publishing their own "peer reviewed" journals to lend credibility to their views, producing dishonest documentaries, and even infiltrating state school boards to alter the schoolbooks of millions. Wikipedia hasn't seen anything yet. Please be ready. We need you guys. Thanks.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

VR headsets like Microsoft's Hololens showed us that taking apps into the virtual reality world could prove to be a popular trend and definitely a trend for the future. Integration into apps currently available like Facebook, Twitter, etc.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

Having wikimedia apps from Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, etc on as many mobile devices as possible and not just for android and ios. We need official apps on Windows, Firefox, Ubuntu, Tizen, etc. Able to work on as many things as possible

There's no need for apps, every computer has a web browser. Just improve the website. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
There are apps available for Wikipedia on Google Play and iTunes.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fred Bauder[edit]

Response by Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Mobile is difficult for me, as, to me, phones are inconvenient and hard to see. Good if you break down on the road…. I have gotten in trouble with editing the top of a page and being told whatever I did did not work on mobile. How would I know? Perhaps a tool that showed us what it does look like? Fred Bauder (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Fred Bauder:! If you click on Preferences at the top of the screen, then go to the Gadgets tab and scroll down, you'll find an item labeled "Mobile sidebar preview - Show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site." That will give you a mock up of the mobile screen that you can interact with for whatever article you're on. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fred Bauder's thoughts on question 2[edit]

One thing from my experience, and it is important. It takes years to become a half-decent editor. That means patience, in years, not just three warnings. Fred Bauder (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is possible to measure improvement in editing skill by calculating any increase in percentage of edits which are not replaced or modified. Those editors who keep editing and learning are precious both in terms of what we are doing for them and what they are doing for us. Fred Bauder (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by StacyBasye

StacyBasye's thoughts on question 1[edit]

In the future I see college degrees going down and skill-based learning going up, given the cost of getting a degree and the over-saturation of people with degrees. This is relevant to Wikimedia because of the type of information these people will be seeking in the future. I both think and hope it won't be so much about fact-finding and memorization for papers and tests, but more about learning how to do things related to all topics.

StacyBasye's thoughts on question 2[edit]

A thriving and healthy Wikimedia project would not only provide the information and verify it, but push information toward practical use, keeping everything accessible for beginners and experts alike.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Make Wikipedia more social, and easier to thoroughly operate without much technological experience. Use hash-tags to categorize, and give Wikipedia a more modern user interface, both mobile-wise, and on the desktop. Integrate with what modern society loves.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

They would go to the next level. A Wikipedia dictionary integration, other things to help people in their everyday lives even more than Wikimedia already does. Also, some security with edits. More databses, maybe a math only section, going for what Wolfram Alpha has accomplished. More tools, like a Wiki-scientific calculator, or a programming calculator. Possibly even a translation tool better than Google's.


Response by Ozonesn

Ozonesn's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Taking an estimation, Global Internet usage trend shares mobile vs computers usage roughly an equal ratio. Both Mobile App and Mobile friendly site are boon to it. I access Wikipedia via wiki zero here at Nepal. Frankly, I had never been this active, this curious for information I needed before. Well, there are lot more to achieve. What I experience sometimes is there are certain articles / topics yet to include in Wikipedia. So, can this missing article and topic be alerted to user via SMS system. This could facilitate user to visit the site and do necessary edit.

Ozonesn's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I shall be concerned what I think is a bit awkward in Wikipedia. Its just my opinion.
Well, my queries are:

1) How about Wikipedia accepting videos in any format then processing it to Open-format?

2) Mobile service provides free Wikipedia access but doesn't provides a facility to download a "dump" file. I personally wanted to install offline Wikipedia in a local school and facilitate them but I am still unable to do.

3) All users (editors) doesn't have knowledge of multimedia or file accessing, moreover internet is a nightmare. So to overcome this, can Wikipedia provide a bridge network between to users to transfer files and get help from person they know.
4) How about WISIWIG editor in Wikipedia?

@Ozonesn: Great questions, thank you. 1) There was a community discussion about this last year, see commons:Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. I don't think the question was framed in an ideal way, and I think opinions became polarized as a result of that -- but there was a strong and clear sentiment against any proprietary video support. There may be a middle ground, such as having such conversion be done through a third party (there is even an existing tool on Wikimedia Labs: https://tools.wmflabs.org/videoconvert/ ); in any case, I do think we should revisit this specific question, because it definitely makes it a lot harder to contribute video. 2) I am guessing you are aware of Kiwix -- are you referring to these downloads being made available via Zero? If so, that might be difficult given the size of these downloads, but it's definitely worth thinking about. 3) Hmm, this one is tricky. There are existing batch uploading tools like Vicuna which community members can use to help with uploads -- I've done this myself for a few folks who had large files they needed to help get uploaded. There's also a community process for this, at commons:Commons:Batch uploads. How could these tools/processes be improved? 4) We're on it. :-) See mw:VisualEditor. --Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Erik Moeller (WMF) and Erik Moeller (WMF): Thank you for the reply. Let me start with discussion first. Well, 2) Yeah! I wanted to download dump via free wiki access. However, there is no problem with 'commons' site.

3) After getting your view on this question, something hit my mind. Actually, two question hit my mind. Firstly, How come Wikipedia accepts a direct URL upload? Secondly, based on my original question, how come Wikipedia give a bridge connection to users to link a file in the internet, no matter for a temporary time. Seriously, questioning myself, am I under the scope / purpose of Wikipedia here?

Meanwhile, I have encounter a problem rendering books into PDF with an error; process not forwarding after 36.67% and fails with "Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1" I can list two books I remember now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Databases and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Bible may be because of its page size. Please improve this, or is it only in my part of world. PS: I am using free wiki. Thank you.

Pinging User:Cscott who may be able to help with the book bug. More later. :-) --Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Ozonesn: Re (2): I'm very interested in offline access, and the Offline Content Generator service was originally designed with use cases like yours in mind. We've worked with Kiwix, and I believe their ZIM format dumps will do what you want to do. Not integrated with zero, as far as I know, though. However, I started an experiment a while back (while I was working at OLPC) on a web-based offline reader (not a contradiction in terms!) called Nell's Wikipedia (source on github) that spiders, caches and stores page downloads, rather than relying on a dump file. That could be extended to do what you want over zero (although at the moment it uses Parsoid's API, which I don't think is available over zero).
Regarding the "Rendering process died", I've opened a bug for this, feel free to add more details there. Cscott (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

lo que pasa de Wikipedia es que cuando busco algo en Wikipedia me sale lo que yo no necesito o sea no tiene que ver en nada MEJOREN ESO ENTENDIERON

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Wikipedia what happens is that when I search something on Wikipedia I get what I do not need that is not about anything UNDERSTAND THAT IMPROVE"


Response by Lukeisawesome999

Lukeisawesome999's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Create a mobile app for people to access on their tablet or phone.

Lukeisawesome999's thoughts on question 2[edit]

They would be very popular and well checked.

@Lukeisawesome999: There are apps available for Wikipedia, both Android and iOS. Both versions are free of cost and free of ads: The Android app at Google Play Store and iOS app on iTunes. If you register an account or have an account already, you can log in through the app and edit as well. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I think I wouldn't be able to identify any major trends because the new users would be coming from other cultures, and I have no idea what they would be like!'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

To be frank, I don't know what projects would look like, but I just would like projects that has a good cause and would provide reals more that feels.[edit]

Response by

meu, pra esse site bombar entre os usuários e muito fácil. façam uma gincana valendo gold ou joias para qualquer jogo. essa gincana pode ser contribuindo com ideias sobre jogos ou ate mesmo para ideias que possam melhorar a paginas. que tal. e um prazer ajudar. se a ideia for aceita , melhor ainda. pois, sou usuário-nato de seus jogos.obrigado pela oportunidade

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"mine, to this site pumping between users and very easy. make a contest worth gold or jewelry for any game.
this contest may be contributing ideas about games or even to ideas that can improve the pages. such. and a pleasure to help. if the idea is accepted, even better. because I am a born-user their jogos.obrigado the opportunity"[edit]

Response by

you should review these articles before there published


Response by Jackphd

Jackphd's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I think a trend we're likely to see soon is more senior and disabled people utilising the Internet. As medical technologies which help overcome physical limitations while using a computer continue to rapidly develop it would make sense to see an influx of these types of people.

That's an excellent point. We've done some work on what developers call "accessibility" so that our content is better accessible with larger font sizes and things like that, but there is still work to be done on that front. (You can see our progress in our bug tracker.) I suspect this will become ever more important, both for the reasons you cite and because it will help on mobile as well. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jackphd's thoughts on question 2[edit]

In the future Wikimedia projects will have to integrate with these new technologies, and perhaps develop some of their own, in order to utilise this as yet untapped demographic.

Thanks for your feedback! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by 2602:306:8013:19A0:9906:79DB:F33:82B6

2602:306:8013:19A0:9906:79DB:F33:82B6's thoughts on question 2[edit]

well you can create an app for service

There is a Wikipedia app on both Google Play and iTunes.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

use less high advanced language which is easier to understand. thank you.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

...my username; NONAME [friends gonna remember thjs ] mobile devellopment no one must tackle /evolution will take care / the bissness is to big for us and economy is the your future assurance/ allways men wants money/>let go ... look at greece,iceland,and others// evolution effects the human brain ,that is no news for wikipedia//read :Wang Po's isseu; ON THE TRANSMISSION OF MIND // material devellopment is a must[our food is matterialing// our spirit is cosmolizing[ U understand ,iknow by mindtramission=30 y. training// in eternaty there is time [illusionary flux of distance] for trillions of individuals to train tht brain#'s thoughts on question 2 =[edit]

.. i am not afraid thatWIKIPEDIA cannot handle the future U allready handle the future//[thoughts.mind.awarness are monitoring our [+ u'r] future// try this; from this moment whitou time we are HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENSIS FITURA //i know what i am talking about// u'll understand,iam sure#<succes>[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Focus on verifiable information, not users.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

An excellent encyclopedia not caught up in internal bureaucracy and struggle. Focus on verifiable information, not users. Wikipedia's lifeblood is being a source. This is what drives it. Build the infrastructure around this, and they will continue to come. There is no Wikipedia without the ability to edit. The ability to edit is founded on verifiable information. That is all.

