Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2016/Community consultation/Knowledge

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relevant vision document[edit]

The I Dream of Content vision proposal is along the lines of the knowledge strategy, and I would like to include it as part of this discussion. --Yurik (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yurik. You're certainly welcome to discuss it here on the talk page as the conversation starts on January 18th - both creating your own section through the "button" if you like (and sharing your link that way) and also bringing it up in conversation where appropriate. The visuals especially help make some of your points very persuasively. :) (Just for clarity, while entirely appropriate to link it on the talk page, it wouldn't be appropriate to link to from the main page, since we cannot give equal weight to other voices in that way.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Slowking4 15:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Slowking4's response to the critical question[edit]

one: need to support tools to upload video content

Slowking4's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

need to support more and better partnerships with GLAM institutions, i.e. fellowships, grants, wiki-GLAM foundation.


Response by Yger 19:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yger's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach three


Response by BethNaught 21:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught's response to the critical question[edit]

Wikimedia should be an organisation which supports the projects it hosts. Its role is not to bring about radical changes. This is not what the many generous readers, who see banner ads asking for contributions to keep Wikipedia going, donate for. I realise this ship has sailed at the WMF but I will keep saying this.

Thanks for your comment, @BethNaught:. I believe donors also support us for our values – not just the products that the movement produces. (Independence, transparency, freedom of speech . . . ) It is not just that we have created Wikipedia, which our donors love and deeply appreciate; It is also how we have gone about it. --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Lgruwell-WMF: And transparency involves accepting $250,000 without releasing any of the associated documentation? I smell hypocrisy. I'm sure some donors support for other reasons. But, as I was referring to, a very significant part of the WMF's income comes from banner drives and people who donate to "#keepitfree" (see Twitter). Do they know they are funding the development of divisive software, massive expansion of the WMF's staff? Do they know that the WMF is actually rolling in money, increasing its income year-on-year? Start some honest banner ads and I'll reconsider my comment. BethNaught (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you need to reconsider your comment and I don't see us in disagreement here. You asked the question about what do our donors know. I can probably best answer this by pointing to what we tell them. Last week, as a part of the 15th Birthday, WMF ran banners in 98 languages pointing readers to the 15th Birthday site, which includes the financial data you mentioned. We will also send this report directly to our donors. With regards to transparency and fiscal responsibility, I do think WMF has room for improvement. I encourage you to share your ideas for how we could improve on these fronts here and as apart of the annual planning process, which should allow for more input from the community this year. Thanks! --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In line with the above, I disagree with 1, 3 and 6. I endorse 2, 4 and 5 because there is still so much knowledge hidden in GLAM that we could bring out in collaboration, and the gender gap is still an issue. Efforts should be made to improve tools which assist users to translate content between Wikimedia wikis to help users who speak small languages access content natively. This promises a much bigger audience increase than rolling out a fancy new app.


Response by Snipre 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Snipre à la question critique[edit]

Les communautés doivent mieux s'organiser pour mettre à disposition les aides et autres outils créés par les contributeurs. Trop d'outils sont dispersés dans les recoins de WP et sont difficilement accessibles pour les non-initiés. De plus, il y a un problème de mise à jour des outils existants, je pense notamment aux bots de maintenance, et la disparition des dresseurs de bots entraîne souvent des pertes difficiles à compenser et l'impression qu'il faut sans cesse réinventer la roue.

Un exemple classique, c'est la difficulté d'avoir une page qui recense les statistiques d'une Wikipédia et qui soit capable de fournir l'intégralité des statistiques. On perd du temps à trouver l'information, on perd du temps à maintenir, on perd du temps à remplacer quand l'outil devient inutilisable.

La Fondation pourrait régulièrement repérer des outils plébiscités par les contributeurs et mettre en place des outils similaires maintenus par une équipe technique de la fondation et qui serait vérifiés après amélioration/mise à jour du logiciel Médiawiki.

Communities must be better organized to make available the help and other tools created by contributors. Too many tools are scattered in nooks of WP and are not easily accessible to the uninitiated. In addition, there are issues with updating existing tools, for example maintenance bots, and the disappearance of bot owners often leads to losses that are difficult to offset and the impression that we must constantly reinvent the wheel.
A classic example is the difficulty to have a page that lists a Wikipedia site's statistics and that is able to provide all the statistics. We waste time looking for information, we waste time maintaining things, we waste time replacing things when the tool becomes unusable.
The Foundation could regularly identify tools favored by contributors and implement similar tools maintained by a technical team of the foundation and that would be audited after every improvement or update of the MediaWiki software.

Bonjour Snipre, Merci pour votre commentaire. Ce sont de bonnes suggestions, notre Community Tech team travaille en ce moment sur ces mêmes questions. Nous avons récemment fait une enquête avec notre communauté sure l'utilisation des outils crées par nos contributeurs. Voici les résultats de leur répo​n​ses. J'ajoute également des links pour les pages ou nous documentons ces efforts. SVentura (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Top 2-3 de Snipre (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

3, 4 et 6


Response by Mautpreller 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mautpreller's response to the critical question[edit]

The question is heavily biased so I cannot answer it. I do not agree that "knowledge needs" of users are changing in the way that is intimated here. Moreover, I do not agree that it is even possible to determine something like a "knowledge need". If you don't know about an issue, in many cases you also don't know what you "need to know". (And, from personal experience: If you learn something about an issue you begin to discover what you "need to know" in the first place; your scope of not-knowing is expanding by learning since you learn to ask new questions you never imagined before.) Even more I reject the idea that the WMF should "adapt" to aforesaid "knowledge needs". I am sure that many persons desire "short snippets" but I am also sure that Wikipedia is not suited to this desire and that these persons already have vast possibilities to find such "short snippets", especially via Google. From comprehensive experience as a longtime Wikipedia editor I say that one of the biggest problems in creating, communicating, and sharing knowledge is just this "snippets" approach.

As an education project, we should go exactly in the opposite direction. WMF should encourage and support creation and collection of in-depth knowledge, interdisciplinary knowledge, and "learning by doing", i.e. by writing and contributing. As acquirement of knowledge is invariably connected with effort, this effort should be supported instead of minimized.

"acquirement of knowledge is invariably connected with effort" -I like that a lot. I think the question here is are we going to optimize to be a quick answer engine or are we trying to be the place where people go for deeper learning. The easy answer is both, but part of the reason we do strategy is to decide what is most important, so we can prioritize resources. --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You are bringing up an important point, Mautpreller. There are two points that we need to pay attention to in this discussion: 1) The distinction between information and knowledge, 2) The way knowledge is acquired by different users. I agree with you that the knowledge needs of our users have probably not changed a lot, (the information needs may have). However, the way people learn and acquire knowledge may have also changed over the past 10 years. I think as a movement we need to be clear if we are a place to gain knowledge or information. From everything I see in the different discussions, there seems to be a general agreement that we are a place for knowledge. Going to point (2), I think it's important to acknowledge that different people acquire knowledge in different ways. Some people may start with a quick look up, then they get more curious and do an overview about a related topic, and then they may go deeper. We need to learn more about how users consume the content, for example on Wikipedia. Mautpreller, we have started this long term learning here: --LZia (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is interesting as well—knowledge connected with effort. We only need to be careful that the effort is in the knowledge and learning, and not in the tools. I wonder too, if gaining trust through smaller snippets could lead to deeper participation. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mautpreller's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

First: some of these approaches are dangerous and will result in corrupting knowledge instead of improving it. This is especially true for approach 6 which is downright harmful to human knowledge production and sharing. In part this is also valid for approach 1 as it focuses on the wrong thing.

My own idea: WMF should support interdisciplinarity workshops where people can try to find ways how a subject can be understood and represented from different perspectives. Interdisciplinarity is a huge problem also in science (humanities as well as natural science) because different disciplines don't understand each others, let alone practitioners and scholars. Wikipedia has unique possibilities to deal with this problem.

I do know that this is not an answer to the question asked. Rather, it is an answer to the question that should be asked: how do we improve the acquisition, communication, and sharing of knowledge?--Mautpreller (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)



Not sure if this is the best place, but I'll drop it here. A lot of knowledge is supported by sources/references, often online. A disadvantage is that after a few years many of those sources/online refs get moved, removed or altered. There is the Wayback Internet Archive to be of help, but it doesn't pick up all our references, and it's an external service, I'd prefer to rely on our own tools. Wouldn't it be a good idea to develop our own Reference Archive, that will store a copy of an online reference the first time it is used. Edoderoo (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Julius Tominius[edit]

Response by Julius Tominius 02:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Julius Tominius's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach six.


Response by Jayen466 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jayen466's response to the critical question[edit]

I agree with User:Mautpreller – the way the question is framed is hopelessly biased. As it stands, it presents a strategic development of Wikimedia towards the provision of snippets as a foregone conclusion. Instead, there should be an open-ended discussion, with arguments explaining why or why not such a development might be necessary or desirable. Such a discussion could be very interesting and stimulating. As for facilitating content quality, see 7. below.

Jayen466's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

7: Support more projects along the lines of Wiki Project Med and the efforts of James Heilman to bring content up to peer-reviewed standard. This approach should be extended to other topic areas besides medicine.

8: Collect data on edit history parameters that correlate with the quality of the information provided (e.g. number of contributors to an article, article stability, reversions, single-purpose accounts, ORES data, referencing) and make these visible to the reader in a way that is easy for them to take in, so they can have a rough guess at the reliability of the information they are consuming. Reporting such statistics also provides a visible indication of pages that might benefit from content checks and improvements.

Note: Any use of machine translation should be tightly controlled. No one should ever use machine translation to create articles in a project whose language they don't speak. Where this has been done in the past, it just caused damage. (People have been working on machine translation for half a century, and the output is unfortunately still nowhere near good enough to serve as a reference work.)

Comment: As for machine-generated articles etc., Jimmy Wales has said tonight:

'First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary.'

But mw:API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also specifically points out:

  • Reasonator and Autodesc are tools that create machine-generated articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

Here's an example of such an article: [1]. Here's another: [2]

These ideas may be worthwhile, but should be honestly discussed. Andreas JN466 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by MisterSanderson 03:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MisterSanderson's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

MisterSanderson's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach three: Increase content quality and timeliness by technologically enhancing our editors’ ability to create, monitor, and process content.

Approach six: Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content.

Approach five: Increase coverage in key languages through translation tools and human process.


Response by MER-C 05:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MER-C's response to the critical question[edit]

I agree this is a loaded question based on false premises ("knowledge engine" anyone?). That said, I'll ignore this and answer it anyway: The Wikimedia community curates the content and adapts it to our readers' needs. We will ask for support from you, the WMF, when we feel we don't have the tools, expertise, money or other resources necessary to do so (e.g. OSM in Wikipedia and Wikivoyage, grants, etc.). Your role is to support by fulfilling these requests and to do the things we volunteers can't, and nothing more.

Hi @MER-C: I hope I can explain why we ask this. Other editors actually highlighted this as well. We have a lot of content on our sites. The metaphor I think about is that Wikimedia is like an iceberg. A lot of the content is under water, so to say. It does not come up in searches on or on Wikipedia -- our main window to our readers. This content is good, quality content our editors create. Should we find ways to better expose it to readers? Or should we let it be?
On a related note we get a lot of requests, sometimes they are opposites. So at the WMF we have to have a level of discretion to make choices. We also don't have infinite funds, so we cannot fulfill them all. What is the best way to make those choices in your opinion? LilaTretikov (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@LilaTretikov (WMF): Please pardon our collective cynicism due to recent board-level issues including the Doc James affair, the restricted "knowledge engine" grant, possible Google influence and the hiring of Arnnon Geshuri. Much of this cynicism comes into this discussion from the way the question was phrased -- something along the lines of "how can the WMF help editors improve our content and present it more effectively?" would be better. I agree there is a lot of obscure content on WMF sites, and because it is obscure, it is presented poorly to the reader.
To answer my own question:
  • Run a consultation on novel media formats (e.g. 3D models on Commons, OSM integration, interactive stuff) that are useful for our projects. Ask us what hinders us from using existing functionality (e.g. tables, timelines, graphs, sheet music, video, sound) and how can they be improved. Back both with significant developer resources, and make them easy for us to use. (Use the Community Tech consultation as a model).
  • Provide us with appropriate tools that help us identify quickly and remediate or remove users from Wikimedia communities that degrade our content (e.g. paid advocates), and help us keep them out.
  • Make sure the search engine is working optimally. This includes suggesting sister project and other language content when appropriate.
  • For the larger projects, shift emphasis from article creation to article improvement.
  • Items 2-4 on the list.
The Community Tech survey was a great initiative and should be applied to other instances where you have to allocate development resources. For example, you can run a survey periodically on what the problems with our mobile interface are (you're not at the stage where you can ask "what new features should we add to the mobile interface?" yet), and prioritize the suggestions based on the support that they get. That you're here responding to me is also a big plus. But there are still questionable top-down decisions being made and significant resources allocated to various projects without any community input whatsoever. MER-C (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

MER-C's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Support 2, this is obvious.

Support 3, but only for things that we explicitly ask for. Use the Community Tech process for this.

Also support efforts to provide peer reviewed versions of Wikimedia content.

I agree that you need to support the sister projects and other languages more... once you've made significant progress against the annoying problems that affect all projects. Wikimedia is not just the English Wikipedia.

Yair rand[edit]

Response by Yair rand 07:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yair rand's response to the critical question[edit]

Support the sister projects. I don't think people are about to stop reading Wikipedia, but if they do, we already have Wikimedia projects set up for different styles of educational content. Wikiversity was built for developing (non-encyclopedic) learning resources, but it was never given the necessary technical support from the Foundation. Give Wikinews the help it desperately needs to be an functioning usable news resource. The Wiktionary communities need a dedicated team of developers to face the myriad of technical challenges ahead. Wikivoyage, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource... These are all great projects, and they can have great futures if the WMF starts actually paying attention to their needs. Don't preemptively try to turn Wikipedia into other projects, support the non-Wikipedia communities as necessary, and the readers and the resulting communities will go where they may. And we'll be ready to receive them.

Yair rand's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach three, but not just on Wikipedia. I'm hesitant to suggest approach six, because I suspect certain people in the WMF will interpret it to mean trying to do Google-like stuff. Offer optional features to editors and communities, but don't try to push the machine-generated unreliable results directly to readers. And of course, approach seven, as explained above. --Yair rand (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Caoimhin 12:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Caoimhin's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Caoimhin's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach six looks of most interest to me. There must be a lot of ways to automatically integrate with Wikidata, using the same data to give content in many languages.

@Caoimhin: Can you elaborate on why it is of most interest? Scale, impact, just sounds cool, some other reason? If we understand "why" better that can help us prioritize. Thanks for participating! —LuisV (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Lajsikonik 15:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Lajsikonik's response to the critical question[edit]

Focus on Wikidata. There are a lot of time wasted because of volunteers doing same work again and again, for each language separatedly. What for? Why we don't use Wikidata in similar way as Commons? Coordinates, number of inhabitants, names of mayors for towns and cities, music bands line-ups and many other "fields in infoboxes" could be easily readed form Wikidata, or even should be possible to create stubs - for some topics - automatically, for many languages, after creating a pattern from words we need for topic description. Lajsikonik (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Lajsikonik's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Point after point:

  1. No oppose, but I don't believe it may give a real kick
  2. We should countinue to do that. Because of new content and baceuse of new users - I know that it hapenned.
  3. Not most matter
  4. Not possible. Who will create criteria?
  5. No, no, no! Automatic translations are still far away from being quite understable, especially for Slavic languages (and also for Chinesse).
  6. Where it is possible, yes. Using Wikidata.

"Suggest an approach" - perhaps we should consider grant-based system, for necessery, but repeteable and boring work. It is nothing new, and it was used, for example, for WikiMedia communicates translations. Why do not use this way to update Mairies names in > 40 k of French communes (just an example)? Lajsikonik (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lajsikonik:, for machine learning we are not thinking translations, but more of ORES type work. LilaTretikov (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Ellywa 17:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ellywa's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Ellywa's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • I think in our society most interest is about current events, and the (scientific, historic etc) background of these events. You could enable editors to monitor real-time for instance the top-ten or top-hundred visits to articles, so the community can prioritize to keep these up to date and accurate.
  • My priorities of the list would be 3 and 6 (wikidata).


Response by Molarus 19:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Molarus's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  1. Approach one:
  2. Approach six: Maybe the foundation shouldn´t explore that, but you could ask the community to do that.
  3. Approach seven a: I see this as the next big thing for us: Automated Learning - What happens when computers, not teachers, pick what students learn? I think we are in the education business and Wikipedia could be used for self teaching this way.
  4. Approach seven b: For short text, we could add in Wikidata a twitter-like text field with a limit space. This text could be used for a mobile and external offer. --Molarus (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Sänger 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Sänger auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Ansatz zwei: Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Community und Profis ihrer jeweiligen Fachgebiete (bzw. möglichst gar Eingemeindung selbiger in diese) sollte verbessert werden, inklusive Ausbau von GLAM.

Approach two: The collaboration between the community an professionals in there respective subjects (or better even incorporation of them in it) should be improved, including further expansion of GLAM.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sänger[edit]

Ansatz fünf: Nicht boterstellte Stubs, sondern Unterstützung echter Autoren durch Übersetzungshilfen aus anderen Wikiprojekten.

Approach five: Not bot-generated stubs, but assistance of real authors with translation tools from other wikiprojects.

Ansatz drei: Unterstützung echter Autoren sollte immer Vorrang vor blöden Bots haben.

Approach three: Support of real authors should always trump stupid bots.
Hallo Sänger. Ich kann ein bisschen Deutsch sprechen aber nicht genug dass ich im Deutsch diskutieren kann. You are correct that real [good faith] editors are better than stupid bots. With that same token, good bots are better than stupid bots. :) Note that a project such as Wikidata can benefit from good bot activity. There are many tasks, as you know, that are tedious for humans, and easy enough for bots. If we use bots in a way that we take away the tedious job for humans, and help humans nurture what they are really good at (i.e., creativity, curation, etc.), this is a very big win for us as humans. We will learn and improve ourselves as we share our knowledge with others. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Bot-driven projects, I'd call them ersatz-projects, are perhaps better than nothing, but real editors are far better. There are some menial tasks, that could be dealt with with bots, but I don't regard those WPs, who have lots of bot-generated stubs healthy and worthy projects. And I don't give a flying f*** about the health of privacy-raping, data-mining, tax-avoiding, spamming scum like noodle. They are the very opposite of the wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Nihiltres 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nihiltres's response to the critical question[edit]

Automated approaches to knowledge are not sufficiently robust, and not only are Wikimedia's strengths are in user-generated content, its scope is there. We should avoid approaches that require us to automatically parse meaning from content, broadly speaking (search/discovery can do some fancy things with keywords/grammar, but it should be search and not, say, "automatic Q&A system"). Wikidata's a bit of an exception, because the community's already parsed the information into structured form, but…

Nihiltres's top 2–3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

7, with significant elements from 1, 6, and 3:
Our strength is user-generated content, so we should focus on things that make it easier for users to contribute, one way or another. In particular, I think we lack pathways for shallow, "casual" contributions, and that coincides with mobile's difficulties. If we can get machines to do 90% of the work of useful maintenance edits, bringing in humans for the critical 10%, reCAPTCHA-style would be helpful. For example, there are thousands of pages in Category:CS1 errors. Many of these problems are trivial, but most aren't quite bot-solvable. If we had a mechanism for users (particularly on mobile) to, say, separate lists of coauthors into individual author-names for resolution of items in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, then a bot could do the tech-oriented part of replacing |coauthors= into a bunch of |authorn= params or whatever. It'd take upkeep: continually finding and building tasks for users, plus some work to make the task robust against bad actors (e.g. reCAPTCHA's practice of confirming results against multiple users)—but it'd be worth it. It's a task that's uniquely suited to the WMF because it has the resources to code the tool and the ability to make it visible to mobile users (especially via the mobile app). The Wikidata game is a good example of how it's easily applicable on Wikidata, but it could totally be applied to maintenance tasks on Wikipedia, too.


Response by NaBUru38 21:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

NaBUru38's response to the critical question[edit]

"Short snippets" already exist, they are called article summaries. Many of them are written poorly, so let's fix them!

Now, I disagree with automatic generation of content. We must be careful with what we publish, which means we must make that decision, not computers. Computers can't tell if information is wrong, especially because they get data entered by other people. Every edit must be verified thoroughly by people.

NaBUru38's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

About Approach 1, uploading photos and videos must be easy. Mobile editing is useful for short facts, but it's impossible to write at length on a tiny screen.

Approach 2 refers to cultural institutions (I dislike acronyms). They are important but not because they allow to contribute faster, but because they mae contribute that others can't do. Each institution has works and experts that can't be found elsewhere.

To reduce systemic bias, we need a much more diverse community of editors. Not all of them are computer experts, not all of them have time to edit, not all of them think they are useful. We must overcome those obstacles.


Response by Bluerasberry 13:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry's response to the critical question[edit]

The best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to adapt to changing knowledge needs of readers is to provide tools which generate good metrics of the sort that outreach organizations desire. "Outreach organizations" can mean institutions like GLAMs or it can mean community groups with any interest, but in both cases, they are sources of subject matter expertise with an interest in information distribution. Wikipedia for the foreseeable future will still interact mostly with individuals, but just the same, individuals are greatly encouraged when outreach organizations confirm that developing Wikipedia is a good use of time.

Right now, every outreach organization in the world believes as fundamental truth that they must hire Facebook and Twitter staff and that the public ought to engage with them on those platforms. In fact, Facebook and Twitter are not universal communication media, and in many ways and for many applications and fields, Wikipedia development would be a better use of their time for the sake of the audience they are trying to reach.

Bluerasberry's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I do not think any of these is a particular priority.

The odd part about all of these proposals, and about Wikimedia Foundation strategy generally, is the assumption that institutions will never learn to use Wikipedia and that always all organizational partnerships will originate in the Wikimedia community and operate under community oversight. It is taken for granted that institutions are so contrary to Wikimedia community values that they will not adapt them. Compare this outreach position to those of Facebook and Twitter, which both demand staff time from absolutely every organization globally. Most organizations using Facebook and Twitter do not get good value for their investment, except in the sense that they get self-satisfaction if not audience satisfaction. I think it should be a priority that the Wikimedia Foundation make it easier for organizations to get self-satisfaction by partnering with Wikimedia projects.

Organizations want a metrics dashboard. This is all. The metrics dashboard is a base to Twitter and Facebook outreach, and even when it is not used (which it usually is not), organizations get high satisfaction and comfort from knowing that if they choose to do so, they can get a good report of their engagement and impact in those projects. There is no such option to do this in Wikimedia projects. Even expert Wikipedians - like chapters and individuals getting grants - have extreme difficulty calculating metrics. What Facebook and Twitter do automatically, Wikipedians must do by hand. Insane as it is to imagine, and bizarre and otherworldly as it is, the Wikimedia Foundation requests that volunteers literally do accounting and mathematics off-wiki, calculating sums and building record sheets entry by entry, as if this were the 1990s and no one is yet certain if the Internet will ever matter. What should happen is that anyone should be able to list an arbitrary set of Wikipedia articles, or have a list of Wikipedians, and get some automated report about readers of those articles or the participation of that arbitrary group.

The lack of automated metrics is a major barrier to institutional acceptance of Wikipedia. Facebook, for example, makes a lot of money, but the value of Facebook is actually the labor invested in it by its users. All Facebook users appreciate some connection to at least some well-polished corporate feed, and those corporations invest huge amounts of labor in Facebook because they get impact reports in return and that convinces them of value of Facebook. Similarly, GLAMs would engage more in Wikipedia with metrics, but leave GLAMs aside because they mostly do not matter and have no money. With a metrics dashboard, every other institution in all sectors would be much more likely to invest staff labor in Wikimedia projects, and they would do so following all the rules if they found value in doing so. A major barrier to bringing more expert contributions of knowledge into Wikimedia projects is that the Wikimedia Foundation judges the quality of expert contributions on the basis of the willingness of those experts to arrange someone to perform esoteric arithmetic on Wikimedia data that can only be acquired using the skill set of a 1990s American Internet publisher. It is problematic that the quality of Wikimedia contributions are judged through this standard, and that the enforcement of this standard prevents participation by organizations. The unwillingness to do these math and data collection actions is also used as a basis of discrimination and justification for reputation attacks against Wikimedia contributors in the developing world.

I agree with you Bluerasberry that there is a lot of value in what you are suggesting. Basically, for every type of knowledge the user adds to the projects (upload in Commons, adding a sentence to Wikipedia, translating a label in Wikidata), we should be able to give a feedback to the user as how much value that contribution has created, and the user should be able to monitor the value added over time. This is a very big and important project. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there really value in uploading pictures at commons? As an longtime editor I know, that most of "my" articles will not be read, but I don´t care. I don´t think that GLAMs would do so too. And even people would see those pictures, what would the value be? Money? Reputation? Or what? As a longtime editor I would say, that I have learned a lot while I wrote that articles. Maybe Wikipedia rewards editors more than readers. I remember that de:WP got a large amount of pictures years ago from a GLAM institution. The community detected lots of errors in the description of those pictures and we shared that information. That was really valuable for them. --Goldzahn (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
+1 - there is the GLAMerous tool, which could be a base for semi-automatic reporting. WMF needs to onboard this functionality. Slowking4 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Goldzahn: Yes, there is a lot of value for GLAM institutions, in uploading images/videos/sounds/etc to Commons. I can't find the exact example, but I recall reading that one institution greatly increased their own website's pageviews (over the short and long term), just because of the source-link on file description pages. There are many other factors too; the best lists I can find at the moment, are at commons:Commons:Guide to content partnerships#What do you get? and at outreach:GLAM/Indicators of Success. The main point of analytics here, is to prove the value of the time spent on the work (to their managers/budget-owners), so that short-term/one-off experiments can grow into part of the regular work that they do over the years (with steadily increasing quality and detail, as everyone learns more about each other), which also become success stories for both them and us (hence memetic and even more likely to spread). HTH. :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the term "content partnership", maybe this is something WMF could work on. For example, we could give GLAM-Institutions literally data (Multilingual descriptions, Category, ...) otherwise they have to pull that out of commons, somehow, and if data is really the new oil, that should be worth something. At least, I hope so. By the way, if we could get this kind of data from the GLAM-Institutions, the commons editors would save a lot of time, I guess. Maybe a standard data format for this type of data would be useful. --Goldzahn (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by FloNight 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

FloNight's response to the critical question[edit]

Work with the broad community to develop quality metrics for content, and the tools to evaluate for improvements in quality.

FloNight's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach Two: In addition to GLAM, regularly include STEM and health care organizations/agencies as potential program partners.
  • Approach Three: Our current processes are inadequate to create, monitor, and process content for a particular topic area or topic specific programmatic activity. Those that exist are not obvious to find, easy to understand, and don't address all the needs across topic area, WMF project, or language community.
  • Approach four: Wikipedia can not achieve its primary mission if the content contains systemic biases. Beyond the number and length of articles, there needs to be better tools to access article content qualtiy, including systemic bias (gender, global view, etc.) The solutions will need to be both social and tech.


Response by Yurik 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yurik's response to the critical question[edit]

4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D Small.gif

One picture is worth a thousand words, and one interactive visualization is worth a thousand pictures. Knowledge must be more compact - if users want quicker answers, they should not be required to read lengthy essays. Which means we should target richer content and data visualizations. We should NOT target machine-generated content, because that requires significant development resources, and our strength is in the community contributions, not fancy technology that requires large budgets. Read more here.

Yurik's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1, 3, 2

Milimetric (WMF)[edit]

Response by Milimetric (WMF) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Milimetric (WMF)'s response to the critical question[edit]

Right now the connection between our content creators and our content consumers does not exist. People reading wikipedia have no idea how the information is compiled. Celebrating content creators via projects like WikiCredit is the radical leverage point in this situation. Creators will feel appreciated and the audience will have a way to contact people and talk about what they would find useful. **Very Important**: we can't fix these problems ourselves, we just have to unite our communities and make it easier for them to interact.

Milimetric (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I support my own idea, but also 3. My idea is basically also the answer to the Critical Question. And that is, implement WikiCredit, user profiles, and celebrate content creators.


Response by Mattflaschen-WMF 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mattflaschen-WMF's response to the critical question[edit]

Specific initiatives are important. But so is the big picture of increasing the number of contributors and editors. If we increase this big picture participation level, these new users will come up with ways to contribute that we could never have predicted ahead of time.

Mattflaschen-WMF's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

On specific ideas, I support:

  • New approach - Supporting mobile contribution in general. This has been explored somewhat (e.g. Wikidata query game), but a lot more needs to be done to support all kinds of mobile contributions (both prose and quick microcontributions like disambiguation fixes).
  • Approach three (Increase content quality and timeliness by technologically enhancing our editors’ ability to create, monitor, and process content)
  • Approach one (Provide easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-form text) - Ideally these tools will work on both mobile and desktop.


Response by SSneg 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

SSneg's response to the critical question[edit]

The requirements for how knowledge is presented are changing. Yesterday we wanted “information”, now we want “interaction” (interactive graphs and maps, explorable infographics, playable media, galleries of files to browse etc). Tomorrow we will want, I don’t know, things to touch in VR goggles? Anyhow, Wikipedia seems to lag behind when it presents essentially text with pictures.

What about interactive explorable data charts where you can zoom into periods, toggle columns etc? Or zoomable images such as a large panorama of our galaxy or a mindmap of botanical taxons?

Creating almost anything complex in Wikipedia is complex squared. Editing tables is a pain. Importing and exporting table data requires external tools and scripts. Sorting tables is primitive and works only half the time because of number format issues etc. Creating a map is painful. Translating SVGs requires extra software. Simply putting a dot on a map is difficult and demands computer literacy above average. Even simple things like image galleries require coding and don’t look neat in the end.

Also, Wikipedia is full of incomplete data because data isn’t linked. It should be possible to input data such as populations, areas, coordinates, GDP values, birth dates, etc. in Wiki, add a reference and then reuse it across Wiki sites. I can spend 20 minutes digging up the number of employees from IBM’s 100-page annual report but I don’t have time to input it across 87 Wiki pages in different languages. Incentives such as the Wikidata game should be brought from the level of “crude prototype” to the front-page feature.

By the way, did you know that googling ‘IBM’ returns its Wikipedia article before the actual page? This brings me to another point. Why aren’t companies interested in improving their Wikipedia pages? I don’t mean cleaning out scandals (they try to do that already), I mean contributing man hours to write deeper articles, publish archive photos into Public Domain and give researchers access to rare books or magazines that aren’t available online. They spend thousands on corporate museums and millions on corporate websites but they entirely miss the one place where people go to read about them. WMF should knock on every corporation’s door and explain the value and importance of having their company fully and nicely (in terms of coverage, illustration and data, not the tone) represented on Wikipedia. IBM’s page on English wiki gets 4000 visitors a day. I bet this is more than their Facebook page does. And all you have to do is to set a trend in California to make the rest of the corporate America and then the rest of the world follow.

Same goes for non-profits, universities, libraries, municipalities, regions, government organisations and pretty much anything else. These largest organisations have huge resources to contribute and more importantly they have first-hand access to some of the most valuable information sources and it is WMF’s job to make sure they direct those towards improving the depth, quality and timeliness of Wikipedia articles.

So to sum up, make it easier to contribute for non-technical users, help us link data points across wiki sites, engage organisations into editing or supporting editing. Then the bias will straighten itself out and the knowledge amount, depth and presentation will improve through the efforts of the community.

SSneg's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

My selection in the light of the above: Approach 3, Approach 5.


Response by Qgil-WMF 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF's response to the critical question[edit]

If the WMF muscle supports complex efforts to bring big loads of good content & translations, then our communities will be able to focus better on the qualitative work that partner organizations and computers cannot solve easily on their own. Careful with partnerships: other Wikimedia orgs and grassroot initiatives have done a lot better than the WMF and for a longer period. We need to keep supporting them, help them to lead, cover the gaps, instead of aiming to become the new leaders.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  1. Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums).
  2. Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content.
  3. Increase coverage in key languages through translation tools and human process.

Trevor Parscal (WMF)[edit]

Response by Trevor Parscal (WMF) 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Trevor Parscal (WMF)'s response to the critical question[edit]

Our superpower is that we have a community of smart people who work really hard and care about creating and curating knowledge. This is very distinct from everywhere else, where the lack of such distributed human-power has made necessary more automated approaches. The majority of what's being generated by these approaches, or even being created by individuals elsewhere on the internet, however, is information at best - not knowledge. We should stick to what makes us special and amazing: qualitative creation and curation of knowledge.

+1 @Trevor Parscal (WMF): Our unique value is human curated knowledge. And human knowledge can take different shapes and forms. We have a great long tradition of long-form text (Wikipedia) which makes us the go to source for encyclopedic content. As we consider new forms of content (audio, video) we should consider supporting communities not only in getting them access to new content (ex. historical political speeches from National Parks or 19th century political video footage from private collections) but also help organizing and connecting around topics of interest and support training and development for newer projects. I see this as a critical investment in the future of our projects. Another area to consider are smaller wikipedias, which might not have a large enough community/tools/sources access to build knowledge for that language, but if given access to translation tools and existing relevant content they could more easily scale these encyclopedias with curation efforts. Same for the newer generations of contributors who might not be as proficient with long-form text creation for example, but that are skilled at collaborative video editing, or story telling animation which could complement our existing projects. In terms of strengthening and building Knowledge I believe there is lots of room to increase support and engagement of contributors and open access to new resources. SVentura (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Trevor Parscal (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 1 is very important, but I don't think it's impact is limited to mobile and quick lookup users, as new formats can give our content greater depth and richness. Approach 3 could help with efficiency, but it's critical to ensure that we are keeping the systems open-ended enough that the community can use them how they want and need. Finally I think that the approach not listed is to build better experiences around small groups of people working in specific areas. WikiProjects are a great start, but by further facilitating communities to form around knowledge work, users will be able to find people with similar interests who can help them learn new skills and I believe that will translate to those users sticking around longer and contributing more.