Likebox (Ron Maimon)[edit]

Response by Likebox

Likebox's thoughts on question 1[edit]

A major trend in academic review is the subordination of traditional published sources to pure internet sources, where the vetting for accuracy is through open commentary, and the peer review for accuracy is through open and transparent voting. This method is used on physicsoverflow.org, it is attempted with less purity on other sites, and it is inevitably replacing traditional review, as open review is many times more effective than traditional closed review, as it can solicit back-and-forth between the author and referee, the voting is independent of traditional academic politics, and it can review the reviews as well as the original submission.

This method of review is more natural, and it is something that could have been developed first on Wikipedia--- talk pages were used for this type of review initially. But instead of allowing disputes to resolve themselves through unlimited discussion and debate, an obtuse aristocracy of moderators with no contributions forged the arbcom system and placed themselves at the top of it.

Likebox's thoughts on question 2[edit]

In light of the fact that the internet provides better peer review than any print source, Wikipedia needs to jettison its current (post 2007) sourcing policy, and return to its anarchic roots. It must reinvent its politics, so that accuracy is more important than politics. The current dispute resolution system is idiotic, it consists of arbcom handing out suspensions to whoever is politically unpopular on a talk page, and it means that there are absurd lies festering on many pages, lies which simply cannot be challenged or fixed, because one is ganged up on administratively and banned.

To remove the political considerations, the arbitration must be willing to judge accuracy, and not just accuracy in representing previously sourced opinions. This does not require expertise, rather it requires honesty, freedom of speech, and cumulative voting over indefinite periods of time (with votes accumulating as more eyeballs come). If someone says something stupid, it can then be rudely refuted. At the moment, no dispute is tolerated on Wikipedia, and this makes the site useless for anything except archiving a snapshot of the contributions of a thriving community from a decade ago, a community which has nearly entirely left or been banned.

To avoid moderation abuse, moderators must be rotated regularly, and they must be chosen based on content contributed. No moderation without contribution--- if you don't contribute significantly in adding new content to a page, you can't moderate it. There must be a clear freedom of speech clause regarding content on talk pages, these must not be deleted under any circumstances, neither should any dispute votes be archived without leaving a vote tally and link, so that mistakes can be corrected. The user rights document on physicsoverflow, and the policy of rotating moderators there, is an example.

This system of voting and free comments, together with comprehending moderation which strives for accuracy of content (rather than accuracy in reflecting the opinion of print sources) must replace the arbcom as the method of building consensus. This is to allow disputes to develop and resolve themselves over time, instead of the ossified aristocratic stupidity that has been going on for the past six years.

I personally refuse to contribute to this project in any way, not financially, not with time, not with any positive comments, until this is done. I hold no great hopes for any of this coming to pass, as there is no dictator to impose it, and the people who hold power to decide on content would be the ones whose power would be diminished by these changes. But it is essential in producing proper peer review in the encyclopedia, so that joke articles don't accumulate, as they have. If this is not done, the best that can be done is to fork the encyclopedia to a separate site with independent politics which does guarantee user rights, rotating moderatorship, and freedom of speech on talk.


Response by Elviramg

Elviramg's thoughts on question 1[edit]

..."Mobile the Professional" is the superhero of the future. This is a cartoon-like character that knows how to use every technological gadget (cell phone, tablet, etc.) for the common good. The next billion users will be exposed to "Mobile the Professional" beginning with Prekindergarten TV programs and other child oriented media. "Mobile the Professional" will be a bionic man or woman who will inspire adults 18+ to incorporate mobile technology in their daily lives. This same figurehead will show us ways to educate our youth globally and use technology to ease the burdens of caring for our elder loved ones. Love, trust, curiosity and imagination will be paramount.

Elviramg's thoughts on question 2[edit]

...Every culture needs to create and adapt a Wikimedia in its own language or dialect. Wikipedia will be the book encyclopedia of the future.


It's extreamly important as a company move to make a scholar wiki for students that need reliable information that cannot be changed by every user. Start with one subject at a time if need be but this is a must because most professors in the united states are encouraging students to not use wiki at all which is bad considering students have been most of your website hits through out the past few years. GET ON IT! THIS IS HUGE!

The Wiki Education Foundation is working on some of your suggestions as is WikiProject Medicine.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, a general interest encyclopaedia. Of course academics will tell their students that by the time you are studying at university you should be going beyond the encyclopadias, but lazy students have always had to be told that. WereSpielChequers (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply



Response by Leonmak

Leonmak's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Education online. Viewing wikis and videos instead of reading books.

Leonmak's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I have no idea I haven't contributed to wikipedia in terms of writing, making it could be easier to contribute an article could be a start, or viewing / joining discussions, the whole process seems kind of opaque to me, maybe more localisation for specificity and depth in different domains to complement increasing breadth of information online. Maybe allowing people to recommend links to related wikipedia pages. Also Better foreign language support always helps.

Miriam Akamine[edit]

Response by Miriam Akamine

Miriam Akamine's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Es importante que Wikipedia mantenga siempre su actualización,mediante el aporte de los usuarios, una idea básica, puede ser un buen elemento para continuar con la creatividad de la informacion de la enciclopedia a diversos niveles. una siemple idea o una idea inteligente da por resultado una acción que puede revolucionar el conocimiento, por ejemplo, resaltar incluso, con una respuesta necesaria al publico usuario, desde su celular en mensajes inteligentes, conforme a la necesidad del investigador. se deben hacer viajes de exploración con los investigadores de Wikipedia y ver por secciones y edades quienes puede aportar mejor a ampliar recursos que antes parecian inexistentes y ahora para el futuro puede se de imperiosa necesidad,por ej, crear una sección de wikipedia para Jovenes y otra seccion para adultos, a fin de no cargar demasiada informacion en un mismo bolsillo y en tiempos diferentes! Es necesario que los proyectos de Wikipedia sean siempre saludables y que exista un cuerpo de especialistas que analicen los pormenores, detalles y errores de información, sin entrar en polémica, si no con contenidos esenciales e informacion real y valiosa.respetando siempre el criterio real del usuario,y en primer lugar mostrando su perfil, para que de esa manera, quede historicamente registrada su identidad, sus actividades y quehaceres dinamicos, sin que por esto se lo mencione como si fuese currilum personal,busca<ndo fama. Por que de esta manera se orienta al buscador de un tema, en la Biografía de una personalidad dedicada a la investigacion , de un escritor de un profesional etc.y entonces la enciclopia identifica al usuario a traves de sus actividades y ocupacion.Despues podemos dar mayores ideas, conforme a las edades, niveles y grados de personas.mirando siempre al futuro construiremos una WIKIPEDIA DE COMPLETA INFORMACION EN TODOS LOS CAMPOS ,QUE SEA MUY UTIL PÀRA LA HUMANIDAD DEL MUNDO Y UNIVERSO DEL FUTURO!

t is important to always keep updating Wikipedia, by providing users a basic idea may be a good element to continue with the creativity of the encyclopedia information at various levels. one siemple idea or a smart idea results in an action that can revolutionize knowledge, for example, highlight even a necessary response to the public user from your smart phone messages, according to the needs of the researcher. must be made exploratory trips with researchers from Wikipedia and see for sections and ages who can best contribute to expanding resources previously seemed nonexistent and now for the future may be in urgent need, for example, create a section for Juniors and wikipedia another section for adults, in order not to load too much information in one pocket and at different times!

- You need to Wikipedia projects are always healthy and that there is a body of experts to analyze the details, details and information errors without going into controversial, if not essential contents and actual information and always valiosa.respetando the real criterion of user, first showing his profile, so that way, remains historically recorded their identity, their activities and dynamic tasks, without thereby mention it as if currilum staff, looking <nd fame. By this way is aimed at searching a topic in the Biography of a personality dedicated to the research, a professional writer enciclopia etc. and then identifies the user through their activities and ocupacion.Despues we can give older ideas, according to ages, levels and degrees of personas.mirando always build a future WIKIPEDIA FULL INFORMATION IN ALL FIELDS THAT IS VERY USEFUL FOR HUMANITY OF THE WORLD AND THE UNIVERSE OF THE FUTURE!

Miriam Akamine.- Usuario. Google translate

Miriam Akamine's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I really think that in order to it is imperative that not only that happens but it is consistent. Keeping up with the Jones' is not way to live life. You keep at it, or you keep at.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

The credibility of content due to the sheer number of contributors and material contributed's thoughts on question 2[edit]

The credibility of content due to the sheer number of contributors and material contributed[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

more people in europe are getting better access to electronics and the internet.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

more time to edit on mobile's thoughts on question 2[edit]

more tabs in the mobile app


Response by Gryllida

Gryllida's thoughts on question 1[edit]

What major trends would you identify in addition to mobile and the next billion users? --

  1. some our wikis are growing, and the growth is not healthy. To make it healthy, the software needs to be made extensible in a more consistent and flexible way than what JavaScript currently provides. WMF should support people writing new mediawiki extensions and getting them approved. Extending the software should be easy. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  2. Mirrors appear, and WMF does not adequately support them. For the sake of information freedom, the WMF should support the distribution, modification, and redistribution freedoms without discouraging editable copies and forks of Wikimedia projects or their parts. This does not even need to be a wiki; if someone runs a copy of wikipedia using Joomla or Dokuwiki, they should be applauded, and a way needs to be invented to merge their edits back into wikipedia without much pain. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  3. Sister projects are too small and are not adequately supported. Thanks to Wikidata support all! But there needs to be more integration with sister projects and more interation of the projects with each-other. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  4. The help section is not used by users adequately. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  5. Some Wikimedia chapters ignore some of the issues raised above, and undersupport and troll some of the sister projects systematically. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  6. There is no consistent standard feedback mechanism.