Response by Ejegg 22:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ejegg's response to the critical question[edit]

With English Wikipedia maturing, we can make the most additional impact by getting pages translated.

Ejegg's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach five is great, especially if we can reach out to chapters and local groups to train interested volunteers in the use of the Content Translation tool.


Response by Jane023 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jane023's response to the critical question[edit]

1,2, and 3

Jane023's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

We need to think about our current reward systems (barnstars and page hits) and think of ways to reward people for enabling others to edit

Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Response by Jo-Jo Eumerus 15:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus's response to the critical question[edit]

I'll admit that I don't know exactly about the what the current normal is for "knowledge needs of readers" - personally I like the detailed descriptions of a topic, but that is just me. I do like Bluerasberry's ideas regarding the importance of organizational partnerships, with the note that these need to be transparent - the avoid controversies like the one around the new Trustee - and not turn into spamming or more generally an excessive control on the article content - as too frequently happens when an organization has an article on them edited by proxy.

In my consideration, technical support is something that WMF can work on. While reliable (--> as in, doesn't produce ungrammatical messes) machine translation is still a far future/artificial intelligence thing (the future dream of mine is sort of that if some information is added to an article in one project of a given language, it is automatically translated and added to other projects), a project like Wikidata may profit from having its material added by a machine. Yes, volunteers would still have to control (perhaps through input functions?) that the sources the information is drawn from are reliable and the information itself suitable, but it would remove a large amount of work that needs to be done since it's data and not formatted text that needs to be generated. Circling back to translations, machine assisted translation (sort of what BethNaught supported) is something one may want to work on. In short, these things of "semi automatic" processes where a human being needs to make the judgment-based decisions (e.g is this edit vandalism?) are left to humans but the "action" (e.g the revert) implemented by a machine.

Jo-Jo Eumerus's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

2, 5 and 6 per what I mentioned above. 3 also is good, but make sure any such changes are well socialized - things like "Superprotect" should not happen again.


Response by Pfps 15:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pfps's response to the critical question[edit]

I think that the best way to help facilitate better content quality is to have a central store of data to feed the different Wikimedia projects, i.e., Wikidata. The best way to improve Wikidata is to set up good common representation principles so that other Wiki projects can use the information there without having to know how information is represented in each part of Wikidata.

Pfps's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Six Two Seven: Improve modelling principles of Wikidata[edit]

Response by 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)'s response to the critical question[edit]

Partner with content experts and professionals's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 2 should guide us.


Response by Amgine 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Amgine's response to the critical question[edit]

The critical question is substantially different than the questions raised by the introductory paragraph. Taken alone, the critical question addresses solely Wikipedia, while the introductory paragraph addresses how knowledge is surfaced and consumed.

Amgine's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

5 is immediately useful. Six may be, but you need to invest the money to find out if it might be and that is too risky for an NGO. 3 is wrong: you're talking about making a better pen, but that says nothing about what it will write (or erase.) e.g. our friends in Tel Aviv use the best/more-current tools in editing en.WP content on the government payroll.

Sebastian Wallroth[edit]

Response by Sebastian Wallroth 14:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Sebastian Wallroth auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Drei. Die Kernkompetenz der Wikimedia-Projekte; dass Alleinstellungsmerkmal gegenüber ähnlichen Projekten ist die Wiki-gestützte Zusammenarbeit von freiwillige Autoren. Das sollte unterstützt, ausgebaut und weiterentwickelt werden. Die Wiki-Technologie sollte erweitert werden. Mediawiki sollte die beste Wiki-Software der Welt sein. Und sie sollte weiterentwickelt werden, um die Überlegenheit gegenüber verwandten Technologien wie Google Docs, Etherpads, Sozialen Netzwerken (Facebook) oder Frage-Antwort-Datenbanken (Yahoo Answers) auszubauen.

Three. The core competence of the Wikimedia projects; the unique feature in comparison to other, similar projects, is the wiki-supported collaboration of volunteer authors. That should be supported, strengthened and developed further. The wiki-technology should be expanded . Mediawiki should be the best wiki-software in the world. And it should be developed further, to extend the superiority in comparison to similar technologies like Google Docs, Etherpads, social setworks (Facebook) or question-answer-databasses (Yahoo Answers).

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sebastian Wallroth[edit]

Sechs. Mit dem Ziel, die Botgenerierung von Artikeln überflüssig zu machen. Wenn zu einem Thema Daten und kein Artikel vorhanden sind, soll ein aus den Daten generiertes Datenblatt angezeigt werden. Dies soll aber dem kuratierten Artikel untergeordnet bleiben.

Six. With the goal to make bot generated content unnecessary. If there is data but no article for a specific theme, there should be shown a data sheet generated from the data. But this should be subordinate to curated articles.


Response by Fil211 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fil211 — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Сегодня проект достиг такого этапа, когда достичь возможности хотя бы поверхностного знания по всем аспектам абсолютно нереально. Поэтому в определении авторитетности и значимости источников необходимо переходить от необходимости общего консенсуса к практике формирования локального консенсуса среди авторов пишущих по данной тематике. это же касается и контроля материала на значимость и допустимость применения нестандартных форматов информации, например аудиофайлов--Fil211 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Today, the project has reached a stage as possible to achieve at least a superficial knowledge of all aspects of absolutely unreal. Therefore, in determining the credibility and relevance of sources is necessary to move from a general consensus necessary to practice the formation of a local consensus among the authors who write on this subject. The same applies to control of material importance and the permissibility of the use of non-standard information formats, such as audio files

Fil211 — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Ключевыми здесь видятся третий и шестой подходы. Например одной из проблем является сортировка новых статей и правок по алфавиту и по тематике, что позволило бы распределить усилия редакторов, сосредоточив их на наиболее удобных участках работы для каждого.--Fil211 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The key here seen the third and sixth approaches. For example one of the problems is a sort of new articles and edits alphabetically and by category, which would distribute the efforts of editors, concentrating them in the most convenient areas of operation for each

Chris troutman[edit]

Response by Chris troutman 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman's response to the critical question[edit]

I hope I misunderstand your question or we have a problem. Using some type of machine intelligence to answer questions is not where Wikipedia should be going. I also don't want to hand content to a machine so that it can parse same out to the readers. I don't support the assertion that there are "changing knowledge needs." This is an encyclopedia written and evaluated by users. If that's not what the reader wants they can go elsewhere. WMF needs to double-down on supporting the users writing the encyclopedia.

Chris troutman's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

None of the above.

Mr. Zabej[edit]

  • Approach 1
  • Approach 2

--Mr. Zabej (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Marcok 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Marcok's response to the critical question[edit]

  • 2: freeing extensive contents (both PD and free license) from cultural/historical institutions (GLAM) is a key factor to improve knowldge in all Wikimedia projects.

Marcok's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • 7: extensive access to reference sources (online libraries and publications) must be granted to all contributors, in order to ensure reliable references and improve contents to all Wikimedia projects.
  • New and easier interfaces may be developed to use those reference sources and contents with all devices.


Response by Sujalajus 22:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Sujalajus auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Approach two

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sujalajus[edit]

Approach four


Response by Chaddy 04:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Chaddy auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Using bots for more than meta work (especially generating article stubs) is the wrong way. It will perspectively destroy the communities and reduce trust in our contents. Also you can not reconcile this with the basic idea of Wikipedia. Thus I strongly oppose approach six.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Chaddy[edit]



Response by Geolina163 11:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Geolina163 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]


Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Geolina163[edit]

...hier schreiben...


Response by AlexChirkin 11:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

AlexChirkin — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

AlexChirkin — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

1 and 3 approaches.

Gereon K.[edit]

Response by Gereon K. 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Gereon K.'s response to the critical question[edit]

Access to knowledge and spreading knowledge is essential and existential for Wikimedia projects. A proven successfull way to do this and mutually benefitial are partnership programs such as GLAM.

Gereon K.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Most important in my humble opinion: Approach two.


Response by Hans50 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Hans50 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...Ansatz 2...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Hans50[edit]

...Ansatz 3 und 5...

First Light[edit]

Response by First Light 12:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First Light's response to the critical question[edit]

First Light's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches 2 and 4


Response by Aldebaran 13:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Aldebaran's response to the critical question[edit]

Do not make the "technological jungle" sorrounding Wikipedia so dense that human contributers (apart from the most experienced script- and template-wizards) lose the ability to make corrections/improvements. Incomplete and excessive Wikidata-harvesting that are "showed down our throats" through infoboxes are an example of contributer-unfriendly solutions. We need every (human) contributors we can get, so adapt the technology to the contributors instead of trying to force contributors to adapt to the technology. I contribute beacause I want to write articles, so trying to "force" me to waste my time on filling in Wikidata-forms (to remove garbage from the articles) are very disencouraging and demotivating - to say the least. But then again - maybe it's just me?

I share Aldebaran's concern about the density of the technological jungle. The more dense, the smaller number of people can contribute. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Aldebaran's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach Two and Three. Absolutely NOT approach six, since this will ruin content quality and alienate (human) contributers. I assume human contributers are still wanted, even though we produce a lot more noise and friction than bots and automated "brave new" solutions?

Marcus Cyron[edit]

Response by Marcus Cyron 13:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Marcus Cyron auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Der ganze Ansatz ist falsch. Hört auf nach den Leser zu schielen (zumal, liebe WMF, ihr ohnehin nur nach den Spendern schaut und für euch jeder Leser potentiell Geld für euch haben könnte), schaut auf die Beitragenden. Denn die machen die qualitative Arbeit, die das Projekt groß gemacht haben. Ihr könnt eh keinen Einfluß auf die Inhalte nehmen. Und laßt uns Beitragende in Ruhe unsere Sachen machen. Wie "Snippets" die Qualität (!!!) verbessern sollten erschließt sich mir nicht. Wikipedia ist nicht Google und das sollten wir auch nicht anstreben. Soll Google für die Schnellsucher sein, wir sind für die, die echte, umfassende Informationen wollen. Wir stehen in keinem Wettbewerb. Auch wenn die WMF das immer wieder vergißt: wir sind kein Unternehmen und wie Freiwilligen keine Angestellten. Das ist ein Freiwilligenprojekt. Wir könnten das weitestgehend ohne euch 200 bezahlte Leute in Frisco machen. Also hört auf zu denken, es geht um euch. Als Beitragender fühle ich mich von euch wirklich miserabel behandelt. Und nun soll ich für euch noch Probleme lösen, die für mich gar keine sind?!

The whole concept is wrong. Stop looking for readers (especially as you, dear WMF, rather look for donors, and every reader may have some money for you), look for the contributors. They are doing the quality work, that made this project big. You can't have any influence on the content anyway. And leave us contributors alone with doing our stuff. How Snippets could improve the quality (!!!) is beyond my comprehension. Wikipedia is not Google, and should not desire to be. Leave the quick-searcher for Google, we are for those, who look for real, comprehensive information. We are in no competition. Even if the WMF tenbds to forget time and again: wie are no company, and we volunteers are no employees. This is a volunteer project. We could manage essentially without you 200 paid people in Frisco. So stop thinking, this is about you. As a contributor I feel treated quite shabby by you. And now I'm supposed to solve your problems for you, that are none for me?!

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής[edit]

Response by Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής 13:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach One, Approach two

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I think a more friendly user platform, with more multimedia elements combining a variety of the wikimedia projects is in need.


Response by Amage9 14:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Amage9 à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici... Approche 6

Top 2-3 de Amage9 (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...Revoir la notion de notoriété il y a une trop grande différence d'appréciation entre le domaine sportif et les scientifiques.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Review the concept of reputation there is too great a difference of opinion between the sports sector and scientists.


Response by Devopam 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Devopam's response to the critical question[edit]

It is time that we look at new (read yet unsupported/discouraged) forms of knowledge acquisition and sharing.

Devopam's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]



Response by Kertraon 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Kertraon à la question critique[edit]

  • Faire un résumé accessible, en vocabulaire simple, accessible à tous, dans un cartouche visible et attractif.
  • L'environner de différents supports (divers média) de transmission de connaissance : vidéo, textes, présentations power point ou autres, pdf, divers formats, images variées.
Translation courtesy of DragonflySixtyseven
  • Make a summary which is accessible, in simple language, and understandable by everyone, in an attractive-looking box on the screen.
  • Surround it with different forms of knowledge transmission: video, text, powerpoint presentations, pdfs, other file formats and various images.

Top 2-3 de Kertraon (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

  • Approche 7: Vos idées. --> (vers l'approche 1) Résumés accessibles et attractifs. Que le premier paragraphe du résumé soit toujours en vocabulaire simple et accessible, éventuellement dans un cartouche attractif. Pluralité de contenu : encourager des média variés, vidéos, images, présentations, schémas animés... à plusieurs endroits.
  • Approche 1: Proposer des outils faciles à utiliser et des incitations à contribuer au contenu multimédia et à de courts extraits de textes afin de bénéficier aux utilisateurs de mobiles et de recherches rapides.

Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation courtesy of DragonflySixtyseven
  • Approach #7: your ideas. (relative to approach #1) Accessible and attractive summaries. The first paragraph should always be in simple, easily-understood vocabulary, which can eventually be put in an attractive box. The majority of the content: encourage various forms of media, videos, images, presentations, animated diagrams, etc, in many places.
  • Approach #1: propose easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute to the multimedia content, and to short textual extracts, in order to benefit mobile users and rapid searches.


Response by Wereldburger758 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wereldburger758's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Wereldburger758's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

What is missing is the lack of tools to edit large amounts of data at once. An example: the media in this category: Category:Jetphotos.net_photos_(credit_bar) could be dealt with in a automatic fashion .... if there was a tool to do so. The files are that similar that changing the files in bulk is an option but there is not a tool out there to do so, in my knowledge. That means that one has to edit these files one at a time. Extremely labor costly. Wereldburger758 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge[edit]

Response by Ynanchu alp bilge 14:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Поддерживаю второй и третьи подходы.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Keep the second and third approaches.

Ynanchu alp bilge — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

...пишите здесь…


Response by JoeHebda 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeHebda's response to the critical question[edit]

Better communication and training for existing experienced editors, especially if there are plans to modify article structures & formats. For example: article lead sections would automatically converted to snippets for mobile and tablet user devices. Also: using BOTs to re-structure articles.

JoeHebda's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums).

Even though I am not qualified to answer this question, to me it makes sense to partner with other knowledge-based organizations.

Approach seven: your idea.

Following up on Approach two above: Add a Main page footer (Navbox) with links to all partnering organizations. For example: Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, External links This Navbox would be similar for all partering organizations main/home page.


Response by Miniapolis 15:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Miniapolis's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches three, four and five.

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick[edit]

Response by Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick à la question critique[edit]

Prendre un peu le dessus sur certains contributeurs qui ne voient pas plus loin que le bout de leurs nez et travailler à proposer des modèles communs à toutes les langues et internationalisables, ce qui va permettre d'utiliser massivement et réellement Wikidata, de fiabiliser notre contenu, de permettre aux contributeurs-rédacteurs de pouvoir travailler pleinement à leurs activités, ce qui va permettre de fournir beaucoup plus d'articles ayant dès leur création un bon niveau, ce qui va ramener un nombre plus grand de lecteurs. Nous devons encore être présent dans énormément de pays.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Take a little precedence over some contributors who do not see beyond the tip of their noses and work on proposing models common to all languages and internationalizable, which will allow the use of massive and really Wikidata, more reliable our content , to allow contributors-editors to fully work their activities, which will allow to provide many more items from their inception with a good level, which will bring a greater number of readers. We must still be present in a lot of countries.

Top 2-3 de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

  • Approche 2 : Wikipédia (au sens large) doit se rapprocher du terrain et les contributeurs doivent délaisser leur ordinateur pour couvrir le maximum de sujet. GLAM permet d'être au plus prêt de l'information et de générer des articles complets, notamment grâce à des contributeurs pouvant travailler en tandem ou en équipe.
  • Approche 7 : comme je l'explique dans mes précédentes interventions, le futur de Wikipédia c'est Wikidata. Nous avons déjà un certain recul dans le cyclisme, l'idée est que des contributeurs qui œuvraient auparavant sur les données travaillent presque exclusivement sur Wikidata pour en faire bénéficier toutes les autres versions linguistiques, et que les autres contributeurs au profil similaire en fasse de même, pour que les contributeurs/rédacteurs n'aient besoin que de s'occuper de rédiger le texte, sans passer les trois-quarts de leur temps à la mise en forme. Nous avons la main-d'œuvre nécessaire, il faut juste entreprendre un gros travail de réorganisation. Il faut donc éviter les erreurs du passé, et faire en sorte que des infoboxes soient communes à toutes les versions linguistiques par exemple. Bien entendu il y aura de fortes oppositions, pas forcément chez des actifs, mais la porte est toujours grande ouverte. On va devoir travailler sur des packages thématiques qui vont permettre de booster le développement de toutes les Wikipédias, donc nous fournir beaucoup plus de lecteurs, et donc statistiquement de donateurs. L'avenir de Wikipédia ne se fera pas sans travailler ensemble.
Machine translation; please help improve.
  • Approach 2: Wikipedia (broadly defined) should be closer to the ground and contributors must leave their computer to cover the maximum issue. GLAM allows to be as ready information and generate full articles, thanks to contributors that can work in tandem or in teams.
  • Approach 7: as I explain in my previous interventions, the future of Wikipedia is Wikidata. We already have a certain decline in cycling, the idea is that contributors who worked previously on the data on Wikidata work almost exclusively for the benefit of all the other language versions, and other contributors with a similar profile to do the same so that contributors / editors did need to take care of to write the text without the three-quarters of their time formatting. We have the necessary manpower, you just take a big reorganization of work. Therefore, avoid past mistakes and ensure that infoboxes are common to all language versions for example. Of course there will be strong opposition, not necessarily in active, but the door is still wide open. We'll have to work on thematic packages that will help boost the development of all the Wikipedias, so give us a lot more readers and thus statistically donors. The future of Wikipedia will not happen without working together.


Response by TeriEmbrey 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

TeriEmbrey's response to the critical question[edit]

If the Foundation, could find ways to encourage the creation and expansion of stub articles that would be helpful in responding to changing knowledge needs.

TeriEmbrey's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I would advocate for putting effort into "Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums)." GLAMs can be very helpful in filling in the documented knowledge gaps within Wikipedia. We can not expect GLAMs to be savvy of Wikipedia, its tools, and culture. The Foundation needs to expend staff and other resources to nurture these collaborations beyond their current state.


Response by ONUnicorn 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn's response to the critical question[edit]

Short snippets and diverse formats are both helpful, as is improved translation tools. Increasing access to difficult to access sources would be a huge benefit. Wikisource helps with that, as do various partnerships with libraries and subscription services. It would be great if the foundation could reach out to subscription sources to provide readers with the ability to verify content behind a paywall; perhaps limited snippets that verify what is linked on Wikipedia and ask them to pay for full access.ONUnicorn (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 1, 5, and 3.


Response by FNDE 15:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von FNDE auf die Hauptfrage[edit]


Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von FNDE[edit]

-> Wikidata.


Response by Alarichall 16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Alarichall's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Alarichall's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

5 (top), 2 (second most important)


Response by PalaciosBertolot 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de PalaciosBertolot a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Para los aportantes o colaboradores, generar una herramienta de facil acceso que les permita ver otras aportaciones relacionadas al tema en el que quieren colaborar, así no duplicaran información y no se perdería objetividad. La calidad y el adecuado lenguaje que se usa siempre debe ser monitoreado por wikipedistas acreditados como expertos en el idioma usado y las posibles caracteristicas de cada idioma en la región de la que procede el colaborador. Para el caso de idiomas, facilitar un traductor en las herramientas del visitante

Machine translation; please help improve
For partners or contributors, generating a readily accessible tool that allows them to see other contributions related to the subject in which they want to collaborate, and not duplicate information and not lose objectivity. The quality and proper language used should always be monitored by Wikipedians accredited as experts in the language used and possible features of each language in the region from which the contributor. In the case of languages, provide a translator tool for visitors.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de PalaciosBertolot (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

Las dos mejores opciones son: 02 y 03.

Machine translation; please help improve
The two best options are: 02 and 03.

Dmitry Dzhagarov[edit]

Response by Dmitry Dzhagarov 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Dzhagarov — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подход второй: быстрее создавать новые и обновлённые материалы за счёт управляемых сообществом партнёрских программ вокруг содержания, например (сотрудничество с редакциями научных журналов - чтобы они могли анонсировать, рекламировать в виде резюме (как в ScienceDaily, но короче и в уже имеющейся в Википедии статье - как развитие этой обзорной статьи) свои наиболее интересные публикации. Это привлечет научных работников.)

Machine translation; please help improve
the second approach: quickly create new and updated materials at the expense of the community managed affiliate programs around content, such as (cooperation with the editors of scientific journals - so that they can advertise, advertise in summary form (as in ScienceDaily, but shorter and existing Wikipedia article - as the development of this review article) his most interesting publications. This will attract scientists.)


Response by MurielMary 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

MurielMary's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 4 is definitely needed - people don't believe there is a gender gap unless there are hard facts and numbers to show it. Also there is the problem that people take the easy/lazy approach to responding to the problem by saying "but that's the gender gap in the real world, wiki just reflects the world as it is". This just isn't true - there are many notable women and women's organisations which aren't represented in world media or mainstream knowledge. wiki could be a place which seeks to redress the bias of knowledge in the world, rather than simply perpetuate the existing problems of skewed knowledge. If redressing the bias of knowledge became one of wiki's core goals, this would attract many editors in minority areas and really make a difference.

The gender gap is a symptom of a much more serious problem. Over time the rougher, ruder, territorial, aggressive editors have driven off a very large number of potentially good editors. When we get that under control we will have a more diverse population here. Zedshort (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by SageRad 19:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad's response to the critical question[edit]

Knowledge is very distorted in many articles by clear and present bias that has been gamed into the articles by editors with abilities to bully and harass and game the boards. So, we need integrity in all the processes and structures by which the policies and guidelines are supposed to be enforced. If we actually could employ the policies and guidelines, then we'd get better article with less POV pushing.

SageRad's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach four is good, but we also need to address systemic bias along axes other than gender. Gender is very important, but there are also systemic biases on other axes, such as the way in which certain forms of knowledge are highly favored and others are highly denigrated, not according to reliability but according to how "establishment" they are. There is a systemic bias that favors the general establishment, industry-aligned points of view, and "science" as a system of knowledge beyond what is warranted by its actual strengths and empirically proven abilities. We need true skepticism on Wikipedia, and better enforcement of the actual policies and guidelines -- not slanted interpretations of them.


Response by Don-kun 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Don-kun auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Die sich abzeichnenden Trends sollte beobachtet werden, aber immer auch daraufhin geprüft, ob sie zu den bisherigen Projekten passen. Nicht jedes neue Bedürfnis der Leser muss bedient werden, manchmal machen dies andere Dienste besser und für Community-Projekte kann jede große Änderung zu Konflikten oder sogar Schaden am Projekt (Vandalismus durch einfaches mobiles Editieren) führen. Das sollte stets mitgedacht werden.

The looming trends should be monitored, but always should be checked whether they fit with the existing projects. Not every new desire by the readers must be served, sometimes other service providers do it better, and with community projects every big change can lead to conflicts or even damage to the project (vandalism through easy mobile editing). This should always be considered as well.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Don-kun[edit]

2, 3, 4


Response by Wikimpan 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimpan's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 1 and 2. For 2, see my comment on “communities” question.

Approach 3 could be a good idea too — especially for detecting vandalism.


Response by Worlddreamer 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Worlddreamer's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here… Top choice approach 2, then 1 and 5. About approach 4, it sounds like censorship to me. While current content primarily should be bias free, not everything should be. Bigotry cannot be understood if we pretty up the hateful words that are used. And history shouldn't be rewritten to suit our comfort, how can we learn from our past if we erase the truth of what happened?

Worlddreamer's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by ArthurPSmith 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith's response to the critical question[edit]

In general machine-action can help expand accessibility (automatically creating short snippets or first-draft translated pages) but machine-written text is guaranteed NOT to improve content quality at this point in time. Improved tools for authoring and editing content are probably most important.

ArthurPSmith's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach one and three I think are most important here - enhance the ability of human editors to do good work.


Response by Nickispeaki 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Відповідь Nickispeaki на критичне питання[edit]

Залучати більше науковців і спеціалістів - це підвищить якість. Але одночасно треба проводити для них тренінги, випускати методички.

Machine translation; please help improve
Engage more scientists and specialists - it will improve quality. But also, time should be spent training them, so create more Manuals.

2-3 найважливіші підходи, на думку Nickispeaki (або запропонуйте власну ідею)[edit]

Підхід п'ятий: Підвищити охоплення в ключових мовних версіях за рахунок інструментів перекладу, а також людської праці. Підхід шостий: Дослідити шляхи масштабування автоматично генерованого, автоматично підтвердженого та автоматично підтримуваного контенту.

[Approaches 5 and 6]


Response by Zedshort 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zedshort's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Zedshort's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I have two mathematician friends that have been driven off of WP by the highly tenacious, territorial and aggressive persons that for some odd reason believe they know more than those with PhDs in pure and applied mathematics. We need to recognize that some have better preparation to write highly technical articles and to encourage those people to edit, or at a minimum to not discourage their participation. One way of facilitating those is to discourage the territorial type of editor who squats upon articles as if they own it. A simple method of pointing a finger at a “guarded” article and such a potential problematic editor needs to be implemented. Some of the more technical articles desperately need a very competent person to boldly delete whole sections of such articles and to rewrite what remains. This can be accomplished if we move to one side the more territorial editors who refuse to cooperate with the volunteer effort of WP.

The under representation of some communities is probably a function of their community's attitude toward personal responsibility and initiative. Some communities believe that they should always defer to the “experts” others are more capable of “taking command” and doing the work themselves. In the USA there is still a considerable disregard for experts and a strong streak of individualism and as a result the English WP is much more developed. We need to encourage people to show initiative and to discourage those who act in a territorial manner.Zedshort (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Sanglahi86 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanglahi86's response to the critical question[edit]

A more user-friendly Edit and Upload interface in Wikipedia and Commons will help. Especially for new users, it is quite intimidating to edit a page filled with Rules and markup text. Also, provide more user-friendly tools such as those found in external softwares like Notepad++ (column-sorting for Bulleted lists and Table columns, aligning of Table entries, quickly find existing wikilinks, auto-add piped wikilink, etc.)

Sanglahi86's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach one: Provide easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-form text to benefit mobile and quick lookup users.
  • Approach three: Increase content quality and timeliness by technologically enhancing our editors’ ability to create, monitor, and process content.
  • Approach four: Measure and reduce systemic gender and other bias in our overall content by project.


Response by Manojnmims 22:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Manojnmims's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Manojnmims's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

i want to share here that so many people have useless book, but this book must be helpfull for others. so how to connect with them from people to people is most important.


Response by Seagull123 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seagull123's response to the critical question[edit]

This could possibly be achieved by more actively encouraging readers (and possibly editors) to discuss the pages and projects they're reading. They could be asked to leave a comment on what they think about the page they're looking at and also (for some projects, especially the smaller ones) the actual project they're using - what they think about it and what they think could be improved from their perspective. I really like the link to the Wiktionary:Feedback page on English Wiktionary (visible to me when I'm logged out as a link in the sidebar as something like "leave us a message, if you want") which allows readers to provide feedback on pages from their, neutral perspective.

Seagull123's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches 1, 4 and 5. Especially with approach 1, with things like Google's Knowledge Graph and links to search Wikipedia on iOS's Spotlight Search. This, I think, is what Wikimedia should be trying to do itself. Wikimedia, could possibly, produce a search app for smartphones where users could search for something and get results from all Wikimedia projects (and possibly other Creative Commons licensed websites). So if I searched for New York in this app, I would get the lead section from the Wikipedia article to give me the basic information on New York, but I would also get a few images from Wikimedia Commons. I would also get a travel guide from Wikivoyage, news articles about it from Wikinews and quotes about New York from Wikiquote. But this wouldn't just be links, but instead, snippets from the articles arranged in some, nice looking arrangement with quotes and stuff. (I'm not explaining this clearly, am I?) This would both improve traffic to other, less well-known projects and help provide the reader with better knowledge as they won't just get a Wikipedia article (as they would if they Googled New York).

Ryan Hodnett[edit]

Response by Ryan Hodnett 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Hodnett's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach six
  • Approach five
  • Approach one


Response by G41rn8 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

G41rn8's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

G41rn8's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]



Response by JoshuaKGarner 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

JoshuaKGarner's response to the critical question[edit]

This question simply covers too much. It is effectively, "how do we make Wikimedia projects better?" There's lots of ways. Also, simply encourage editors to be concise. As Shakespeare said, "brevity is the soul of wit."

JoshuaKGarner's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach three seems to be the most obvious approach. Many Wikipedia articles, for example, have outdated information. This should be remedied somehow. Approach six is intriguing, though I am skeptical of the potential effectiveness.


Knxwrtr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Make it easier to edit. A lot of people have very specific and excellent knowledge but can be confused by the editing process. Knowledge specialists don't have time to sit down and read all there is to know about editing.

Two might be okay. I'm not sure what three means. Technologically enhance? Does this mean human or machine generated articles? Five is a good idea. I'm often stuck when I try to translate an article that is only written in one language that I don't know very well. I will never be behind six because I will never be behind machine-generated content. If we use this, what is the point of having a community that generates human-written content?


Response by Missimack 04:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Missimack's response to the critical question[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation should strive for the provision of up-to-date, unbiased, in-depth content. No short snippets: that would be counterproductive. A new focus should be placed on translating the best quality articles from each language to other languages, to bring the best we can offer to as wide an audience as possible.


Response by Crazy1880 06:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Crazy1880 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Moin Moin zusammen, grunsätzlich gilt mal eines festzuhalten: Es gibt genügend lokales, überregionales und internationales Wissen, welches nutzbar ist. Allerdings können wir es hier nicht einbringen, weil die Wenigsten ein Verständnis für die richtige Einbringung und Nutzung haben. Mein Vorschlag, wenn man ihn so nennen wollte wäre, eine bessere Vernetzung mit den Heimat- und Verkehrsvereinen zu schaffen und diese direkt abzuholen. In vielen dieser Vereine liegen Ressourcen, die ohne Nutzung in der Versenkung verschwinden. Gerne kann ich weiteres direkt erläutern. mfg --Crazy1880 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, basically the folowing is to be noted: ""There is enough local, supraregional and international knowledge, that's usable. We only can't put it here, as only a few have an understanding about how to introduce and use it. My proposal, if you would call it as such, would be a better integration of historical societies and tourist offices, to get this knowledge direct from it's source. I'd like to explain further, if you wish.

Ядерный Трамвай[edit]

Response by Ядерный Трамвай 07:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ядерный Трамвай — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Третий подход (будем оригинальнее). Хотя всё про то же: немного снизить сложность редактирования материалов. И пятый подход. Имеющийся механизм Перевода для МедиаВики сложен, путанен, но всё же содержит в себе здравую суть. Он не подходит для Википедии, так как в ней наиболее сильна роль местных сообществ среди всех проектов Викимедиа, но вот Интервики — правильный механизм. О, ещё второй! Информатизация архивного дела в, например, России, движется с черепашьей скоростью. Можно подключиться к этому системно и организованно со стороны Викимедиа.

Machine translation; please help improve
The third approach (be original). Although all about, too: a little editing to reduce the complexity of the material. And the fifth approach. The existing transfer arrangements for MediaWiki is complex, confusing, but still contains a sensible point. It is not suitable for Wikipedia, as it is the strongest part of local communities of all Wikimedia projects, but Interwiki - the right gear. Oh, even a second! Information of the archive in case, for example, Russia is moving at a snail's pace. You can connect to the systematic and organized by the Wikimedia Foundation.


Response by QuixoticLife 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

QuixoticLife's response to the critical question[edit]

In short: Measure what you know is already breaking, and use that data to fix the tools you know are already broken.

QuixoticLife's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In order from highest priority, 4, 3, 1.

Four: You can't fix what you don't measure. And this needs to be fixed.

Three: Editors have been craving better tools for years. Surely some money can be allocated to this, at long last. (And yes, I know it's improved...but it's gone from circa 2005 to circa 2010...there's more work to be done!)

One: As mobile is on the rise globally and particularly in low-income communities and the Global South, making it easy to contribute via mobile is going to be key to facilitating quality content from diverse people (and non-diverse content is not quality content).


Response by Jobrjobr 08:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jobrjobr's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach one and Approach three.

Jobrjobr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Rimfire47 10:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rimfire47's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Rimfire47's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

approaches 1, 2 and 6


Response by Wlg3616 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wlg3616's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…Approach one and five

Wlg3616's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Tbranch1527 11:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Tbranch1527's response to the critical question[edit]

Short, timely and easy surveys of Wikipedia "constant readers/users" as to "what would you like to see or change with regards to Wikipedia content?"

Tbranch1527's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I think Approaches one(1), two(2) and six(6) "nail it!"


Response by DJSupreme23 11:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DJSupreme23's response to the critical question[edit]

Adding quality content takes time. Maintaining it and protecting it from vandalism also takes time. Make these time investments count.

Local-langauge and local content will naturally aid WP penetration and local enlightenment efforts.

As for item four, the repeat insinuation gender-based harassment and systemic bias is an agenda-pushing and creates a problem where there hardly is one. If there is a bias, it will natually be challenged under the established tools of editing-bias, non-neutral POV, POV-pushing, and sanction against users that are a detriment to the community.

DJSupreme23's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

+1 , +5 , +6


Response by Juandev 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Juandev's response to the critical question[edit]

...Increase awarness about WikiProjects and initiatives, who takes care of the quality of conntent. The majority of contributors are from the point of view of the psychological motivations contributors/hard workers/beaurocrats and the system of projects based on quality is not attractive to them. These projects are attractive to carrer or sociable group. Thus certificates and possitions to these people might help. For sociable people its again wikiproject focusing only socialisation. And not just motivation of people helps there. Quality articles are difficult to create for those, who havent graduated university - so every project, should have help pages for every aspect of a featured article.