Gryllida's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Based on the future trends that you think are important, what would thriving and healthy Wikimedia projects look like? --

  1. more like what Wikia is right now, but even less centralised. People should run their own instances of various software, mediawiki or not, with content from Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Engineering folks should support all the various shoot-offs as well as Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  2. stop ignoring the "big wiki" problem some projects face, such as English Wikipedia; there is a lot of routine tasks, including even communication with newcomers and new articles and edits patrol, which are fully automated and unacceptably dry (template protection is a part of such problem - the helpers end up locking things down and locking out legitimate contributors without knowing the statistics).Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  3. with a good help section. It needs to have a tree view at the left and a big search box above it.Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  4. Use less JavaScript. Use responsive CSS. Do not go out of your way to rewrite the whole thing (MobileFrontend is incredibly stupid; there may be a need in different workflows for mobile, but not in a new piece of software which combines a skin, mobile workflows, and a wiki). Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  5. The sidebar ought to contain a feedback box with a submit button. Gryllida 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  6. Translation to another language should be available through a translate tab and it should be possible to use without JavaScript. This is long overdue and I suggest you to enable the ContentTranslation extension in beta as soon as reasonably possible. Gryllida 10:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  7. Better work on apps for all desktops for all projects to use Wikimedia stuff offline, and even save edits for upload later (this is where merge handling would be handy). OpenStreetMap apps allow to add stuff to a map offline and upload later, for example. Gryllida 10:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  8. I wanted to write for a certain platform for which a wikipedia app exists, but it's not at all very reusable. There should be a thingy to start new apps from which is good at API calls (even gadgets are rather poor at it...). A toolkit for writing new wikimedia project app for a wiki itself or for a certain desktop or mobile platform. Gryllida 10:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  9. Stop separating people into "readers" (logged out) and "editors" (logged in). I.e. the content translation tool is only available for logged in users. This is unacceptable. More, more similar things happen regularly but should be fixed... Gryllida 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Gryllida: do you have in mind easy forking of mediawiki to build new wikies easily? How would you control for quality in those cases? Thanks. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 2[edit]

dar a conocer nuevos temas como por ejemplo el abstracto del avance del siglo XXI

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"provide new topics such as abstract advance of XXI century"


Response by 2601:7:2000:8F8:D0EB:FBC7:BFD9:DC79

2601:7:2000:8F8:D0EB:FBC7:BFD9:DC79's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Going mobile is only half the equation. Users will become even more connected as we move to a "one device" platform. User will use their phone and then use that as their main device via some sort of docking station.

2601:7:2000:8F8:D0EB:FBC7:BFD9:DC79's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Keep doing what you are doing. Chronicle all human information (it's the only way to make AI possible), seek out the truth, and seek out helpful and meaningful projects.


Response by Haktemur

Haktemur's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I predict that the main stream in the coming years will be focused on interactive communication and entertainment. I understand that people are becoming more and more interested in having fun and sharing their fun with others. This is not something I see as a positive change as a life model but the trend.

Haktemur's thoughts on question 2[edit]

As a nonprofit organization giving importance to the knowledge and its propagation other than profit or entertainment, Wikipedia can play an important role in the world of future. All the developments we got by now in human history were some results of the knowledge and principles on which we were strict. What were these principles? These are very basic and universal ethical principles such as being honest, helper, giver, trustworthy, tolerant, respectful etc. But unfortunately these principles are getting abandened gradually. So, to keep our developments sustainable, we should return our principles as humanity family and promote their understanding by everyone of our family. Wikipedia can keep publishing its content by blending knowledge with its ethical importance. There need to think a lot on how to do it in this plophonic world. But, at least the common ones should be praised in some ways with the most read titles etc., if we want to keep this world as a livable place. Thank you for your effort in seeking for "thriving".[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Internet would be faster than it is now and will be more accessible.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

They are those that would be useful for many people but not containing inappropriate content.


Response by IntergalacticDolphin

IntergalacticDolphin's thoughts on question 1[edit]

The biggest trend I can foresee is younger members and readers. Wikipedia is for many students one of the most trustworthy websites available, yet wikipedia seems to be failing to meet these students need for quick and easy information.

IntergalacticDolphin's thoughts on question 2[edit]

A healthy wikimedia community would be an easy to use, assess and explore one. People should be able to go onto a website, see the Wikimedia banner, and think, how can I help? Whats going on? Is it relevant to me? The Wiki community is one of the greatest on the internet, and more young people and casual internet users need to be brought into it, shown around the projects, and let loose.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

You could advertise youtubers and they will advertise you *cough* *cough* email either <emails added> on the left is mine but the right is my business email.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Just make a comment box below the items. Yeah, we access free information but what about free speech ?

Sorry but we tried that and it was a failure. As predicted lots of people love or hate Justin Beiber etc, but the cost in volunteer time of moderating the comment boxes was always going to be more than any benefit to Wikipedia. WereSpielChequers (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by Zeklandia

Zeklandia's thoughts on question 1[edit]

User prediction. The ability to pull up Wikipedia articles before you even think to pull one up. Wikipedia will need to be scanned/indexed so that anything trying to predict what someone will need to know can find the information.

Zeklandia's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Wikimedia projects that are considered mainstream, like Wikipedia, are successful. Wikimedia itself is almost there, as photos from Wikimedia are most practical and often higher quality. They also need to be accessible, with translations and good designs that work on every platform.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

we should share a lot of information and everything, includes old and new. people will find many thing there. and it should be a interesting place, for entertainmentand learning. reading stories, comic, manga, news, watching videos, pictures,.... they can study on web,..


Response by கபிலன்91

கபிலன்91's thoughts on question 1 and 2[edit]

[Part 1] Currently people are using Wikipedia for only limited purpose. They(same people) are not visiting Wikipedia daily. Once their need is fulfilled, they don't come again until they need help from Wikipedia. From your search engine they will find only the relevant articles. That means a very small percentage of Wikipedia knowledge source is used.

It is really hard to translate all the articles in all the languages. Next billion users don't understand most of the terms in English. Even though they know similar terms in their language,and its meaning. Because of that they failed to understand the news article. They don't have time to search and find the definition of those terms or more information about those terms.

mobiles/smartphones are useless without social media (mainly twitter,Facebook). People are using the social medias to get latest news about anything from their circle, and from news medias/sources

So "MEANINGFUL USEFUL NEWS" is the Major trend. What you can do is; 1.Create plugin/widget for browsers/O/S and app for smartphone 2. It needs to help the user like this (example: There is a world called "Mars" in an article. If the user click thrice on that word, it will popup small wikipedia window. User will get information about mars on that popup screen)

But it also need to support many platforms such as: PDF readers, Browsers, Smartphones, Social Media, Websites, Blogs...where ever they find a text word, if they click thrice on that text world it will show the relevant article on a popup window.

It is like a dictionary, grammar checking ,spelling checking integrated applications of word processing & browser software

[Part 2] Get help from Google Translator & Facebook Translation Communities, and your own translation communities. It is not possible to fully translate all the articles. People can understand basic English. They only need to know the meaning of hard English words/terms or scientific terms, can say verbs, nouns. So list all the English words in your entire knowledge source, and tell those communities to translate it in their mother language. "Example: By right clicking on the English word - They can find the Tamil world similar to it" (only on wikipedia website) - Not on that plug in/widget

Best regards, S.Kapilan

@கபிலன்91: Hi. For browser extensions that enable quick lookup, you might find Quickwiki (Firefox) or wikipedia-lookup-browser (Chrome) useful. Making those more discoverable, or making official versions with broader platform support, is an interesting idea; Thanks!
For translation, there is ongoing work on tools (mw:Content translation) to enable easier translation between all of the Wikipedias (currently in 288 languages).
Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

...For me it's curiosity, for others, it's probably communication, and still for mobile users, it's probably just for fun. Honestly, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT PEOPLE PREFER!!!!! i'm not exactly the most social of people, but i'm highly analytical, so take my advice as a suggestion, (or with a grain of salt, whatever you prefer) with higher probability, and no clue as to how companies work.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

... Well, you could team up with other companies to help get the word out, but that doesn't look good from a non profit organization point of view, because companies like google usually require payment to "sponsor" another company.

the second thing you could do, is make an app that defines things by using some sort of simple identification technique, this would get a good response from the mobile app industry, especially if it's a truly free app (unlike other mobile apps nowadays). if it's easy to use, and useful, people would recommend it by word of mouth, or blog post, or tweet, or ect.

A more fun, but less surefire way of getting your name onto the mobile market / mobile community(funny name if you ask me). is by having youtubers talk about your idea, or anyone in general talk about your idea, i'd say that in the more poor countries you could get schools, or community workers to talk about wikipedia, for the more advanced countries i would recommend youtube, and for the less advanced countries i would recommend schools or community workers

there are some factors to talk about in the last plan, for instance, most youtubers will do things for payment, but some youtubers will do things for free, because the community thinks they are doing a good thing. in the second case, being a nonprofit organization helps a great deal. on the other hand(or option), you will need support from either the schools, or the government, and in some cases you will need both support from the government, and the schools.

Username: The Only One (because i really don't have a User Name)

Wikipedia is available via apps on Google Play and iTunes. We have do have some exposure on YouTube.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by 2001:5B0:2BFF:EF0:0:0:0:3E

continue to just gather the truth and all things will be added un to you[edit]

Response by

Mijn mening over vraag 1[edit]

Een voortzetting van de algehele taalverloedering; de kritische massa is al bereikt voor waanzin als: - Alle afkortingen/termen en grove fouten die mensen in sociale media gebruiken; wat die fouten betreft vraag je je soms af of ze te lui waren om het te corrigeren of dat ze dachten dat het zo juist goed was. - "hun" als persoonlijk voornaamwoord in derde persoon meervoud ("Hun zeggen") - Het verdwijnen van het lidwoord "het" - Wat in de volksmond d/t-fouten worden genoemd - Alle Engelse invloeden, waaronder uitdrukkingen ("soort van" ipv. "min of meer") en het gebruik van spatierijke Engelse constructies waar je in het Nederlands gewoon samenstellingen dient te gebruiken ("wilde zwijnen plaag" ipv. "wildezwijnenplaag") Kortom, terwijl wiktionary.org steeds beter alle wereldtalen weet te beschrijven, zijn die talen in rap tempo bezig museumobjecten te worden.

Een nog extremere bite-size-consumptie van informatie en verder afnemende aandachtsspanne.

(machine translation please improve)' A continuation of the overall language degradation; the critical mass has been reached for insanity as: - All abbreviations / terms and gross errors that people use in social media; regarding those mistakes question you sometimes wonder whether they were too lazy to correct or that they thought it was just so good. - "Their" as a personal pronoun in the third person plural ("They say") - The disappearance of the definite article "the" - What are called popularly d / t errors - all British influences, including expressions ("sort of" instead. "more or less") and the use of space rich English constructions which you must use just compounds in Dutch ("wild boar plague" instead. "wild boar plague") in short, while wiktionary.org always better to describe all world know which languages are rapidly being busy museum objects.
An even more extreme bite-size consumption of information and further diminishing attention spans.

Mijn mening over vraag 2[edit]

Een nogal ironische vraag, gezien mijn antwoord op vraag 1. In de toekomst zal er namelijk bijna niemand meer de moeite nemen een vraag als vraag 2 serieus in te vullen. En dat is als de toekomst nog zal bestaan, gezien het toenemende hacken, terrorisme en natuulijk de slinkende energievoorraden en toenemende overbevolking.

(machine translation please improve)' A rather ironic question, given my answer to question 1. In the future, there will, in fact almost no one worth taking a serious question as question 2 to fill.
And that's if the future will still exist, given the increasing hacking, terrorism and natuulijk dwindling energy resources and growing overpopulation.[edit]

Response by

Hunting for more elevant ways's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Nowdays people need more relevant way to find out or to search for the needful. Searching using voice commands can be more preferable. Also its would be more helpful for a 'wikipedian' like me if theres an app of wikipedia which will notify me 'Today's featured article'.

Hi. The Mobile Apps (Android and iOS), and the Mobile version of the standard site, will show you "Today's featured article" by default on first load. It's also available as a mailing list. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I perfer wikipedia more as it is simple. Maintaining the simplicity by providing genuine information is ecpected from wikipedia.

Thankyou ![edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Future devices are smart watches, smart shoes or anything in accessories or what we see around us in day to day life that can be digitalized. World has reached a stage where anything can be digitalized. Right from your wrist watches to may be your glass table placed in a living room.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

To keep the site healthy, only relevant information should be there which is true by all means as people rely only the internet source these days as they don't want to reach out to books any more. So to spread right knowledge, only the right content should be available.

Big dog11211[edit]

Response by Big dog11211

Big dog11211对问题一的想法[edit]


(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Flooded the Internet on the real economy is large, whether the Internet can conduct the manufacture of food and water and other basic living supplies, changing the identity of the transfer, reduce the pressure on the real economy."

Big dog11211对问题二的想法[edit]


(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Can the class web platform and knowledge together to establish screening discussions with the knowledge areas, pharmaceutical categories such as: wooden insect, lilac garden, large sites established foreign exchange platform for unified authority of knowledge, Wikipedia APP, knowledge update, easy to find."[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

If Wikipedia continues to exist, the pace towards low quality jingoistic writings will accelerate. If another group of quality people can create something of more quality, and which can keep dirt level democracy from approaching, Wikipedia will literally rot.

یه ایرانی[edit]

Response by یه ایرانی

یه ایرانی's thoughts on question 1[edit]

اعتبار بیشتر نوشته ها و همچنین خودداری از جانبداری

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Credit writings and also refrain from advocating"[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

The selfie trend.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

I would like to see a twitter project where participants tweet about important things in the world and online and sharing them with wikipedia on twitter![edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I suggest that you give extra focus towards adding more Indian languages and other Asian languages because recently the website internet.org was created to help people use basic websites like Wikipedia and Google.When these people use the internet for the first time,theymost probably will not know how to use the internet properly so they would be able to understand their own language better than English and will therefore make the experience of using the internet significantly better.I hope you take it into consideration...

The List of Wikipedias shows 288 language versions. Are there other Indian and Asian languages that you think need their own Wikipedia?--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Video information And onlie Education's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Videos can transport much more information than a text. An can built bridges over language barriers. Of course we have you tube. But YouTube is 99,99 too clever by half and only 0,01% Real good information. How fabulous it would be to have 100% real good video information. Same format, rools for content and information. And how great it would be to have education pages for classical studies in each language. Information based on best way of knowledge transfer. The focus is not only to update the knowledge but also to permanently update the way of teaching and learning to reach the best and most effective way of advanced training for each step and each standard of knowledge.[edit]

Response by

make an app

The Wikipedia app can be found on Google Play and iTunes.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

make Wikipedia a mobile app for apple store and windows and android

The Wikipedia app can be found on Google Play and iTunes.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

به نظر من اخبار و اطلاعات روزانه مانند آب و هوا به صورت ویکی میتواند قدم بعدی باشد ضمنا سیستمهای نظرسنجی آنلاین در موضوعات مختلفی که کاربران انتخاب میکنند میتواند ویکی مدیا را تبدیل به یک مرجع غیر رسمی برای نظر جامعه کند. مثلا پیش بینی نتایج انتخابات و حتی پیش بینی روند رشد یا افت قیمت نفت ویکی مدیا قدرت کلیک مردم را در اختیار دارد و باید از آن بیشتر استفاده کند

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I think the news and daily information like weather in Clearwater next step is
Meanwhile, the online survey systems on various issues that users can Wikimedia chose to become an informal reference to the community.
For example, to predict the election results, and even predict the growth or decline in oil prices
Click Wikimedia power to the people and to make it more"[edit]

Response by

wikipedia es bueno para todo lo que es informacion,yo digo que es excelente para:curiosidades,biografia,y muchas cosas mas no digo que los demas son malos porque yo los uso a todos .pero al fin wiki es buena

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"wikipedia is good for all that is information, I say it is excellent for: trivia, biography, and much more not saying that others are bad because I use them all .but finally wiki is good"[edit]

Response by

we can my ask schools to give projects on arpa][edit]

Response by Gedanken zu Frage 1[edit]

Spracheingabe, Ortserkennung via Geokoordinaten und Bilderkennung werden wichtiger, da eine Texteingabe bei kleinen Mobilgeräten immer schwierig bleiben wird

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Voice input, spatial recognition via geo-coordinates and image recognition are important as a text input will always be difficult for small mobile devices" Gedanken zu Frage 2[edit]

ich wünsche mir, dass eine klare Struktur und die Übersichtlichkeit erhalten bleibt. Keinesfalls solltet ihr jedoch der eventuellen Versuchung erliegen, inhaltlich abzuspecken

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I would like to see a clear structure and clarity is maintained. Under no circumstances, however, you should resist the temptation any, slim down content"[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Mobile version of Wikipedia will need for more numbers of volonteer movement for specialization in certain branches of human knowledge. More users is more bug fixes's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I want that all of members of Wikipedia community have right bring to a vote the articles and amendments thereto. I want that all articles will be written by specialists in certain branches of human knowledge. I have some disputes with not a professional writers in Russian Wikipedia. I am lawyer, and I know that many articles were written by not a professional writers so bad.I think that the English Wikipedia has the same problems.[edit]

Response by

I wish it would be better if you include whole worlds cases instead including only US, Thank You,


Response by Os-von-Ram

Os-von-Ram's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Ausgehend meiner Beobachtungen sehe ich den Trend der Menschen nicht nur mehr Antworten finden zu wollen sondern direkte Lösungen. Zwei Beispiele aus verschiedenen Richtungen:

1: Erfahrungswissenschaften. Ein am Gleichstom interessierter Mensch sucht das Ohmische Gesetz und findet ein Text von Wiki. Ihm fehlt aber weiteres Wissen um mit diesem Gesetz arbeiten zu können. Folglich geht die Suche weiter.. Der Vorschlag: Ein in die Seite integriertes Programm zum Umrechnen der Gleichung. Folglich geht die Arbeit weiter.. Anmerkung: Freie Quellen der Programme, Wissensportation zwischen Anwendungsgebieten(Mathe<=>Programmiersprachen).

2: Geisteswissenschaften. Aufgrund der Abstraktionsebene in diesem Wissensbereich ist es schwierig bis unmöglich Formeln für Zusammenhänge im mathematischen Sinne zu entwickeln. Die Sprachenvielfalt führt oft noch zu weiteren Hürden der Wissensportation. Ein an der Aufklährung interessierter Mensch sucht nach Kant. Die im Wikipediaartikel gefundenen Informationen können aufgrund von Fehlinterpretation oder Fehlübersetzungen falsch aufgenommen werden. Desweiteren häufen sich Begriffe wie, transzendental, kausalprinzip oder synthetische Urteile a priori. Folglich geht die suche weiter.. Der Vorschlag: Eine international Bildsprache a´la Wiki. Anmerkung: Die Entwicklungsarbeit einer solchen Sprache scheint für den ein oder anderen Menschen nicht ausreichend begründet oder nachvollziehbar zu sein. Es ist auch richtig anzunehmen das es keine Notwendigkeit für dieses gibt. (Unter der Prämisse das die Entwicklung dieser Welt ohne eine solche Möglichkeit der Wissensportation anzustreben währe.) Andererseits entstünde eine erweiterung der nahezu weltweiten Kommunikation zur Wissensportation.