Juandev's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...1, 2, 5


Response by Liberal33310 12:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Liberal33310 à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici... 1 2 5

Top 2-3 de Liberal33310 (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...

Sophie Graubert[edit]

Response by Sophie Graubert 12:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sophie Graubert à la question critique[edit]

1 2 3

Top 2-3 de Sophie Graubert (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

Il faut insister auprès des contributeurs sur la probité intellectuelle exigée, attendue. Beaucoup de gens n'en sont pas capables, n'en ont aucune idée. Il y a donc une éducation à faire des contributeurs et des nouveaux contributeurs.

Machine translation; please help improve
We must insist that contributors understand that intellectual honesty is required, expected. Many people are not able to do so, have no real idea. Therefore we must educate contributors and new contributors.

Happy Attack Dog[edit]

Response by Happy Attack Dog 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog's response to the critical question[edit]

...We should make a separate community designed to explain concepts in a simple manner. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happy Attack Dog: You might want to check out simple:, the w:en:Simple English Wikipedia. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write her


Response by Sargolin 15:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sargolin à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici...2-3

Top 2-3 de Sargolin (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...


Response by Luke081515 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Luke081515 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Ich finde es wichtig, das die Autoren mit Recherchemöglichkeiten unterstützt werden. Maschinengenerierung halte ich überhaupt nicht für sinnvoll, dann ist Wikipedia nicht mehr das was es mal war.... es verliert das menschliche....

I think it's important, that authors are supported with possibilities for research. I think machine generation is not useful at all, with it wikipedia is no longer what it used to be.... it looses its humanity...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Luke081515[edit]

  1. Ansatz zwei (2)
  2. Ansatz drei (3)


Response by Llywrch 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach two is where the most attention needs to be placed. People come to Wikipedia -- & other project pages -- for the content, not for the interface or fancy technical bells & whistles. GLAM & Wikipedia Library are two good examples of enabling volunteers to improve content, but more can be done.

Llywrch's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Another area worth paying attention to would be approach three. At the risk of contradicting myself, many existing tools & bots are of immense help to volunteers in managing content. However many of the most useful ones were developed by the volunteers themselves, & the Foundation has ignored supporting them in favor of tools the Foundation developed itself; the Foundation often acts as a step-parent does, favoring its own creations & ignoring those of others, no matter which ones prove most useful.

One area that should not make the Foundation's list of strategic priorities is translation tools or machine-generated content (approaches 5 & 6). Translation tools provided by Bing & Google do a satisfactory job as it is for translation, & in my own experience using software tools to create articles end up requiring as much time to adapt to the needs of an article subject as they save. And based on the current track record, the tools volunteers have created are more useful & more reliable than many of those the Foundation has been responsible for creating. Best if the Foundation cease their efforts in this area for a while.


Response by Louis-garden 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Louis-garden à la question critique[edit]


Top 2-3 de Louis-garden (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...


Response by Gorvzavodru 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Gorvzavodru — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подход второй Быстрее создавать новые и обновлённые материалы за счёт управляемых сообществом партнёрских программ вокруг содержания, например, в сфере GLAM (сотрудничество с галереями, библиотеками, архивами и музеями).

Подход четвёртый Измерять и уменьшать системные гендерные и иные отклонения, по отношению к материалам проекта в целом.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Second approach to quickly create new and updated materials at the expense of the community managed affiliate programs around the content, for example, in GLAM (cooperation with galleries, libraries, archives and museums).
The approach of the fourth Measure and reduce the systemic gender and other deviations in relation to content of the whole project.

Ing. Garin[edit]

Response by Ing. Garin 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ing. Garin's response to the critical question[edit]


Ing. Garin's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


Rory O'Kane[edit]

Response by Rory O'Kane 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rory O'Kane's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3, 6


Response by LovelyLillith 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

LovelyLillith's response to the critical question[edit]

I've noticed several things when working on Editathons that may affect contributions by others: 1. Working from mobile devices is hellish. Tablets and phones are impossible to type on for any significant length of time without an actual keyboard, and creating pages with references is particularly vexing. Creating more formatting macros or links to citation templates etc. would be very useful, particularly since most people are glued to their phones. I know there are a number of tools such as Twinkle that make life easier, but I would love to easily find manuals on what all is available, how to use them and what they are good for. I DO NOT feel that machine-generated subject matter is necessarily a good idea, because there is too much room for viruses and pranksters to abuse bots, and it makes contributing to Wiki less personal to those who invest more of their own interests into the mix. 2. Editathons seem to be very limited to English content. We do our best to get multilingual or other national people involved, but it is difficult and those pages seem very underrepresented. As I am in an English-speaking country, I'm at a loss for what to do to encourage more people of other cultures to get involved - perhaps more meetups with ethnic-oriented organizations or foreign language clubs at schools would be useful to try to get more of the pages translated. Perhaps GLAM would have contacts who would be willing to spread the word on this. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

LovelyLillith's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach one, two and five (although I believe most of the suggestions are appropriate)


Response by RonnieV 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RonnieV's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

Tja, een deel van de wereld lijkt genoegen te nemen met korte snippers informatie, een ander deel wil juist de diepte in gaan. Wikipedia moet die tweede groep serieus nemen. Voor die eerste groep zouden we moeten kijken of het mogelijk is om bij (alle!) artikelen er nog beter voor te zorgen dat er sprake is van een korte inleidende alinea, waarin de kerninformatie gegeven wordt, of we hangen aan iedere pagina een snipper-pagina, waarin het onderwerp in (zeg) maximaal 1000 tekens beschreven wordt (indien de pagina zelf langer is). De bezoeker die de korte versie wil hebben krijgt de snipperpagina met een duidelijke link naar de volledige pagina, de bezoeker die de volledige tekst wil lezen krijgt deze, met plaatjes en andere media.

Machine translation; please help improve
Well, take a part of the world seems content with short snippets of information, another part just wants to go into the depths. Wikipedia has to take that second group seriously. For the first group, we would have to see if it is possible to reach (all!) Items still to better ensure that there is a brief introductory paragraph, in which the key information is given, or we hang on every page a snipper- page, in which the subject (say) is described up to 1,000 characters (if the page itself is longer). The visitor who wants to have the short version gets the chop page with a clear link to the full page, the visitor who wants to read the full text gets them with pictures and other media.

RonnieV's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

De bias in onderwerpen en artikelen is op veel Wikipedia groot. Benadering vier is in mijn ogen dan ook belangrijk. In de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is er een bias naar mannelijke onderwerpen, naar Neerlandocentrisme, en een onevenredige aandacht voor zaken als voetbal en muziek uit de hedendaagse hitparade. Er zijn meer sporten, Nederlands wordt in meer landen gesproken en er is zo veel meer muziek dan alleen de Top-40. Computerondersteunde inhoud (Benadering zes, bijvoorbeeld via Wikidata) kan een aanvulling zijn voor Wikipedia. Belangrijk is om dit te laten landen bij de gebruikers, in meerdere grote wikigemeenschappen is er verzet tegen deze manier van werken. Ik kan me wat voorstellen bij de angst om de regie uit handen te geven, maar ik zie ook veel mogelijkheden om winst te halen uit die gemeenschappelijke invoer. Waarom zouden we het overlijden van personen op 200+ wiki's moeten invoeren, waar dit vanuit een database centraal doorgegeven kan worden? Denk ook aan uitslagen van internationale sportevenementen, en zo veel andere gegevens. Belangrijk is wel dat het ondersteunend is, niet leidend wordt. Een derde idee is het veilig stellen van de informatiebronnen. Veel wiki's refereren naar externe webpagina's. Helaas leert de praktijk dat de beheerders van die pagina's er niet altijd veel aan gelegen is om deze informatie permanent beschikbaar te stellen. Het zou dan ook wenselijk zijn als Wikipedia op de een of andere manier weet te bewerkstelligen dat zij zelf deze informatie cachet. Zo lang mogelijk dient er verwezen te worden naar de oorspronkelijke informatiebron, maar als deze niet langer beschikbaar is, zou het mooi zijn als er geruisloos overgeschakeld kan worden naar de gecachede versie van de bron.

Machine translation; please help improve
The bias in issues and articles on many Wikipedia large. 'Approach four' is in my view therefore important. In the Dutch Wikipedia, there is a bias towards male subjects to Neerlandocentrisme, and a disproportionate focus on things like football and music from contemporary charts. There are more sports, Dutch is spoken in more countries and there is so much more music than just the Top 40. Computer Supported content ( Approach six , for example via Wiki Data) can complement for Wikipedia. It is important to let this land on the users, in several large wiki communities there is opposition to this way of working. I can imagine what the fear of giving the control out of your hands, but I also see many opportunities to make a profit from this common input. Why should we enter the death of persons on 200+ wikis, where it can be passed from a central database? Consider also results in international sporting events, and so many other details. It is important that it is supporting, not leading.
A third idea is to secure the information. Many wikis refer to external web pages. Unfortunately, practice shows that the operators of these sites, there is not always strong interest to make this information available permanently. It would therefore be desirable if Wikipedia in one way or another, is able to ensure that they save this information themselves. As long as possible there should be a reference to the original source of information, but if it is no longer available, it would be nice if it can be switched silently to the cached version of the source.


Response by VexorAbVikipædia 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

VexorAbVikipædia's response to the critical question[edit]

For users, mobile users — who are becoming ubiquitous — probably want short snippets that link to more detailed content. Someone who looks up the "Tunnel boring machine" article probably wants to know how they work and how much they cost. So that would be featured in the snippet.

Is there a Wiki-reader available? Reading takes effort; it's easier to listen to a machine read an article for you, particularly if you're driving or if you're squinting at a small screen on your phone.

You might steal Google's software and spy on your users. Learn which parts of articles they read most, and which articles they visit after they read the first article. So a user who visits the article "Automotive engine" also receives recommendations for popular alternative articles, such as "Emission controls", "Automotive transmission", etc.

Regarding contributors, advertise what you need / want. In the article on "Cacti", a banner might mention, "Do you know anything about succulents in South America? [Click here" And don't just limit your advertising to Wikipedia itself. Facebook, Twitter, ... , even videos on YouTube could advertise your needs to prospective contributors.

VexorAbVikipædia's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach one Approach five

Language tools or language assistance would be helpful. It's obvious that much of English Wikipedia's content is being contributed by people who speak English as a second language. For example, much of the content of articles on Chinese history is obviously being contributed by people who live in China, Taiwan, or Chinese communities in that region.


Response by Ambrosia10 04:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambrosia10's response to the critical question[edit]

  • Approach two
  • Approach four

GLAMS are only just getting started when it comes to assisting with facilitating the content quality of the various arms of Wikimedia. So much untapped potential. I whole heartedly support the assistance of Wikimedia Foundation in the creation of on site wikieditors/wikiinterns to assist GLAMS in creating content for the Wikimedia Foundation. I also agree that measuring and reducing systematic bias should be an extremely high priority of Wikimedia strategy.

Ambrosia10's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

Tibo Nova[edit]

Response by Tibo Nova 05:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tibo Nova's response to the critical question[edit]

Many won't try to read a content if they are not good at foreign language, and also many don't read Wiki or take it as a reliable source of information if it has poor content in their native languages. This is the first barrier. Wiki should bring the same contents of different languages closer. And yes, everyone run, me too, so a lot of times I just watch the snippet that Google put into my mouth and it's enough. So the summaries must be short and simple as possible. When I want to know more, I still come to the site to dig deep in the article.

Tibo Nova's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In decreasing order: 5, 1, 3


Response by Carlotm 08:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm's response to the critical question[edit]

Above of what I already suggested in the other two pages, I would like to stress the necessity of these three points:

  • Invite external figures with recognized competencies to check the most important pages. To the page will be added, as a sub-page, their essay including three lists (errors, inaccuracies and deficiencies), and a short description of what else could be done to improve the page. Editors should attain to these suggestions.
  • The FIRST pages (see Reach) should be protected and reserved to registered editors, who would have at their disposal a kind of page sandbox where to try improvements in a team oriented environment.
  • A new type of editor should be created, the knowledge holder. Their will be a moral authority without any added power, pertaining only to content issues. Their authority will not cross over any form or format disputes, not even grammatical or syntactical. But their weight in content discussion is higher than that of normal editors.

Carlotm's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach 1, in the context of the FIRST page (see Reach).
  • Approach 2.[edit]

Top 2-3[edit]



Response by QVermeer 12:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

QVermeer's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

QVermeer's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… In Wikipedia it is compulsary to refer to public sources. That is of course a good idea to increase the reliability. As sources are in general only books and newspapers allowed. However, these sources are not always reliable. In public archives there are often more reliable sources available. Often nobody has described the information in these sources, so that this information is inaccessable for Wikipedia, although it is the most reliable information. If someone wishes to use these sources, it is removed by moderators, because it is unpublished information and therefore defined as own research. Nevertheless, these sources can be checked by everybody. Research in archives is just the same research as sampling information from books. My suggestion is to allow information that refers to public accessable documents in archives, provided that clearly is described how these documents can be found in the archives. This will make Wikipedia much more interesting, because one has not to wait for decennia or centuries until someone publishes his own selection of the information. Publications are often hampered due to the fact taht publishers often reject publications that are not commercially interesting. Under the present Wikipedia policy much information is lost. An example: since a few years tens of kilometers of archives with respect to the second world war are publicle accessable. Many facts that were secret, have never been described and they will never been described because books over that subject are commecrially uninteresting. Furthermore, it appears that many facts have been decribed wrongly in history books. The causes of the wrong history description are errors, secrecy or misleading by purpose. Under an other policy of Wikipedia many of these facts can be made public.

Furthermore, give clear instructions to the respective projects to accept always(!!!) articles that are based on any publication. In my country several highly qualified contributors get frustrated by the fact that moderators remove articles that are based on a one publication. This policy acts as a kind of censorship, because other articles based on a single publication are accepted. The removal policy of the moderators depends completely on personal likes and dislikes of a small group of moderators. In my country it seems that a small group of rigth wing moderators controls the project. This caused the leave of many contributors and Wikipedia is no longer considered reliable. Here Wikipedia is nowadays a medium of sports statistics and nine-days wonders at youtube.


Response by KPFC 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von KPFC auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von KPFC[edit]

1, 2


I am only a plain-vanilla editor on en.Wikipedia, and I've entered this survey (my first on Wikipedia) out of curiosity and solely because it was advertised at the top of my user page. So, my comment might not be directly relevant to the goals of this survey, and I expect it will most likely be discarded. For what it's worth, though: I have read through all the options offered in this survey, and am saddened to find that it completely ignores the impact of rampant vandalism on our community of editors and readers. My grandsons (aged 12 and 14) are expressly forbidden by their school from relying on Wikipedia as a source of information for their research/essays, because teaching staff consider it unreliable, since anyone can enter anything at any time and the community of editors is known to be constantly battling against vandals.

IMHO, the best 15th birthday present our community of editors should have been given is a survey on a strategy for defeating vandalism, which is a cancer constantly eating away at all our efforts. In any case, best wishes of success with the present survey and I apologise for being off-topic. With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

André Silva Lima[edit]

Response by André Silva Lima 13:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

André Silva Lima's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

André Silva Lima's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Chrfwow 16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Chrfwow's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Chrfwow's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

- Increase co-work with Google (Search) like the webdefinition (define:something)
- Increase the collaboration between the Wikipedias of the different languages (introduce a fast way to translate words without leaving the app or page at the Wikipedia app)
Chrfwow (talk)

...write here…


Response by Ozdiaz 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ozdiaz's response to the critical question[edit]

Utilize well known methods of app and web analytics, as well as incorporate new techniques and models for machine learning and cognitive computing to get granular insights of how people use the content and sites.

Ozdiaz's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In no particular order, I support: - Approach 2 - Approach 5: in particular, figure out a way of getting Wikimedia into Cuba. - Approach 6!

Marcel coenders[edit]

Response by Marcel coenders 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Marcel coenders's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

The modern user is very good in quick scanning for information tables, infografics are very important. Wikipedia is infact for me already very user friendly .

Marcel coenders's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

5. translation of wikipedia articles in people own lanquage could be a very usefull occupation for all the refugees that are now waiting without any work in homes and camps. 3. Sometimes / many times wikipedia is the best newspaper this funcion can be improved.


Response by Shangkuanlc 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Shangkuanlc 的前2或前3優先順序(或分享您自己的想法)[edit]

策略一: 提供上傳多媒體內容以及短篇文字,簡單易用的工具跟誘因,讓行動裝置和快速查詢的使用者可以更方便。 策略二: 藉由以社群領導的館聯機構(美術館、圖書館、檔案館、與博物館)合作計畫,來更快速的擴展維基媒體的內容。 策略五: 透過翻譯工具與人工處理,提升維基媒體計畫主要語言版本的收錄內容。

Machine translation; please help improve
Strategy One: Provide upload multimedia content as well as short stories, letters, simple-to-use tool with incentives to make mobile devices and users can quickly find more convenient. Strategy II: community - led by Hall-linked institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) cooperation program to more rapid expansion of the content of Wikimedia. Strategy Five: Through translation tool with manual processing, improve Wikimedia project included the main language versions of the content.
[Approaches 1, 2, 5.]