Mobile & next Billion User, im hinblick auf steigende Nutzerzahlen sowie kompacktere Nutzgeräte scheint eine komprimierung des Datenstoms sowie dekompression des Informationsgehaltes eine wirtschaftliche Prämisse zu sein. Natürlich treibt ein solcher Mechanismus dazu das Philosophien jeglicher Art verbreitet verstanden würden. Zumindest sollte er es. Und wie so oft beobachtet scheinen aufgeklärte Menschen wirtschaftsunabhängiger zu sein. Folglich könnte sich die Internetnutzung reduzieren. Eventuell sogar durch den schrumpfenden Konsum der Nutzergeräte. Jedoch bliebe der Zwang zum konsum, auch wenn es im vergleich zu heutigen fast stündlichen Nutzung sehr viel weniger erscheint, auf dieser Ebene und macht es wirtschaftlich gesehen (ich wollte schon goldesel schreiben) zu einem "Tischlein deck dich".

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Based on my observations, I see the trend of people not only want to find more answers but direct solutions.
Two examples from different directions:
1: empirical sciences. An interested in Gleichstom man seeks the Ohmic law and finds a text of Wiki. But he lacks further knowledge to be able to work with this law. Consequently, the search continues ..
The proposal: an integrated program for converting into the side of the equation. Consequently, the work goes on ..
Note: Free sources of programs, knowledge portation between applications (Math <=> programming languages).
2: Humanities. Due to the level of abstraction in this area of ​​knowledge, it is difficult or impossible to develop formulas for correlations in the mathematical sense. Often Linguistic diversity leads to further hurdles of knowledge portation. An interested in the Aufklährung person searches for Kant. The information found on the Wikipedia articles may be incorrectly recorded due to misinterpretation or incorrect translations. Furthermore, terms such as piling, transcendental, or causal principle of synthetic judgments a priori. Thus goes the search more ..
The proposal: An international visual language a'la wiki.
Note: The development of such language seems to be not sufficiently justified or understandable for one or two people. It is also correct to assume that there is no need for this. (Assuming the Währe without any attempt at such a possibility of knowledge portation developing world.)
On the other hand, would create an extension of almost global communications for knowledge portation.
Mobile & next billion users,
with a view to increasing numbers of users and utility devices kompacktere a compression of the data Toms and decompression of the information content seem to be an economic premise.
Of course, such a mechanism to drive the philosophies of any kind would spread understood. At least it should. And as so often observed appear to be economically independent enlightened people. Consequently, the internet usage could be reduced.
Possibly even by the shrinking consumption of user equipments. However, would the compulsion to consume, even if it is present almost hourly usage appears much less compared to that level and makes it economically seen (I've wanted to write gold donkey) to a 'Wishing you "."

Os-von-Ram's thoughts on question 2[edit]

1:Wikipedia sollte über die Sprachebene hinaus wachsen. 2:Wissen sollte Kategorisiert und rekursiv wissbar gemacht werden. 3:Desweiteren sollten Mechanismen implementiert werden die Wissen auf ihre ursprünglichen Prämissen zurückführen lässt.

"1: Wikipedia should grow beyond language level.
2: Knowledge should be categorized and made recursively knowable.
3: Further, mechanisms should be implemented so that knowledge can be traced back to their original premises."[edit]

Response by

es una pagina muy util y agradable para la informacion de lo que se busca pues da ejemplos muy utiles para aplicar en las conversaciones a posteriori con terceros

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"It is a very useful and enjoyable for the information of what is sought as it gives very useful examples to apply in subsequent discussions with third page"[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

The information in Wikipedia should be more reliable and we all know it is a very difficult task, but it can be achieved, the ANYONE CAN EDIT scenario should be restrained to some extent to exempt Wikipedia from vanadalism and extremely biased opinions.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

Wikipedia should and must contribute more towards other countries. It seems Wikipedia is not particular to get correct information and detailed level information about the third world countries. USA and Euorpean countries get prime attention in all of Wikipedia's articles. I am not saying Wikipedia is biased, but it's just that Wikipedia needs to give more attention to third world countries like India, Brazil, China, Iran and many others.

More thrust should be given to Economy-relaed articles.

The List of Wikipedias shows 288 language communities, so you may find the information about third world countries that you are looking for in their own language.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

1. The next billion users are going to be more diverse than the first. The key challenge here will be to maintain neutrality in the areas where controversies may arise.

2. One of the areas where wikimedia can really play a big role in future is forming public views and supporting causes where a lot of human lives are getting impacted.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

More female contributors plain and simple[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

location based info for mobile. info about the things around you using gps, or similar to google goggles.[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

incluiria la incorporación a la vida cotidiana. me refiero a la incorporacion del uso del internet desde electrodomesticos inteligentes. Wikipedia podria tener su propia distribución para la cocina y una serie de comandos que lleguen por ejemplo a la heladera y uno sea capaz< de buscar una receta y la misma aplicación te diga si ud. cuenta con todos los ingredientes, etc.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"would include the incorporation into daily life. I mean the incorporation of Internet use from smart appliances. Wikipedia could have its own distribution for cooking and a series of commands that arrive for example to the fridge and one is able <to find a recipe and the same application tell you if you. has all the ingredients, etc."

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 2[edit]

Yo creo que Wikipedia seguirá renovándose y sacará al mercado su propia app, muy actualizada y que incluirá las distintas distribuciones wiki

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I believe that Wikipedia will continue renewing and will release its own app, very updated and will include different distributions wiki"[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Sports's thoughts on question 2[edit]

It needs to look modern[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Perhaps there will be a continued loss of interest in editing and more growth of organized, agenda-driven groups.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

The bread and butter of community interaction (communication, talk pages, wikiprojects, watchlist, notifications, etc) is all kludge built on kludge and is utterly broken, doubly so on mobile. A healthy project will be made up of hundreds or thousands of people making small interactions to drive each small and large change, not a handful of people searching for the ~ key on their mobile device, manually indenting their replies to irrelevant arguments on decisionless threads which are impossible to follow and have no mechansism to get back on track. Interaction here is like walking in molasses. Surveys are not a replacement for leadership. Something has to change or—if it's lucky—Wikipedia will be forked and superseded. If it's not, it will just decay slowly into an Urban Dictionary for people who don't like swearing as much. Hope you find some leadership some day.[edit]

Response by

bence her bilginin altına o bilgiyle ilgili önemli videolar yada örnekler eklenebilir bazı alanlarda. Daha akılda kalıcı oluyor.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I think that the examples below any information or videos about the important information can be added in some areas. Lasting more going on in the mind."[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

scroll's thoughts on question 2[edit]

This is not the answer you guys are looking for. I like the way things are now. Content is easy to navigate, media (pictures, sound clips, etc.) is depicted effectively, and authors appear to be authentic. I am excited for the next wave of internet to immerse themselves in this great encyclopedia that Wiki has evolved into.[edit]

Response by

Considerazioni di sulla domanda n. 1[edit]

Accettare raccolta di numerose immagini per raggiungere in breve tempo visione di tutte le nazioni in modo esaustivo - Contattare o raccogliere informazioni mediante Google.com su raccolte di immagini fotografiche _Dedicarsi si ai cellulari ma ricordare che con un computer si lavora meglio (per elaborare e fornire documenti accurati)

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Accept collection of several images to quickly reach the vision of all nations in a comprehensive way - Contact or collect information through Google.com on collections of photographic images _Dedicarsi you to phones but remember that you work better with a computer (to process and deliver accurate documents)"

Considerazioni di sulla domanda n. 2[edit]

Organizzare siti di 'aggregati ' che stanno fornendo immagini fotografiche (a scopondo viaggi ) creando condizioni per la collaborazione e la acquisizione (senza scopo di lucro ) delle immagini fornite quando questi siti cesseranno la attività - Molti turisti che fotografano sarebbero incentivati a fornire immagini (anche gratuitamente purchè citata la origine) sde sanno che verranno vedute da tutto il mondo-- Lasciare che questi possano commerciare i loro prodotti solo dal loro sito -

Ho questa attività dal 1998 e moltissime persone (99 % ) non sanno che esistono DVD-dati di qusto tipo in quanto gli editori (di cartaceo ) hanno sempre boicottato la loro diffusione- I loro libri verrebbero deprezzati anche perchè non possono contenere centinaia di immagini---- Sareste subissati di immagini - Occorre accettare solo formati di maggior dimensione degli schermi (anche per uso in TV, consigliato il 4000x3000 px)- Potrei inviare altre precisazioni ed indicazioni se l'idea può essere utile-

Un vostro corso informazioni sarebbe utile per uniformare il lavoro- Distinti saluti -nThei dr.Alberto -La Spezia -Italy-

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Organize sites 'aggregates' that are providing photographic images (in scopondo travel) creating conditions for collaboration and acquisition (non-profit) of the images provided when these sites will cease the activity - Many tourists who photograph would have an incentive to provide images ( also free of charge as long as the source cited) sde know they will be seen from all over the world-- Leave that they can trade their products only from their website -
I have this business since 1998, and many people (99%) do not know that there are DVD-data prevents this type as publishers (of paper) have always boycotted their diffusione-
Their books would also depreciated because they can contain hundreds of images ---- Would you be overwhelmed by images - must only accept most formats screen size (even for use on TV, recommended 4000x3000 px) - I could send more details and directions if the idea can be useful-
A course your information would be helpful to standardize the work-
Sincerely -nThei dr.Alberto -The Spice -Italy-"[edit]

Response by

Concern regarding Wikipedia's credibility[edit]

Hi! My only concern is the free editing of any Wiki article by any user, which often leads to unreliable material. This is one of the main reasons to which Wikipedia is not considered an entirely reliable source for academic research.n I hope you will look into this matter. Your website is a building block for the future. Sincerest Regards.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

shift to images and videos. less text, more (pie)charts, graphs.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

create own videos for popular subjects (finance it by asking money from sites who want to use your videos)

greetings from the netherlands[edit]

Response by

  1. tablets y pc´s
  2. si


Response by Toucemouse13

Toucemouse13's thoughts on question 1[edit]

...write here… I would address the topic of validity of information, ability to translate content on the fly, multiple device cross compatibility, and ease of access.