Response by Gnrc 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Gnrc à la question critique[edit]

5 puis 3 puis 2

Top 2-3 de Gnrc (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...


Response by Timothyclethbridge 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Timothyclethbridge's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach five, Approach six

Timothyclethbridge's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Jojo17 21:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Jojo17 à la question critique[edit]

Proposer des outils faciles à utiliser et des incitations à contribuer au contenu multimédia et à de courts extraits de textes afin de bénéficier aux utilisateurs de mobiles et de recherches rapides. Augmenter la couverture linguistique pour les langages clés grâce à des outils automatiques de traduction et du travail humain

[Approaches 1 and 5.]

Top 2-3 de Jojo17 (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...


Response by L235 22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

L235's response to the critical question[edit]

I don't profess to know anything about automated content-gathering. WRT Wikipedia, on any topic that users are likely to want an encyclopedic article, we should strive to have at least a stub in every language, but most definitely at least in English, and if automated data-mining is what's required to get that done with reasonable accuracy, then automated data-mining it is. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

L235's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

All of these are equally very crucial to me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Response by Saxonicus 22:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Saxonicus auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

eins, zwei und vier

one, two and four

Лорд Бъмбъри[edit]

Response by Лорд Бъмбъри 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Лорд Бъмбъри's response to the critical question[edit]

These are two critical questions.

To the first (short snippets, diverse formats, language, etc.) - none. Wikipedia is a place to find serious information and if it takes time to read an article, then so it should be. Even today most overviews of articles are well written and allow the lazy reader to get a fast answer to their question. There is nothing more to be done.

To the second (help facilitate content quality) - motivate more people to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects. Bots can write plenty of articles, based on structured data, but there are other websites (e.g., which give access to such data. We shall not compete with them. Our strength is our community. There is not and there will not be another website, which provides researched information, based on a combination of online and offline quotable sources. The more people write for Wikipedia, the better it will be.

Лорд Бъмбъри's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  1. Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums).
  2. Increase content quality and timeliness by technologically enhancing our editors’ ability to create, monitor, and process content.
Especially the part about ability to monitor content - for small communities patrolling is very hard, because of the lack of enough manpower to do that. Some automatic vandalism recognition would do us all well.


Response by Gailletboréal 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Gailletboréal à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici... 2

Top 2-3 de Gailletboréal (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici... 4


Response by Libcub 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Libcub's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Libcub's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Four, One, Three


Response by Pointro 03:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pointro's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 3, Approach 6, Approach 1


Response by SusikMkr 06:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SusikMkr's response to the critical question[edit]

...What is the difference between Wikipedia and printed encyclopedias? The main advantage of printed encyclopedias is balanced content. Extends of topics are appropriate to their importance. In addition there are specialized encyclopedias.…

SusikMkr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit], three…


Response by 陳俊霖0208 09:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

陳俊霖0208 對關鍵問題的回應[edit]

⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯ 現代人使用臉書的功能比較多

Machine translation; please help improve.
Modern use facebook features more

陳俊霖0208 的前2或前3優先順序(或分享您自己的想法)[edit]



Response by Schlind 10:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Schlind auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Maximalgröße festlegen, wird diese überschritten, wird beim Editieren automatisch eine Teilung eingefordert (und das Speichern verweigert)

Set a maximum size, and if it's exceeded, automatically call for a division while editing (and deny saving)

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Schlind[edit]

...Ansatz 1; Ansatz 7: Einsatz von Kuratoren für herausragende Artikel über die Edits möglich sind...

Approach 1; Approach 7: use of curators for outstanding articles where edits are possible ...


Response by Yogee23 10:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yogee23's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Yogee23's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I think, we should be less critical on the contribution and help people to add more and more content. The knowledge can be enhanced by sharing only. There are many topics in the world, where there are no documented evidences. We should allow people to contribute based on their information, gyan and the things which are followed for last many generations. The irrelevant information can be removed but knowledge addition and contribution should continue. Yogee23 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Burnet[edit]

Response by Gabriel Burnet 10:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Burnet's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Gabriel Burnet's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

This strategy (Strategy/Knowledge) by far is the most rational, academic and information based syllabus which Wikipedia should be about.

Approach One: is seriously important in our need for information fast culture of users and races the profile of Wikipedia on devices and creates quick argument availability for discussion topics among friends and would increase usability.

Approach Two: increases the profile of Wikipedia as a credible source and non-discriminative base for information that is confident enough to use out source material and a culturally compatible reference source.

Approach Three: fosters a better relationship between contributors and Wikipedia. Focus on this area increases contributor’s ability to subsidize definitions with new information and academic citation as needed reducing the workload for Wikipedia personnel.

Approach four: Measure and reduce systemic gender and other bias in content is absolutely necessary for academic integrity. If anything this is the most important approach of any of the approaches that I have read. There is a lot of content that is bias without citation not just among genders but against social groups. Content should not be discriminated against if it includes academic citations that have not been discredited. There has been an unnerving trend of content being deleted by special interest groups that has a scientific basis that is backed up by peer reviewed journals just because it disagrees with that special interest group that are the majority. This is being done without academic discussion or reasoning but out of sheer malice against an established scientific fact. This would not happen if Christians wanted to delete the Wikipedia page on evolution so why is this being done to smaller topics. A good example of this is the antifeminism page I read just recently. From a purely academic standpoint this article is severely biased and only cities feminist literature. There’s not even one citation that isn’t a feminist author and any amendments to even a citation is intercepted and deleted. It gives users the opinion that Wikipedia supports the idea that anything other than feminism is hate speech and hatred of women and opinion that most stakeholders and academic’s would not agree with. This makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and un-academic, an identity that Wikipedia needs to distance itself from to survive into the future.

Approach five: Increase coverage in key languages through translation tools and human process is easier than ever to do and will get easier in future. Connecting translation devices such as Google translate to Wikipedia would increase speed and usage by searchers in other countries therefore raising the profile of Wikipedia in less known parts of the world.

Approach six: Machine-generated, verified and assisted content allows users to cite materials with greater accuracy and increases the chance of contributors citing things correctly. This increases the user’s ability to understand and source materials increasing correctness and credibility, which Wikipedia needs to be accredited with non-biased, accuracy and credibility.

Approach seven: My idea. Create greater automatisation to free up Wikipedia resources. Restrict deletion of content without academic discussion. I would not delete content just because it didn’t fit my belief system in the same way other people should be held accountable in the same way and academic ethical standard.


Response by Patrickwooldridge 12:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrickwooldridge's response to the critical question[edit]

...Perhaps a cadre of editors could be recruited to provide succinct and readable (but accurate) plain-language abstract/summary introductions to all articles over a certain length – particularly technical articles. I have observed that the first sections of some articles are basically unreadable by those lacking some previous technical vocabulary. Such a cadre would need technical experts who understand the subject well enough to explain it simply (props to Einstein) and good non-technical writers to make sure the abstracts are easy to read by non-techies.…

Patrickwooldridge's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...My priorities would be Approach one and Approach three (and my Approach seven, cited above)…


Response by Helmutvan 12:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Helmutvan auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Helmutvan[edit]

Ansatz 1.


Response by Jtuom 12:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jtuom's response to the critical question[edit]

Combining Wikidata more closely to Wikipedia content is an important step forward. It will facilitate automatic updating of things in all relevant pages. This should be encouraged.

Jtuom's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I vote for approach 6 (and 3 to support that). Also number 2 with partnerships is very important.


Response by Filursiax 12:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Filursiax's response to the critical question[edit]

One way to substantially improve content and increase editing speed would be to build up an automatically expanding database of sources, based on sources already in use and expanding automatically as new sources are introduced. The database could be searched and/or selected from by means of keywords, and would include links to all entries where the source in question has been used. Existing references might perhaps be assigned keywords automatically (based, e.g. on the title of the entry in which the source is used, the text immediately surrounding it, etc.). Meanwhile, a new and improved (simplified) interface for adding references and sources might be developed, which would allow editors to assign keywords manually, as well as to add comments to the sources. Such a system would save lots of work for editors by: (a) allowing them to reuse sources, (b) giving them easy access to other Wikipedia entries with content similar to that of the entry being edited (thus reducing duplication and increasing consistency), and (c) allowing systematic review of sources in use.

Perhaps it's utopian, but for editors without affiliation to institutions it would also be a great help if it were possible to access closed (for-pay) scientific and professional journals (e.g. through JStore). Mightn't there be some way by which Wikipedia could obtain licenced access to articles in such journals for clearly defined and limited purposes? Editors could then (via a simple interface) apply to Wikipedia for permission to access a limited number of such articles for a limited amount of time. The practicalities of such an arrangement are beyond me, but it would seem that Wikipedia's large readership might carry a certain weight when attempting to negotiate such an agreement...

Hi Filursiax. Thank you for your suggestions, I really like the idea of a sourcing database. I just wanted to point out that we have something very similar to your second suggestion that already exists (administered by the awesome Ocaasi (WMF)) called The Wikipedia Library (the link I'm using points to it on the English Wikipedia, but the program exists on a number of projects). They have a list of closed-access sources which have offered to donate accounts and access to Wikimedians who want to use them to produce content. I have used their program a few times under my volunteer account and it's wonderfully helpful. I would encourage you to reach out to them on your home project if you think you can make use of some of the resources they offer! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Filursiax's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1, 2, 5


Response by Jim2710 13:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jim2710's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Jim2710's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach one


Response by Seedorfjohnny 14:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Seedorfjohnny auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Seedorfjohnny[edit]

...hier schreiben...

Hier sind die ersten drei Punkte die wichtigsten: 1, 2, 3

Here the first three points are the most important: 1, 2, 3


Response by Kippelboy 14:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kippelboy's response to the critical question[edit]

Not sure about it. Maybe a global survey to readers would help.

Kippelboy's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Don't particulary like any of them


Response by H-stt 15:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

H-stt's response to the critical question[edit]

Believe in the community of authors. You don't have anyone else. The longform content is valuable. If users want other formats, someone will provide it. I don't care if that someone is WMF. If Google's knowledge graph is enough for what most users need, that's fine with me. Mobile will never be the format of choice to contribute substantial text. So mobile is for (some) readers. You need to keep up desktop/longform for the editors. They are creating the content and the value. And your salaries.

H-stt's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3 7 (Your priorities are all wrong, The medium of choice for education is and always will be text. Text can be understood in your own speed (other than multimedia). For a wiki, text is the only viable medium, because it can be edited easily (other than multimedia). Data is useless without context, databases can't provide knowledge (try googling Jerusalem and look at the knowledge graph's first information: It says immediately under the name of the city "Capital of Israel", which is plain wrong by almost any standard or at least completely worthless without context. That's what Wikidata can provide. Of course the article en:Jerusalem says something completely different.)


Response by Prathaplal 16:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Prathaplal's response to the critical question[edit]

  • Approach Two
  • Approach Five
  • Approach Six

Prathaplal's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Mvk608 16:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mvk608 — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

Mvk608 — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подход второй: быстрее создавать новые и обновлённые материалы за счёт управляемых сообществом партнёрских программ вокруг содержания, например, в сфере GLAM (сотрудничество с галереями, библиотеками, архивами и музеями). Подход третий: повышать качество и своевременность материалов за счёт повышения технологических возможностей наших редакторов по созданию, мониторингу и обработке содержания. Подход шестой: исследовать способы масштабирования автоматически генерируемых, автоматически проверяемых и автоматически поддерживаемых материалов.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Approach Two: will create a new and updated materials at the expense of the community managed affiliate programs around the content, for example, in GLAM (cooperation with galleries, libraries, archives and museums). The third approach: to improve the quality and timeliness of the material by increasing the technological capabilities of our editors for the creation, monitoring and processing of content. Approach Six: explore ways to scale automatically generated automatically scanned and automatically supported materials.


Response by Argantoni 17:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Argantoni a la pregunta crítica[edit]

...escriba aquí... 3

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Argantoni (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

...escriba aquí...


Response by V0d01ey 17:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

V0d01ey — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Качество контента можно повысить только своевременным контролем качества.

Machine translation; please help improve
Quality content can be increased only with timely quality control.

V0d01ey — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подходы третий и шестой.

Third and sixth approach.


Response by Brownturkey 19:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Brownturkey's response to the critical question[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a repository for trivia

Brownturkey's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums).


Response by Yngvadottir 21:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's response to the critical question[edit]

Support the contributing community by fixing contributor-identified deficiencies in software, by minimizing downtime and lags, and by not imposing changes on editing interface that do not respond to community requests, especially not as unrejectable replacements. Support the contributing community in all official pronouncements. We do the work; the WMF is an ancillary intended to assist us, not control us.

Yngvadottir's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach two I can support in a lukewarm fashion: some contributors find editing in groups at special events helpful to focus their concentration, such partnerships and events may gain contributors access to institutions and archives they could not otherwise have accessed, and there is a small possibility of attracting new editors; however, anecdotal evidence confirms my supposition that most editathons are long on lecturing, short on actual work, and there is high risk of an impression of bias in the selection of partnerships/events to enable and promote. Reject all other approaches as written: all involve bossing contributors around and most involve seeking to impose tech that distances the contributor from the work and devalues their input. The WMF is not assisting the aggregation and sharing of knowledge so much as alienating most of those who are actually doing those things.

Approach seven: Prioritize building on the movement's greatest and most relevant strength, our immensely deep and wide fund of expertise, by encouraging contributor retention, attraction of more experts, and provision of resources such as the Wikipedia Library's programs to get editors free access to subscription databases. The most fruitful approach here is part and parcel of a healthy attitude to the community as an extremely diverse, goal-focused force of volunteers, which means that letting the community itself lead on generating ideas and solutions is vital.

Also: The top statement speaks of access. Yet the WMF apparently has no disabled-access vetting in its software development process. Most crassly, the feedback function that was imposed on Wikipedia articles some years back required the use of a mouse. Accessibility should be a major consideration given the movement's goals. It is extremely telling that this was completely forgotten on this page, and that all but one of the suggested approaches are instead about having machines do things.


Response by Flukas 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Flukas's response to the critical question[edit]

Having updated and extensive information in wikidata - with the ability to use these within the articles easily

Flukas's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach six

Approach three

Approach two


Response by Taperet 22:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Taperet a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Creo que es esencial implementar un nuevo modelo de edición y creación de artículos, siguiendo la idea del Enfoque Tres

Machine translation; please help improve
I think it is essential to implement a new model of creation and editing articles, following the idea of Focus Three

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Taperet (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

Enfoque Uno, Enfoque Tres, Enfoque Cinco

Approaches 1, 3, 5


Response by Solrezza 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Solrezza a la pregunta crítica[edit]

3 y 4

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Solrezza (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

...escriba aquí...

Connor Behan[edit]

Response by Connor Behan 02:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Connor Behan's response to the critical question[edit]

Focus on knowledge that will actually benefit people. Not the knowledge people claim to want. In other words, actively oppose the dumbing down of Internet content.

Connor Behan's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Everything but 1. If we encouraged mobile Wikipedia use more, we'd have even fewer editors and the highest quality prose would be ignored. We would also be, to some extent, supporting a regime of proprietary formats.

Keith McClary[edit]

Response by Keith McClary 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Keith McClary's response to the critical question[edit]

"reduce systemic gender and other bias"

Is it "systemic" bias when Bible stories are passed off as actual history? Or when articles are sourced to corporate media based on "leaks" (IMO "plants") by "anonymous officials"?

Wikipedia will not improve until they give up the naive notion that they have no cabals with religious and idealogical agendas.


Response by Cannonmc 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cannonmc's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Cannonmc's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

How about writing the survey in plain language so that we know what you are talking about. Perhaps then you could spread that to the articles.

To take just one 'approach' "Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums)."

What the hell does that mean. And I could have quoted any of the 'approaches' in this survey. Time for wikipedia to go back to its basics and dump the jargon,

Soy Juampayo[edit]

Response by Soy Juampayo 03:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Soy Juampayo a la pregunta crítica[edit]

No respondo.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Soy Juampayo (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

Me inclino por las opciones uno, tres y cinco.

Machine translation; please help improve
I am leaning towards options one, three and five.


Response by Happysquirrel 05:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Happysquirrel's response to the critical question[edit]

I really don't think we need to patronize our readers by suggesting they should be provided "more accessible" (read dumbed down) snippets taken out of context. Encourage good lead writing and then just use the lead, anything else will just cause heaps of drama. I think better linking of concepts would be good. For example the pop-up boxes currently in beta on en allow people to gain some context quickly. Also, the left sidebar should probably allow better linking between projects (ie next to wikipedia articles about math, link relevant wikibooks or wikiuniversity courses, or maybe a wiktionary definition).