Toucemouse13's thoughts on question 2[edit]

...write here… I think that everything listed above would need to be worked on, primarily the validity of information and the ability to translate information on the fly. Those two are key for sustaining a large presence as an informational website in a global market. Soon, there will be other companies that will take advantage of your weaknesses and beat your company out if these two topics are not addressed. Wikipedia is known to be informative, but also very deceptive. Most universities ban the use of Wikipedia and there has been numerous instances of extreme misinformation produced on this website that has widely spread as valid information. Also, with the emergence into a global market, the ability to translate pages with accuracy will be of significant importance to your company because you will be able to share your content immediately on a global scale. Advertisement may also be a smart decision initially because people who are just emerging into the internet will not know of this website. It is your job to inform the user, so utilize whatever means necessary to get that done.[edit]

Response by

Get a good-looking interface.

You need a functional interface. And try to get the proffesional terms down, just a little bit for young readers.


Response by Algernon777

Algernon777's thoughts on question 1[edit]

McDonalds is almost saying it on every cup and bag: The trend to be globally reminded to "Choose To Be Loving". The trend to globally celebrate Easter as defined: "At sunrise the Son rose.". The trend to globally refer to the inhabitants of Earth as "us" (as defined on the back of the dollar bill) meaning "ONE" warring entity as exhibit side by side at Arlington Global Cemetery (as described in the book Return From Tomorrow by George Ritchie). The trend to globally become democratic in all processes, including all the World's affirming and occurring these trends. Love, Dean

Algernon777's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Wikimedia projects that look exactly like this site that make-possible, promote, and facilitate these trends coming to stay. Love, Dean[edit]

Response by

my einglish is a very Weak ihave some good idia And I hope you implement them if you first make application of Wikipedia with cost download or if a lot of advertisements another idea despite all the sadness of commercialization can offer companies to support Bwikfdih mercury in exchange for temporary use Bwikfdih their interests hope I helped organize a huge contributes to the world something else watch out people from within the organization that are of interest they will destroy you that you have successfully enriched to know myself and the


Less money paid to the administration and management staff. Period.[edit]

Response by

به نظر من شما با قرار دادن اطلاعات 100% صحیح که با تحقیقات یک بخش تحقیقی به دست امده و جلوگیری از ویکی پدیا نویسی و قرار دادن اطلاعات صحیح توسط خودتان به همه زبانها میتوانید موجب توسعه سایت شوید

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I think you put the information is 100% accurate with the investigation and prevention of Wikipedia, a part drawn up and put the correct information to you available in all languages ​​lead to the development can login"


Response by Bootzee

Bootzee's thoughts on question 1[edit]

women educating selves through web classes, Kiva loans help people out of poverty, small farming will become necessary and more bikes less cars .[edit]

Response by

make a wikipedia for childern

due to the extinction of books and large us eof internet, many students use wikipedia for all sources ofinformation,anyhow for example a topic like water for project work for small kid needs info only on rain and its daily uses,but high school student needs info on its chemical changes, evn the info could categorised based on the subjects,making it easier for browsing

even wikipedia can start a news channel,movie directory,song directory

it can also create a platform like facebook for sharing ideas and thoughts of various ppl around the world[edit]

Response by

Solicit donations and then create a sustainable endowment for your operating revenue to cover capital investments. Get volunteers to do the labor.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

A major ongoing trend is the rise of "churnalism", content farming, SEO and other spam techniques as means of making money via the internet. Wikipedia needs to avoid falling into the trap of sacrificing content to attract readership. The emphasis should be on the quality of the work as a reference. With this in mind, Wikipedia should focus on providing accessibility for mobile readers but should not sacrifice its standards to support mobile editing. When the goals of accessibility and quality conflict, Wikipedia should generally favor quality.

Also, although mobile devices are on the rise, personal computers will continue to be an important way for people to access the internet for many years to come, so this aspect of the site should not be neglected.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

Thriving projects would see substantive edits (not just cleanup) and active discussion focused on how to improve articles and the work as a whole. Articles would not fall under the "ownership" of individual editors and would present the material without bias, while still discussing major points of view as appropriate. A robust system would be in place to request special attention to questions or issues that arise, and direct editors with expert knowledge to articles that could benefit from it.


Response by 2001:468:D01:92:5D39:F421:DBB8:A26


2001:468:D01:92:5D39:F421:DBB8:A26's thoughts on question 1[edit]

You are first and foremost a encyclopedia. This is not a new development in history of the internet age -- this is a project that has been going on for hundreds of years. I wouldn't expect that core project to change with the next 1,000,000,000 users.

I think the key to the success of the collaboration of Wikipedia has been the fact that it wasn't new and it didn't take on a new project it just vastly copied the existing structure of an encyclopedia and expanded the range and scope of what an encyclopedia was.

I think your successful projects will be projects that successfully imitate really popular and exciting things that are happening now. For example with all widely popular open source there has been a trend very similar to this:

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia growing at rapid high pace 1995-2000 then Wikipedia taking of as an imitator offering a free service right after. Microsoft Windows Operating System growing at rapid high pace from 1984-2000 with Linux coming on line 1993-2010 as an imitator offering a free service right after. 3Ds Max and Maya Modeling software growing at a rapid high pace from 1995-2005 with Blender modeling software coming online 2002-2012 as an imitator offering a free service right after. Open Office Imitating Microsoft Office Gimp Imitating Photoshop Audacity Imitating Music Editing Software Beyond this the trend continues but there haven't really been that many widescale applications of successful open projects

Must consider this relationship when thinking about the future[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

No contestaré les preguntes. Era per dir que m'agrada molt que wikipedia tingui una estructura tan clara i senilla, i que està molt be que en algunes paraules importants hi hagi enllaços externs. Però crec que en els textos hi hauria d'haver més suport visual (imatges, videos...), ja que a vegades és una mica difícil d'entendre, encara més quan tot és text.

Espero que els serveixi d'alguna cosa. Gràcies

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Do not answer the questions. It was to say that I really like that wikipedia has a structure so clear and reeds, and is very good in some important words there are external links. But I think that the texts would be more visual support (images, videos ...), as it is sometimes a little difficult to understand, even when everything is text.
I hope you serve something.

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I think that a good idea would be to add private messaging similar to talk pages. This might attract people.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

As data science evolves and creates new knowledge from big data sources, there will need to be places for new computer-generated knowledge to be exposited.

There will be two major divisions of this kind of information: 1) suspected knowledge, and 2) applied knowledge.

Section 1 will contain two subdivisions, 1a and 1b: Section 1a will contains "discoveries" by computer sources that need to be evaluated by humans for correctness ("Okay, computer, that's interesting but we view it as incorrect."), and for contextual applicability ("Okay, computer, that's interesting and may be correct, but it has no relevance to humans."). This analysis is best done by the public domain, in the same fashion as peer-reviewed research. Others can be encouraged to duplicate the analysis, or who may have access to actual contextual scenarios for applicability.

Section 1b contains questions to be answered / problems to be solved. These may or may not be solvable by data science. They could be solved by other means, or a combination of them (literary research, empirical research, scientific exploration and discovery, including data science).

In short, Section 1a contains answers to questions that have yet to be asked, whereas Section 1b contains questions that need answers.

Section 2 will contain new knowledge from Section 1 that has been: a) validated as correct, and b) relevant in some context. Thus, Section 2 contains validated knowledge that is now of the encyclopedic and/or professional level.

While Wikimedia acts as a repository of known information (Section 2), the development and proliferation of unanswered questions [1b] are valid unto themselves. It is the documentation of "knowing what we don't know." Likewise, new information that has yet to find applicability [1a] is also of cultural significance because it represents when we, as humankind, became aware of some nugget of knowledge though we know not yet its applicability. (Analogous to this is the caveman's awareness of lightening and fire. He knows its characteristics and power, but doesn't fully understand it. The documentation of what he DOES know is valuable until the full understanding is known at some later point.)

As the next billion users come onto Wikipedia, especially from entirely separate cultures (some of which continue to develop industrially and educationally), undoubtedly they will have differing perspectives, their own unique cultural significances, their own differing views of existing knowledge, and their own unique problems and answers. There ill need to not only be the capacity to handle more information, but new ways of equalizing differences of opinion and views, conflict resolution, and forums to exposit differences and conflicts so that diverse opinion can solve these.


Response by Ironnail

Ironnail's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I personally think that Wikimedia is on the right track and I kind of hope that it keeps the same trend, but what I personally like to see happen about Wikimedia projects are these things: 1- Make'em even more accessible: If Internet goes down (not that it is likely, but let's let our imaginations be active, please) so will Wikipedia, it would be a good idea, to have access to Wikimedia projects even from our phone, or through other media. systems like: we call a number, or send a text msg to a number and a few lines of the related wikipedia article would get messaged back to us, even if it would not be for free it would be an amazing way to experience wikipedia even when the lights and the Internet is out. other media like maybe a wikipedia-glass would be amazing too. 2- Make it even more reliable and believable. I remember a few years back students getting extra homeworks for using wikipedia as their sources, nowadays even I see some univeristy professors that are either contributing to Wikipedia, or they are even openly saying sentences like: "Eventhough we could use Wikipedia as our start Internet page, but neverever we should use it as our source in our studies" which suggests that the scientific community is starting to make a relationship with Wikimedia projects, now if we somehow managed to make the whole projects even more reliable for the scientific communities it would be like a dream come true.

Ironnail's thoughts on question 2[edit]

My idea about this question is more of a look and feel kind of suggestion, meaning that I would suggest a more probably unique and standardized fontface for wikipedia articles, that everyone would enjoy. also maybe a more modern interface.

Also I truly understand that all these ideas need work and devotion, oh and money (a lot maybe), but these were what I have in mind almost always about wikipedia, and thanks for caring about your users' ideas. <3[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

For serious research using wiki the desk computer will continue to be the only sensible way in my opinion.…I gave up editing Wiki because on three occasion where I strated a thread that thread was taken over by other people. I had researched my subject well and used an authoritative source and i found bullying prevalent by people who knew the rules much betetr than I did. It is so galling to see a reasonable thread be taken oevr and all one swork removed by other people. It seemsed such a waste of time fighting people who altered evry word one wrote.[edit]

Response by Gedanken zu Frage 1[edit]

Ein großer Trend ist, dass Menschen (vor allem junge Leute) heute mehr Wert auf Informationen in Videoform legen.

Translation: It's a big trend for people, especially young people, to attach importance to information in the form of videos Gedanken zu Frage 2[edit]

Zu dem bloßem Artikel zu einem Thema würde ich mehr Medien hinzufügen. Zum Beispiel eine Bildergalerie oder interessante Interviews oder Berichte in Videoform. Grundsätzlich muss ein Wikipediaartikel nicht grundsätzlich als Textdokument verstanden werden. Wie wäre es, wenn Artikel auch als Video erstellt werden können? Ein Video kann man grundsätzlich ähnlich strukturieren wie einen gegenwärtigen Artikel, und Strukturen könnte man einfach übernehmen.

Ich denke, dass das Team von Wikimedia sich Gedanken darüber machen sollte, wie wohl ein Lexikon in der Zukunft funktioniert. Ich finde zur allumfassenden Archivierung von Wissen gehört auch die Archivierung von den entsprechenden Medien dazu. Wenn ich mich über ein Thema informieren will reicht mir meist ein farbloser Text nicht aus. Ich will Ausschnitte von Nachrichten, Fotos von Journalisten und alles was das Internet zu bieten hat. Einfach und auf einen Blick.

Translation:I'd add more media to an article about some topic. For example picture galleries, or interesting interviews, or reports as videos. In principle a Wikipedi-article should not be understood as a text document. How about creating articles as videos? A video could be structured in principle like a current article, the structure could be adopted. I think the team of Wikimedia should think about how a lexicon should work in the future. I think, for an complete archiving of knowledge belongs the respective media. If I want to inform myself the bland text is usually not sufficient. I'd like to see snippets from news, pictures from journalists, everything the internet can offer. Simple and at a glance.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Further usage for political agenda, to spread its propaganda to destabilizing a government, a political party and/or a country in its entirety. On the opposite side of this is to for a greater good, non-profit organizations would benefit from Wikimedia as a major addition for education, information as well to gather/bring in ideas for the their projects in various fields and locations.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

That Wikimedia is capable to keep its purpose as purely information/education base, a web encyclopedia in neutral and always base on facts manner, to maintained its integrity without any compromise to any government, party or country.[edit]

Response by

my einglish is a very Weak ihave some good idia And I hope you implement them if you first make application of Wikipedia with cost download or if a lot of advertisements another idea despite all the sadness of commercialization can offer companies to support Bwikfdih mercury in exchange for temporary use Bwikfdih their interests hope I helped organize a huge contributes to the world something else watch out people from within the organization that are of interest they will destroy you that you have successfully enriched to know myself and the and more pepole[edit]

Response by

avalibility of wikipedia's thoughts on question 1[edit]

if the internet becomes a controlled environment where some content is given priority over other then it can only mean that non commercial content such as wikipedia will become less available's thoughts on question 2[edit]

they would look like a campaign to win the oval office at least in essence.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

in 2008 Wikipedia had it's last update and people have gotten answers from back then all wrong so as of today Wikipedia gave kids in elementary wrong answers so I would like you guys to update every year thank you

hunter simon


Response by G0tsl33p14

G0tsl33p14's thoughts on question 1[edit]

From what I see issues will come to rise when gold production levels off. With the growing demand for input devices and humanized habits multiplied by change of consequences, population remains an exponent in a growing system relatively void of new knowledge. Jim Morrison may have been out of his mind but did make light in saying, "The old get older and the young get stronger, it may take a weak, and it may take longer." Thus in leaving such an open forum Wiki does often doom itself to the looming close out when systems go down. Why it remains stable today is only a by product of where people acquire their information, wiki is just a label. Tomorrow when our brains are intimately linked without viewing screens, will Wiki have its name on the synapses that provide the transfer?

G0tsl33p14's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I still think the open forum of Wikipedia gains on the need of synthesis. If a book could talk, it would say all it has to say. This is not Facebook, wiki records Facebook. It is less empty.[edit]

Response by

Mijn mening over vraag 1[edit]

for some reason not clear to me , the newer generations absorb in a totally different way information, for example some people seem to be obsessed by conspiraty theories , hence they brace themselves against popular science and medicine. education should bias there methode to achief a much stronger basic set of fysical and filosofical points of view. Otherwise the internet is not going to make these generations any smarter.

Mijn mening over vraag 2[edit]

A good filed and educated wiki project is most of all free of prejudice and asumptions . it is even more important to stay scientifically and free of political or religious influences. good projects are like this . we all know it is difficult to educate boring subjects as mathematics and chemistry , but still the world does not look the same if the population is with its mind in the medival periode , wrong informed and full of supersticiousness. we have to enlighten the reader with the whole information , even when that is against the law of that era or censorship or good taste.[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

¿Qué tendencias principales identificaría además de la móvil y la de los próximos mil millones de usuarios?

La respuesta es bien simple. La información. Todos los nuevos usuarios que entren a este mundo de la internet tendran hambre y sed de informacion. Saber que es lo que les rodea fuera de su habitad natural, como son las cosas fuera de su pais, como es la vida misma, es el principio de un cambio global de dentro de la persona y hacia a fuera. Tendra un impacto tan grande que eso puede hacer que poblaciones completas cambien su estilo de vida, incluso cambien el medio que les rodea. Crearan cosas, sistemas, en fin es sin limites de posibilidades. Wikipedia tiene el gran desafio de ser la Alejandria antigua en tiempo actual. Es la meta final y de mayor responsabilidad que sitio web dedicado al conocimiento y la informacion haya enfrentado jamas en su historia. Ustedes son los primeros y pueden ser por siempre los unicos, si en verdad comprenden cual es el impacto de su aporte a la comunidad global. Pues ustedes por medio del Internet han podido dar a conocer al mundo toda la informacion de la raza humana, en todo hambito. Es la fuente por excelencia y privilegiada de obtener conocimiento, rapido, seguro y sencillo en el Internet. Son la Mayor enciclopedia de todos los tiempos igual o mayor a la de la Alejandria antigua donde todo se consolido en una gigantezca biblioteca del conocimiento humano. Ustedes tienen ese honor. Porfavor protejanlo con el mayor legado de todo. Con un conocimiento real y verdadero. Escriban y publique la verdad siempre y lo demas dejenlo al tiempo y a lahistoria, pues veran los frutos.

Dandry Mejia E-mail: <removed> Publicado el 26 de Febrero del 2015.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"What also identify major trends in the mobile and the next billion users?
The answer is quite simple. The information. All new users who enter this world of internet will have hunger and thirst for information. Knowing what is around them outside their natural habitat, how things are outside their country, as is life itself, it is the beginning of a global change within the person and from outside. You will have such an impact that can cause whole populations to change their lifestyle, even change the environment around them. Create things, systems, order is limitless possibilities. Wikipedia has the great challenge of being the ancient Alexandria at present time. It is the ultimate goal and highest responsibility website dedicated to knowledge and information has ever faced in its history. You are the first and forever be the only, if you really understand what the impact of their contribution to the global community. Well you through the Internet have been able to give to the world all the information of the human race, all hambito. It is the source par excellence and privileged to gain knowledge, fast, safe and easy on the Internet. They are the Mayor encyclopedia of all time equal to or greater than that of ancient Alexandria where everything is consolidated into a gigantic library of human knowledge. You have that honor. I please Safeguard it with the greatest legacy of all. With a real and true knowledge. Write and publish the truth always and leave it to others and lahistoria time, as will see the fruits."

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 2[edit]

Dependiendo de las tendencias futuras que usted considera importantes, ¿cómo se verían los proyectos Wikimedia prósperos y exitosos?

Puedo decir sobre eso lo siguiente:

Los proyectos de wikipedia se veran prosperos y sumamente exitosos. Pueden tener un mayor impacto y mayor alcance simplemente si siguien en la linea con la cual comenzaron, osea la idea original. Compartir con todos, todo lo que se sabe hasta el momento. Ahora es interconectar a cada persona con ese mismo concepto y permitirles a todos comunicarlo, asi como en estos momentos se me permite a mi hacerlo en este breve mensaje. Wikipedia debe de concebir el futuro como una escalera que va en ascenso, escalon por escalon, y seguir subiendo, aplicando nuevas formas de transmitir conocimiento, por escritos o por codigos, lo que sea, piensen en esto ¿Como hacer que un no vidente use el internet y especificamente use wikipedia? a eso me refiero. Piensen en grande. Incluso el hombre mas humilde de la tierra que vive en el lugar mas apartado del mundo por ejemplo el tibet, debe de saber que es wikipedia y haberlo usado. Esa debe de ser una meta a fijar, que todo humano en el mundo nacido y que tenga uso de razon haya usados sus portal aunque sea una vez en su vida. Si eso ocurre ustedes ya lograron su cometido. Pues eso de lograrlo habran alcanzado la estabilidad economica total como empresa. Solo es empezar a enfocar sus prioridades y seguir un plan para lograrlo. Les deseo y auguro exito en su empresa. Gracias.

Dandry Mejia E-mail: <removed> Publicado el 26 de Febrero del 2015.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Depending on future trends that are important, how Wikimedia projects would be prosperous and successful?
I can say about it the following:
Wikipedia projects will look very prosperous and successful. They may have a greater impact and broader simply whether fol in line with which they began, I mean the original idea. Share with everyone, all that is known so far. Now is interconnected to each person with that same concept and allow all communicate it as well as me right now is allowing me to do in this short message. Wikipedia must conceive the future as a ladder that is on the rise, step by step, top and keep climbing, applying new ways of transmitting knowledge, written or codes, whatever, think of this How to make a blind use specifically use the internet and wikipedia? to what I mean. Think big. Even the humblest man on earth who lives there more from the world eg tibet, you should know it's wikipedia and if used. That must be a goal to set, that every human in the world born and have use of reason has used its website even once in their life. If that happens you have already accomplished their mission. For that to achieve this have achieved total economic stability as a company. You only begin to focus their priorities and follow a plan to achieve it. I wish and I predict success in your business. Thank You."
Hola, Dandry, no somos una empresa. Wikimedia es una comunidad de voluntarios y la Fundación Wikimedia es una ONG. Saludos. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

incorporate appropriate picture/s to make it more interesting and would be more easy to assimilate information, for those people who are more visual.[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

que metan trabajos para niños o que hagan una wikipedia para niños

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"that mess works for children or to make a wikipedia for children"
¡Hola! Ya existe, se llama Vikidia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Dumbing down site layout by minizing on-screen content, increasing white space, removing menu items and replacing them with "show more". DON'T GO THERE!'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

Make it P2P and stop caring about copyright.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

its very helpful for school projects to get it from another peers perspective this is just like that[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

...I think people will access Wikipedia via phone much more.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

...Lots of articles have the "error" button on top saying that the page needs more citation. I think that editing those pages would be best.