As for facilitating content quality, better tools for reference checking and finding are really a must. Better access for editors to books and journals is great, but I think the ability to tag references as "needs checked" would be awesome. Also, we need an integrated spelling/grammar checker.

Lastly, I think that "more content" is not always the right approach. Some projects (like enwiki) are fairly mature and so care, not speed is needed now. I do new page patrolling and the new content is often of borderline utility and poor quality. Meanwhile, vital articles like File Copying remain very poor. Perhaps the focus should be on better content and valuing the contributions of people improve existing articles.

Happysquirrel's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3 and 5


Response by Imfrankliu 05:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Imfrankliu's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach one: I've had problems with editing before (when I first edited Wikipedia I was not familiar with WikiMarkup). Now there is an "Edit" tool already, which is very helpful, so I do not believe we have to improve with the first approach any more. Approach three: How do you "technologically enhance" your editors' ability to make content? Training them? That would be helpful, but I believe WMF should rely more on its users to edit its projects. Approach five: Yes! I've came across very detailed articles in English, but as a Chinese national, I usually refer to the Chinese article page. The contents are not translated from English articles, instead they are mostly created or taken from Chinese researches. Imagine if we could merge all countries' knowledge on an article..


Response by Kiyoshiendo 06:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kiyoshiendo's response to the critical question[edit]

Please make the editing process easier by automating most of the boring tasks on the wiki. An army of bots backed up by smart users will reduce human involvement to what matters - layout and prose writing. Leave typos and syntax errors to the machines.

Kiyoshiendo's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

A few ideas:

  • Reach out to less popular wikis by encouraging translation projects and multi-language learning.
  • Make it easy for users who prefer certain tasks on the Wiki to be able to do their jobs, like making templates for the editor to suit users who enjoy adding information as opposed to syntaxing.


Response by Flyingfischer 07:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyingfischer's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach two, Approach three

Flyingfischer's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


Response by Cangaran 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cangaran's response to the critical question[edit]

Main problem in India is lack of wide spread culture of critical thinking. The academia and academics of India is below par. So content quality is so poor in some Indian languages.

Cangaran's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach three and six


Response by Kuskondu 13:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuskondu — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

Kuskondu — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

1, 2, 3


Response by Seescedric 13:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Seescedric auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

5 weil wir so weiter in Artikel einen Normalen Standpunkt haben können wenn man auch bei andern Schaut

Machine translation; please help improve.
5 because we can so on have a normal point of view in articles if you also look at other

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Seescedric[edit]

...hier schreiben...


Response by SMcCandlish 13:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's response to the critical question[edit]

These options are mostly editing-focused., and thus not responsive to the question. The real #1 thing is making the site more friendly and usable for readers, especially mobile-device ones.

SMcCandlish's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Although the points here are about editing and don't address the "changing knowledge needs of readers" question very well, they are still important in their own right:

  1. Approach three: Anything that improves content quality over quantity is what we need now (and this includes GLAM). We're no longer in the growth phase. (That said, the option provided here may not be the top way to do that; it really has more to do with sourcing and with weeding out point-of-view pushing and original research [on WP and other projects where OR is a problem, rather than a boon as it is on WikiBooks).
  2. Approach one: The migration to mobile and our failure to adapt to it was identified by WMF as one of the major threats to the sustainability of the movement.
  3. Approach four (bias).

GLAM's role has little to do with "expand[ing] content faster"; it's almost entirely about making content better, so I include it in my #1 point.

I agree that automated translation and other machine-performed tasks are interesting, but should be approached with caution.

My own idea for "adapting to the changing knowledge needs of readers" is to focus on quality in a way not addressed before (though it again ends up being editor-focused): Connections between article talk pages on different-language wikipedias, with translation tools, so that we can begin approaching articles and their content in a cross-language way. While 9 times out of 10, en.wp has the most-developed article on a particular top, very often facts and sources for them are added to the corresponding article at another WP. A test-bed for this would be a box in a sidebar that is a shared log between corresponding articles' talk pages across the wikipedias, specifically for and limited to the sharing of relevant reliable sources (probably in an RSS feed).

To propose something that is strictly reader-focused, I have a very, very simple fix: Stop making people search first with the simple search before they can access the advanced search tools. There should be some little icon next to the search box that takes them immediately to advanced search. At least 19 times out of 20 when I want to use en.wp's search feature, I go to the search box and type in some random "asdkjasdoifj" text and submit it so I can get the advanced tools. After that, start making it produce better results. It's insane than there's no way to sort the results, for relevance, date, or any other criteria. You just get a totally random dump of every match, sometimes hundreds of them.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Response by 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь… — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

...пишите здесь… Третий и Первый

The third and first

Muhittin çiftçi[edit]

Response by Muhittin çiftçi 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhittin çiftçi kullanıcısının kritik soruya yanıtı[edit]

...buraya yazınız ... hepside uygulanabilir ancak kullanıcıdan habersiz yapılan katkı ve geliştirmelerin kaldırılması yada silinmesi yardım etme isteğini krabilir

Machine translation; please help improve.
They all can be applied but the user from unannounced contribution and development s to crane his desire to help the removal or deletion

Muhittin çiftçi kullanıcısının seçtiği 2-3 (veya kendi fikinizi yazın)[edit]

...buraya yazınız ...


Response by Antur 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Antur a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Enfoque 5

Approach 5

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Antur (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

...escriba aquí...

Poupou l'quourouce[edit]

Response by Poupou l'quourouce 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Poupou l'quourouce auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Die Frage und die Ansätze passen nicht wirklich zusammen. Geht es hier um die Bedürfnisse der Leser (schnell etwas nachschlagen) oder der Autoren (schnell etwas beitragen)? Für die Leser wären verschiedene Ausgabeformen für Artikel hilfreich, z.B. eine automatisch generierte Kurzversion für Mobilgeräte o.ä. Für die Autoren dagegen sind vermutlich ganz andere Hilfsmittel hilfreich. Z. B. ein Tool das die Angabe von Einzelnachweisen vereinfacht, besonders wenn man immer wieder das selbe Buch zitiert (könnte das nicht auch über Wikidata laufen?).

The question and the approaches do not fit together. Is this about the needs of the readers (quickly look something up) or the authors (contribute something quickly)? For readers controlling various output modes for articles would be helpful, for example an automatically generated short version for mobile devices or such. For the authors, however, probably very different aids are helpful. For example, a tool that simplifies the placing of references, especially if you repeatedly cite the same book (could that not run somehow on Wikidata?).

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Poupou l'quourouce[edit]

3 - 6 - 2


Response by Julius1990 19:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Julius1990 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Since you have no governance rights about the content, get your fingers away from anything that would change the content provided. On this point just the communities could inform changes. But I don't see this happening and this is good, ebcause if we want to provide the knowledge of the world we can reduce it to snppets of out-of-context information. We provide a product everyone is free to use, but we don't rely on metrics like it would a company who needs to please shareholders. So stop falling into this line of thinking.

Provide the Chapters with enough money without having to beg for it (the current system is dysfunctional). Your cutting of funds that the German chapter asked for the community support is contradicting to your lofty words about volunteer support. But you should shift your foncus on volunteers' needs. Ask what we need for our work, and program it. Ask which projects we would like to establish, and fund them. Ask yourself why the German Goethe Institute had to fund training for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa as a way to preserve and distribute African knowledge and why not the WMF did it as part of her original field of work? But yeah, it's not as sexy as the self-googlization of the WMF and playing big company instead of supporting the people who generate the money you can work with.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Julius1990[edit]

3, for more see above


Response by Giudark 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Giudark's response to the critical question[edit]

Incoraggiare traduzioni sicuramente. Per la fruibilità invece bisognerebbe realizzare una doppia versione della stessa pagina:

  • Una versione breve adatta per comprendere l'argomento e con poche altre informazioni importanti;
  • Una versione estesa per utenti che conoscono l'argomento e cercano approfondimenti.

Bisogna proporre inizialmente la versione breve e, solo se richiesto, la versione estesa della pagina. La prima versione sarebbe adattata a mobile (ma senza precludere quella estesa) e ai tooltip sui wikilink nel browser pc.

Machine translation; please help improve
Certainly encourage translations.
For usability we should instead create two versions of the same page:
* A short version suited to understand the topic and with few other important information;
* An extended version for users who know the topic and seek insights.
Must initially propose the short version and, if required, the extended version of the page. The first version would be adapted to the mobile (but without precluding the extended one) and the tooltip on the wiki links in the browser PC.

Giudark's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1 e 5 sicuramente 7:vedi sopra

1 and 5 definitely. 7: see above


Response by Klebug 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Klebug's response to the critical question[edit]

To help expand knowledge I think the more citations and the more detailed the articles are, the better. But, since most people are searching for a quick answer to a question, they want to-the-point information. So, to help further the efforts of these seekers-of-knowledge there should be a "requirement" that all articles provide a summary, a breakdown of information, and where possible remove or explain/define jargon. This would be most helpful on long, detailed, and complex articles/subjects. There are two ways to accomplish this. The first option would require the actual writers and/or editors of the article to provide the written summary at the end (or beginning) of each article. The second option, which is the best of the two ideas, would be harder to implement because it would require an algorithm to be written, but it would be the most effective. The second option would provide a link within each article that would automatically render a computer-generated summary. The computer-generated summary should be editable as well, just as long as the original computer-generated version could still be viewed as an option. Some articles, especially articles that deal with complex scientific subjects, are not written in a way that most people can interpret or understand them. I think revising these articles so that more people can understand them, and therefore expand their knowledge, is pertinent and a "layman's" version or summary is a feasible way to accomplish this goal.

Klebug's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches in order of importance: 3, 1, 2.


Response by EEIM 04:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Uno de los puntos para crecer en wikimedia es interactuar, redes sociales como facebook o twitter se pueden tener como guia, (no regla).

  • Cambiar de nombre la pagina del articulo o archivo -Discucion (Talk)- a Comentar.
  • Poder hacer grupos de trabajo de un mismo tema con personas que tengan un interes comun -animales,plantas,etc , (wikiproyecto) no es el caso.
  • Publicidad propia, así como aparecen carteles de donaciones, hacer carteles para fomentar las constribuciones en todos los proyectos. (Wikipedia esta hecha por gente como tú, ayudala)
  • Cambiar de -Esta página fue modificada por última vez - a -ultima actualización-.
Machine translation; please help improve
One point for growth in wikimedia is interaction, social networks like facebook or twitter can be used as a guide, (not a rule).
* Rename the article page or file from "Discussion (Talk)" - to "Comment".
* Being able to make working groups on the same subject with people who have a common interest-animals, plants, etc. (Wikiproject) is not the case.
* [Have Wikipedia's] own advertising and posters of donations be displayed, make posters to promote contributions in all projects. (Wikipedia is made by people like you, help it)
* Change - "This page was last modified" - to - "Last update".


Response by RikardT 10:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RikardT's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

I guess it depends to some extent on whether Wikipedia is here to provide fashionable trivia "of the moment" or to provide encyclopaedic information to the Internet community. Fashions come and go with amazing rapidity, but knowledge remains. My vote is for encyclopaedic information. I am not certain how to provide this adequately for all the new multimedia platforms that flash into existence and then die equally rapidly.

For the mobile/quick look-up users (ref Approach One) maybe just provide the existing summary at top of each Wikipedia page for such devices/users, and indicate that further content is available. I presume it should be technically possible to identify the type of device accessing the information, and accordingly provide an appropriate response.

RikardT's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

This is a challenge, given my remarks above. I THINK 3, 2, 5 in that order. I would like to be better informed on 6 (machine creation of content) before I can comment usefully.


Response by Chaos4tu 11:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Chaos4tu's response to the critical question[edit]

Most of the wikipedia editors are not familiar with the information they are editing. Instead, the editors immediately remove information without researching the validity. This does not encourage knowledge, instead, those people who have researched painstakingly the information in their articles, stop using wikipedia, instead write books and publish them on (Where they receive payment, instead of insults, for their life's research work) In the area of knowledge, wikipedia is terribly lacking responsibility. I have heard so many comedians make jokes about wikipdia that the so-called institution is no more than a comedy of errors. How does wikipedia resolve this issue? Stop making uneducated, immature, childish, over egotistic teenagers wikipedia editors .

Chaos4tu's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


Response by Lumos3 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Lumos3's response to the critical question[edit]

New editors academy - Videos - Produce some up to date short videos showing the essentials of how to get started editing Wikipedia (like this one which is top of the Google search but 6 years old [3]). Have them branded as official WM products to tell them apart from the well intentioned unofficial ones out there. Keep them up to date. Use under represented social groups as presenters .

Gungniir Loruse[edit]

Response by Gungniir Loruse 17:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Gungniir Loruse — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Я согласен с 6 и 3

I agree with 6 and 3


Response by Tyssul 18:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Tyssul's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Tyssul's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I am particularly keen on Approach Two Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums). Get Wikipedians to talk to Societies and organisations-explain how Wikipedia works and how individuals can be involved.

Julien Houle[edit]

Response by Julien Houle 18:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Julien Houle's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here… 1

Julien Houle's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… 2,6


Response by MrScoville 18:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von MrScoville auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von MrScoville[edit]

2, 3


Response by AnselmiJuan 19:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de AnselmiJuan a la pregunta crítica[edit]

En lo personal pienso que lo que se debe mejorar en relación a contenidos y su presentación, es el formato o estructura tradicional de los wikiartículos enciclopédicos, tendiendo a la excelencia, o sea, mejorando todo lo que se pueda en relación a referencias, a descubrir y rechazar vandalismos mejor que ahora, y otras mejoras. Cartellitos que señalen falencias en los contenidos como ser, se señala "Cuales" ante cierta afirmación que no especifica referencias externas, etc, importa poco a cierto tipo de lectores externos. Claro, no podemos decretar el borrado automático de esas señales, sino disminuir su número en base a una mejor depuración, pero siempre a cargo de wikipedistas humano. Agregar "inteligencia" como excelentemente se está haciendo en el proyecto Wikidata no es a descartar, pero no creo sea algo fundamental (al menos por el momento) en la mejora de contenidos.

Ahora bien, facilitar las consultas desde celulares, tablets, y otros formatos, por cierto que es algo que debe y puede hacerse, y las opciones que se ofrezcan podrán ser amplias. Si el usuario decide que con esa herramienta solo quiere leer y que no quiere ni editar ni modificar nada, distintos aligeramientos del texto podrán ser propuestos, por ejemplo no presentando ni carteles de tipo interno más orientados a los wikipedistas, no presentando referencias externas, agrandando letra de tramos cortos de textos a solicitud de usuario, eliminación de imágenes si eso es lo que el usuario desea omitir porque le dificulta la consulta, presentando por separado texto de secciones y galería de imágenes, etc. Ello es muy necesario debido a que desde celulares, conviene que el usuario pueda manejar textos cortos, e incluso conocer sobre los mismos ciertas cosas externas e internas a Wikipedia, por ejemplo, si un artículo hermano en Wikipedia tiene una traducción de un pasaje corto a otro idioma, sería bueno pasar de uno a otro contenido con facilidad, pero por favor, no invertir en traducción automática, pues las traducciones por máquina siguen siendo aún de mala calidad, y ya hay herramientas que hacen eso a demanda.

Machine translation; please help improve
Personally what I think should be improved in relation to content and presentation, is the format or traditional structure of encyclopedic wikiarticles, curating excellence, that is, improving everything we can in relation to references, to discover and better reject vandalism than we do now, and other improvements. Tags that indicate shortcomings in the contents such as, "which" before true statements that aren't specifically external referenced, etc., matters little to some types of external readers. Sure, we cannot impose automatic deletion of these tags, but we can reduce the number based on better debugging, though always under the supervision of human Wikipedians. Added "intelligence" as it is happening very well in the Wikidata project is not to be discounted, but I don't think it is vital (at least for now) to the improving ofcontent.
Now, making it easier to reference from mobile phones, tablets, and other formats, is certainly something that can and should be done, and the options that are offered may be broad. If the user decides that with that tool they just want to read and do not want to edit or change anything, other streamlining of the text may be proposed, such as not showing tags more oriented to Wikipedians, presenting no external references, enlarging the text of short sections of text by user request, deleting images if that is what the user wants to skip because it makes reading difficult, showing text sections and image galleries separately, etc. This is very necessary because ever since cell phones, should enable the user to handle short texts, and even know about the same certain things external and internal to Wikipedia, for example, if sister Wikipedia article has a translation of a short passage to another language, you might want to pass the content from one to another easily, but please, do not invest in machine translation, since machine translations still remain of poor quality, and there are tools that do that on request.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de AnselmiJuan (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

-- Hay un desequilibrio de wikipedistas en cuanto a género y a otros criterios, y reducir esta brecha siempre puede ser muy interesante para el proyecto Wikipedia.

Machine translation; please help improve
- There is an imbalance of Wikipedians in gender and other criteria, and reducing this gap can always be very interesting for the Wikipedia project.


Response by Atsme 19:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Atsme's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach two: absolutely with emphasis on the WMF getting behind The Wikipedia Library with more support. Approach three: absolutely, and in collaboration with the Project Team I proposed in my email to WMF. Approach four: understanding the issues is certainly a good thing but it also needs to focus on how it effects editors.