Response by Unquibbler

Unquibbler's thoughts on question 1[edit]

  • The integration of wikipedia in ebooks, like kindle, is a joy. Any browser, news outlet, infomation page should be able to integrate wikipedia in the easiest possible way.
  • The integration of geolocated topics in major GPS and mapping systems would allow for enriched spatial exploration.
  • The integration of social buzz on topics, would add a new dimension to wikipedia readership

... you can do all this by hand, but having things like this automated and displayed, would lower the bar considerably.

@Unquibbler: Great suggestions, thanks. We're building better APIs for accessing Wikipedia content (cf. mw:RESTBase), which should help considerably with integration into other websites as we continue to improve it. Care to explain a bit more what kinds of geolocation features you think would be useful? If you're talking about third party integrations, Google Maps already integrates Wikipedia content when you click notable points on a map (but it's generally been demoted in favor of more visual functionality like StreetView / 3D maps).--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unquibbler's thoughts on question 2[edit]

  • Even comparatively large languages of a few million speakers, tend to have a lot of relatively low-quality or even missing versions of many wikipedia topics, even though brilliant articles already exist on the topics in other languages. Children in any language - and especially in small languages - could benefit enormously from teachers integrating Wikipedia translation in their day to day teaching. In order for this to work, Wikipedia needs alternative user interfaces for translation purposes, for example game-like environments, where single sentences or chapters could be translated, source-checked or proof-read, automatically picked from the best articles around in any language. This goes for geolocation tasks, illustration and photography tasks as well.
  • Harvesting open wikipedia information for a wide range of purposes is a challenge. Why just read an article as an article? With products like Microsofts PowerBI hooking up to wikipedia data sources, there is a need for better formatting, so the audience can discover and combine data. Quizzes is another dimension: If wikipedia information where properly declared, you might be able to launch knowledge-games on a mass scale with little human intervention. Even when reading an article, old versus fresh information, uncontested versus contested information, universally versus locally read information, original versus translated information etc. etc could be displayed in different hues. Information in different languages, highlighting culturally differing views and phrasings, could be juxtaposed, maybe allowing for better mutual understanding.
  • Apart from the few wikipedians I know, I have no idea of the underlying patterns of authorship. In the edits you find an amazing wealth of social interactions, conflict, geographical sitedness, linguistic diversity, topical relationships. Ask somebody to visualize it - preferably dynamically. Great task for IT students around the world.
@Unquibbler: There's a lot of existing research regarding social patterns in Wikimedia projects; Haitham would be able to give you some pointers and has done some of these visualizations himself. Regarding translation, have you seen our mw:Content translation feature? It's not gamified, but it does have a nice dashboard for seeing translations in progress, which could potentially be extended to make the process a bit more fun and competitive. Pau and Amir from the language team may want to weigh in on that.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


Response by ALEX210OMG

Las ideas de ALEX210OMG acerca de la pregunta 2[edit]

creo que mucho mejor a los actuales

(Machine translation, please improve) think much better today


Response by 2602:306:CF4D:42B0:1049:CA1E:8A93:2038

2602:306:CF4D:42B0:1049:CA1E:8A93:2038's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Over the next 20-years I expect the WWW to fragment: a) Expect a firewall defined "Balkinized" set of nation-state mini-webs. No WWW ! Traffic across firewalls will be rigidly controlled. This will **end** any world-wide wiki; in particular forget about western concepts of cross cultural objective "truth". b) Those billion new wiki users will act more like JiHadists than USA college freshman. Plan for a wiki surviving environs of "war of all against all". Wikipedia is already somewhat prissy. For the next rawbone billion users ... if you can't take the blood, then stay out of the mud.

2602:306:CF4D:42B0:1049:CA1E:8A93:2038's thoughts on question 2[edit]

I would not conflate "thriving and healthy" with expanding; act prudently, rejecting childlike optimism. I would retreat Wikimedia to the relatively safe "walled garden" of western culture.

connecting to the new users:[edit]

some points may help: 1.first of all we need a way so that it could be easy to use the wikipedia and that can be done through a app. 2.wikipedia should keep a check on search history on it like the guy is searching about noble prizes a lot so they should themself advice the user to view some additional knowledge (if in points ,so it would be better)[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

fact check everything becuse i often find wrong thing

Oops, I'm sorry that you're finding errors. Have you considered, when you find something that you know to be wrong, going in and correcting it? It's not hard - just hit the button that says "Edit" up at the top. If enough people like you do that, the quality of our content goes up! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[edit]

Response by

Las ideas de acerca de la pregunta 1[edit]

se pude crear como libros escritos para leerlos una pagina de perfil con noticias fotos imagenes para descargar o descagar aplicacion para tener siempre el contenido de esta pagina

(machine translation, please improve) I could be created and written books to read a profile page with news pictures or photos to download descagar application to always have the content of this page


Response by Lexikon-Duff

Lexikon-Duff's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Speed up the image editor.

Lexikon-Duff's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Less commercial thinking.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

First, dispose of the current Wikipedia leadership. With extreme prejudice.

Second, create a pay wall and license the material to a for-profit entity.

Third, resist any attempt by the old guard to thwart the monetization of Wikipedia.

Fourth, accept that the old model of Wikipedia will not survive in its current state.

NOTE FROM FELLOW READER...Your comment is out of bounds. You are using a forum for suggestions from the community to further your own idea of what Wiki should be. Many of us humans on earth are not driven by money...but by high principles. "profit" and "extreme prejudice" do not belong here. and anyone who believes only in these things will never comprehend what drives wiki.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Make Dedicated search engine for Wikipedia Use the :

WikiData Electronic Brain wikipedia's thoughts on question 2[edit]

For useful information To make wikipedia Brain

Sabah Salimi[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I honestly think that the Wikipedia of about 18 months ago was a perfect platform for mobile, responsive development. Now? MediaViewer has screwed up images unbelievably for end users and Flow is preparing to screw everything up for contributors. Simplicity has been booted out and unnecessary complexity has taken its place.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

I have a couple points:

A thriving Wikipedia would listen to its users and 1) not force "upgrades" onto them that they didn't want, and 2) remove "upgrades" that receive overwhelming negative feedback. I'm thinking in particular of MediaViewer, but it is only the most recent in a string of moves by the WMF that honestly boil down to nothing but attacks on Wikipedia users. MediaViewer is the straw that broke the camel's back for me: I was one of the first wave of people to come over from the first Slashdot story. I no longer participate in Wikipedia except to voice my discontent. I no longer donate to Wikipedia. I no longer visit Wikipedia frequently or send friends to Wikipedia.

A thriving Wikipedia would also permaban users who repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies or violate policies in particularly egregious ways--regardless of their rank or popularity. I'm thinking particularly of Durova, but there are many others. Politics trumps ethics and common sense in the volunteer bureaucracy of the Wikipedia. Unfortunately the MediaViewer fiasco shows that the same is true with the paid bureaucracy of the WMF.

The Wikipedia has serious, systemic flaws that are going unaddressed in pursuit of polish and politics. Rather than do something productive like update the Wikimedia Commons pages for images (which would have been an actual upgrade to the image viewing experience, as well as a genuine upgrade that didn't break the user experience), a flashy and fundamentally broken "solution" for an imaginary problem is rolled out. Rather than boot a powerful Wikipedian, give them a slap on the wrist and let them return to their old position after the fuss dies down.

Wikipedia is damaged, if not broken.

Wikipedia is becoming toxic, if it is not already outright septic.



Response by Shibolleth

Shibolleth's thoughts on question 1[edit]

Wikibooks, Wikipedia, should have further development, and perfection to the point where they will listen to the reviews, as they cannot screw up, being one of the most visited World Wide Web pages.

Shibolleth's thoughts on question 2[edit]

Ones that are supported minute by minute with the growing community; ones that would thrive and be prosperous. Ones that, when one should input false information, where, would be fixed nearly instantly by the people who fix, and make edits. Ones that are made by the people, for the people, and will forever entertain, inspire, and assist the people. The users who rudely vaporize the hard work of the editers should be rightly given a fair trial, and if deemed guilty, should be given a permanent Internet Protocol address ban from Wikimedia's websites. I have noticed that Wikipedia has a major flaw, "The open-editing system." This allows many vandals to vandalize the articles which many people read daily.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 2[edit]

The reading of articles in Wikipedia should be better when readers can to choice a size of letters to little or medium or big (like proposes some internet services).

A template of colour of background need to enable readers to choice colour frendly for eyes.[edit]

Response by's thoughts on question 1[edit]

1. Major trends include continuing to make contact via social media, continue purchasing products online, and unfortunately, a certain percentage of bad guys will try to gain access to your money through ID theft.'s thoughts on question 2[edit]

2. As opposed to social media, Wikipedia should continue providing FACTUAL data, along with references which support that data. Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia about everything and most of us value it highly.


Response by Hatekindler

Hatekindler's thoughts on question 1[edit]

I would see the increase in vandalism due to a widening of audience, and the diversification of ideas

Hatekindler's thoughts on question 2[edit]

The people will create more pages for their interests, and we will see more and better ideas come forward.