Atsme's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Gender issues have been an ongoing issue for centuries and I believe education and knowledge is a very important step to reducing it. I cringe at the thought of it being used as an excuse so it's an area that has to be developed carefully, and I think equal emphasis needs to be placed on educating female editors and helping them become stronger editors rather than seeing themselves as potential targets or victims.


Response by Strainu 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Strainu's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach 6

Strainu's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 6, 1, 5.


Response by AlexanderVK 22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

AlexanderVK's response to the critical question[edit]

Make the content better structured, remove content which is doubtful or which leads to disputes.

AlexanderVK's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches 1 and 3.

Monna Ry[edit]

Response by Monna Ry 00:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Monna Ry's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

All very good!

Monna Ry's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

Allow download and print the Wikipedia article so that students can work with it.

This is already possible! See w:Special:Book and the "Printable Version" link in the sidebar of every Wikipedia page. Personman (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Kenavologos 01:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Top 2-3 de Kenavologos (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

3, 5, 1


Response by CrisBCT 05:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

CrisBCT's response to the critical question[edit]

Knowledge is Wikimedia's core project and so deserving of the most attention.

The diversion of resources to eliminating "gender bias" is a total waste of time. People are becoming less and less competent in reading and writing worldwide, so we need to make things easier for them not harder!

Creating MORE confusion by making words gender neutral simply conveys LESS information - by eliminating the supposed gender bias. But words are used to convey information! Making them convey less information is antithetical to the whole idea of language and conveying information.

Yet conveying information - knowledge is Wikimedia's core project. Why convey less, when the whole idea is to convey more?

So definitely NOT four.

No one is suggesting "making words gender neutral." The issues that approach 4 proposes to combat are more along these lines. -Personman (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

CrisBCT's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

one and three.


Response by MontanaShepherdess 05:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

MontanaShepherdess's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here… 1,2,3

MontanaShepherdess's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by PNLL 09:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de PNLL à la question critique[edit]

Il est dommage, pour un même article, de ne pas profiter du meilleur de chaque langue. Il serait intéressant de disposer de traduction automatique qui pourrait être ensuite revues et améliorées dans la forme par des contributeurs.

Machine translation; please help improve
It is a pity, for the same article to not get the best of each language. It would be interesting to have automatic translation which could then be reviewed and improved into shape by contributors.

Top 2-3 de PNLL (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

5 - 3


Response by Slowtony 09:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Slowtony's response to the critical question[edit]

The best way to adapt to the changing needs of readers is Approach one (multimedia content and short-form text) and Approach two (partnership programs).

I believe that Approach six would be a disaster for the Wiki movement. It would completely change what Wiki is about, which is human-curated content. Instead of a whole community of locally qualified contributors, content essentially would be created by a small subset of participants who program the machine gathering and auditing. Wikis follow the Ward Cunningham rule that the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to post a question but to post the wrong answer. It takes a human community to make that system work.

Slowtony's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach one: Wikimedia Foundation needs to greatly expand its curated visual and audio content. The decline in traffic may be directly related to people's increased use of photographic, video and spoken content for information. Wikipedia and many other projects are overwhelmingly text based resources. The Foundation also needs to provide vehicles that encourage short contributions in addition to thorough articles. Article and section summaries with strict word limits would be one way to do this in Wikipedia. (Think "executive summary" for long business and government reports, and Twitter for how we become both pithy and creative when we have strict text limits.)

Approach two: The GLAM Wiki is an outstanding example of knowledge expansion. It promotes the Wiki concept, platform and mission. It enlists a large number of likely authoritative contributors by engaging the organizations where they work. And finally it encourages personally contributed knowledge through the Wikisource repository. The same approach should be fruitful when applied to other groups of likely authoritative contributors.

Approach five: Machine translation tools with some human oversight are the best way to rapidly expand knowledge to new language groups. They are good enough today to make Wikimedia's existing text content accessible to many more people. There are also obvious shortcomings with machine translations. However the time required for human translation often would be better spent creating new content in the target language. With machine translation, there should be some way for a native speaker of the target language to highlight a sentence or a section of machine-translated text and flag it as "appears to make no sense". A bilingual human could then follow up these flagged entries and perhaps correct them. Human intervention is thus reduced to the time required to correct customer complaints.


Response by Ricklaman 10:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ricklaman's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Ricklaman's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach two


Response by High-storian 12:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

High-storian's response to the critical question[edit]

Hooo, boy! Does this one miss the boat! Presumably, you're asking about quality, but your approaches belie the fact that you're actually asking about technology. The solution to your quality problem is not whiz-bang geek tools. You cannot write an encyclopedia with an automated script. I cannot believe that you even actually proposed that as Approach six!! No, the solution is not with more whiz-bang tools. It's about focusing on community problems, and re-considering your fundamental approach to your goals to reflect the change from a new fad to a matured project that needs to focus on maintaining relevance for the long haul, even as that relevance is actually starting to drop.

High-storian's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach seven: Drop the silly ideas about whiz-bang technology that will write an encyclopedia with an automated script and other such nonsense. Instead, focus on developing your most valuable asset, your people. Humans. Not robots. Not robots. Not robots. Not robots. Not ERROR 62: Infinite loop detected. Abort! Abort! Kernel panic! Blue Screen! Whoop! Whoop! Red Alert! We're going down, Captain Kirk!! Scotty! I need more power! I can't push the engines any more, if I do, she's gonna blow, Captain!

... Star Treking, across the universe! On the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk! Star Treking, across the universe! Always going forward 'cause we can't find reverse! ...

Humans. People. Living creatures. Fleshware. Humans. Bi-pedial, (mostly) hairless multi-colored creatures that come in two basic models. Homo Sapiens. Humans.

That's your answer. Seriously. So the only relevant questions are actually under "Community" which I answered under "Reach" because you asked "Reach" first. Face-smile.svg


Response by Artur.Ll.P 12:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Artur.Ll.P (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

Enfoque Uno: Proveer herramientas e incentivos fáciles de usar para contribuir contenido multimedia y texto de corto formato para beneficiar a usuarios móviles y de búsquedas rápidas.

Approach 1: Provide tools and easy to use incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-format text to benefit mobile users and quick searches.


Response by X-Javier 12:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de X-Javier à la question critique[edit]

"s'adapter aux changements de besoins de ses lecteurs" quels sont-ils ?

Machine translation; please help improve
"adapt to the changing needs of its readers" what are they?

Top 2-3 de X-Javier (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

A propos du mobile et des recherches rapide, je crois que Wikidata + google fait déjà le travail. Mais est-ce une bonne chose (concernant google) ? Les partenariats GLAM apportent du contenu a condition que des bénévoles y participe. L'approche 4 me parait séduisante mais cela entrainera-t-il une analyse par projet linguistique/population ? Est-ce que cela mènera à une orientation volontaire ou a une politique de contrainte ? Pas d'outils automatique de traduction è_é et méfiance vis-à-vis de la contribution assistée par ordinateur.

Machine translation; please help improve
About the mobile and quick searches, I think Wikidata + google is already working. But is this a good thing (as far as google)? The GLAM partnerships provide the content provided that volunteers participate. Approach 4 seems to me attractive, but does it result in an analysis by project language/population? Does this lead to a voluntary guidance or a policy of constraint? No machine translation tools è_é and suspicious about computer-assisted contributions.


Response by Mozgotron 13:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Mozgotron — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

2, 3, 5. Хочется, чтобы на странице обсуждения статей после каждой темы появлялись кнопки "Ответить" и "Применено". Чтобы при нажатии на кнопку "Ответить" появлялось окошко для ответов с возможностью вставки картинок и таблиц и с автоматической подписью, как в Live Journal. А при нажатии на кнопку "Применено" под темой появлялась подпись того, кто нажал на эту кнопку и весь текст темы зачёркивался бы сплошной линией.

Machine translation; please help improve
2, 3 and 5. I would like to discuss the article on the page after each topic appears with "Reply" and "Apply" buttons. That when you click on the "Reply" button there is a window to answer with ability to insert images and tables, with automatic signature like in Live Journal. And when you press the "Apply" button below the subject of the signature appearing on who clicked on this button, and the entire text of the theme would be crossed by the solid line.


Response by OverQuantum 14:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OverQuantum's response to the critical question[edit]

Increase language cover, reduce political/historical biases, more rely on scientific researches and less on public media.

OverQuantum's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

There should be a way to link blocks of text from different languages of same article, to be able to automatically translate text of missing block in one of languages from another and better translate for third language there many/all blocks are missing.

@OverQuantum: Some good progress here with features like the Content Translation tool. There's also a blog post about this tool, if you want to read more. WMoran (WMF) (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HG Alvarez[edit]

Response by HG Alvarez 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de HG Alvarez a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Debería presentar fragmentos cortos de contenidos a modo de descripción para que el usuario no necesite ver o leer todo el contnido para saber de que se trata. Esto aydaría mucho a los usuario que sólo buscan la definción de un tema.

Machine translation; please help improve
[We] should provide short snippets of content as a description for the user so they do not need to see or read the entire content to know what it is. This will be very helpful to a user who only looks for the definition of a topic.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de HG Alvarez (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

Los que más me gustan son el enfoque uno y dos

The ones I like are approaches one and two


Response by Darmokand 16:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Darmokand's response to the critical question[edit]

per Yair rand: "Support the sister projects. I don't think people are about to stop reading Wikipedia, but if they do, we already have Wikimedia projects set up for different styles of educational content. Wikiversity was built for developing (non-encyclopedic) learning resources, but it was never given the necessary technical support from the Foundation. Give Wikinews the help it desperately needs to be an functioning usable news resource. The Wiktionary communities need a dedicated team of developers to face the myriad of technical challenges ahead. Wikivoyage, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource."

Considering that resources are limited, which projects would you consider most in need of support? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Mattflaschen-WMF: "Specific initiatives are important. But so is the big picture of increasing the number of contributors and editors. If we increase this big picture participation level, these new users will come up with ways to contribute that we could never have predicted ahead of time." Per Aldebaran: "We need every (human) contributors we can get, so adapt the technology to the contributors instead of trying to force contributors to adapt to the technology."

Darmokand's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1. New users need easy-to-use tools to create and moderate their own community wikis. Simultaneously, these changes need "new spaces" so they won't disrupting existing workflow. The best thing we can do is create new tools AND new safe spaces for the editors trying out the new tools.

7. As Seagull123 says: I really like the link to the Wiktionary:Feedback page on English Wiktionary (visible to me when I'm logged out as a link in the sidebar as something like "leave us a message, if you want") which allows readers to provide feedback on pages from their perspective.


Response by Dp99 16:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dp99's response to the critical question[edit]

approach five

Dp99's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by DaveDarinko 16:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DaveDarinko's response to the critical question[edit]

Let the world know, that "Wikipedia" stands for knowledge, not for opinion.

DaveDarinko's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I'm with approaches three, four and five.


Response by Rdelre 17:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Rdelre's response to the critical question[edit]

Ogni azione che contribuisca a migliorare / monitorare la qualità e la completezza degli articoli è preziosa. Anche la disponibilità di traduzioni in numerose lingue importanti (almeno una decina) è preziosa. L'attuale traduttore automatico va PRIMA esteso a un numero maggiore di coppie di lingue e POI migliorato (non il contrario). Tra le azioni automatiche, sarebbe utile identificare i link interrotti (segnalandoli, non rimuovendoli) e proporre in automatico ulteriori collegamenti (senza aggiungerli in automatico). Il protezionismo di singoli utenti che, dopo aver fatto un articolo, tendono ad annullare le modifiche altrui andrebbe scoraggiato. Va anche valorizzata meglio la pagina di discussione associata a ogni voce.

Ritengo invece dannoso orientare troppo il contenuto al solo uso da cellulare. Anche se i cellulari saranno sempre più usati per consultare wikipedia, essi saranno in futuro anche sempre più potenti, e la consultazione da computer rimarrà sempre fondamentale per le ricerche più accurate. Bisogna che wikipedia vada incontro agli utenti da cellulare ma senza compromettere la qualità, la serietà e la ricchezza dei suoi contenuti.

Machine translation; please help improve
Any action which enhance / monitor the quality and completeness of the articles is precious.
The availability of translations in several important languages (at least ten) is precious. The current automatic translator goes BEFORE extended to a larger number of language pairs and improved POI (not vice versa).
Among the automatic actions, it would be useful to identify broken links (reporting them, not removing them) and propose additional links automatically (without adding them automatically).
Protectionism of individuals who, after an article, tend to undo the changes of others should be discouraged. It should also be appreciated better the discussion page associated with each item.
Instead, I believe harmful steer too content to just use your mobile. Although mobile phones are increasingly used to refer to wikipedia, they will be in the future even more powerful, and consultation by computer will always remain fundamental for searches more accurate. Must go wikipedia meeting users by phone but without compromising on quality, reliability and the richness of its content.

Rdelre's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approccio tre (3) - Approccio cinque (5) - Approccio sei (6)


Response by Gfombell 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Gfombell's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Gfombell's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach 2 (from far). For example linking best archives to the relevant articles
  • Approach 5[edit]

Response by 19:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)'s response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Commenter8 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Commenter8's response to the critical question[edit]

Stop rejecting / editing out the valuable knowledge contained in newly published and / original research. Just label it as such if necessary.

Commenter8's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach seven: Stop rejecting / editing out the valuable knowledge contained in newly published and / original research. Just label it as such if necessary.


Response by Sj 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sj's response to the critical question[edit]

Again to get to this textarea, it took five scrolls, find the hidden link, click, two scrolls, click, scroll.

(6) Scaling machine-assisted content is essential to approaches 1-3 and 5.

But more critical than most of these topics is the need to be able to accept other data formats and sources - from million-record image archives and GB-sized raw datasets to new formats (3D models, geodata, genealogy, genetics, multimedia, &c). Such collections are thousands of times the size of the collections the projects are currently capable of accepting / hosting / thumbnailing.

Sj's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Ghosts&empties 01:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ghosts&empties's response to the critical question[edit]

Dunno how, but it's highly important

Ghosts&empties's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In order of descending priority: 1,3, 2

Sone asha[edit]

Response by Sone asha 01:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sone asha's response to the critical question[edit]

Divide wikipedia into varying age groups, use research to cover. Allow international users and also contact companies.

Sone asha's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

.5, 6, 3


Response by ImperfectlyInformed 02:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed's response to the critical question[edit]

Given the weakness of editor tools right now, I think we would get the most bang for our buck by improving that process. Approach 3. Approach 1 is also sort of interesting.

ImperfectlyInformed's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

See above.


Response by Jonnymoon96 03:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonnymoon96's response to the critical question[edit]

many people i know read on their phones so i would probably improve the mobile website also make it easy to edit on a mobile device thorough the Wikipedia apps and the Wikipedia mobile website

Jonnymoon96's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

i believe approach four is the most important approach, i support approach one, and i support approach three.


Response by Personman 04:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Personman's response to the critical question[edit]

Among the approaches listed, I prefer those about increasing the availability, accessibility, and usefulness of Wikimedia projects to communities that currently can't or simply don't contribute that much, or whose needs are not met by existing content.

Personman's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

2, 4, and 5, please.


Response by Wugapodes 06:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes's response to the critical question[edit]

GLAMs represent a trove of information that is largely inaccessable to many people. Few have electronic collections, most are prohibitvely far, and yet represent some fo the highest quality information we have. Strategic partnerships with such institutions are not only important but necessary to continue to adapt to changing knowldege needs.

Can you say more about how to structure such partnerships and where the content should go. How to keep it discoverable? Thank youLilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches two, four, and six are my top, in no particular order.


Response by BlaueWunder 08:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von BlaueWunder auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

bitte auf automatische Übersetzungen verzichten (auch oben irritiert die Formulierung "menschliche Übersetzungen" , eher "Übersetzungen durch Personen")
Herunterschrauben von maschinengenerierten Inhalten, die viel leichter politischen bzw. ideologischen Zwecken untergeordnet werden können
Medienkompetenz der User in verschiedenen Projekten, aber auch in Feedbacks, verbessern, damit die Qualität der benutzten Quellen besser eingeschätzt werden kann und die Nachweise einen wissenschaftlichen Mindeststandard behalten
Forschung zur Dokumentation von Benachteiligung sollte nicht im Zentrum stehen, sondern das konsequente Einfordern des zivilisierten Umgangs, damit die geringer vertretenen Gruppen protegiert werden und ihre Benachteiligung reduziert wird
eine Quote einführen für (mindestens) die Hauptseite: Es geht nicht an, dass an vielen Tagen 100 % der "kürzlich Verstorbene" männlichen Geschlechts sind und auch ansonsten ein eklatantes Ungleichgewicht zugunsten von "Männerthemen" existiert
Bedenken, dass weibliche Nutzer im Projekt eine besondere Klientel darstellen und nicht zwingend als "Sprachrohr" für Frauen und mehrheitlich "weibliche Interessen" zu werten sind, sondern ggf. von sehr persönlichen Interessenslagen motiviert werden
Es sollte sichergestellt werden, dass ein Aushängeschild der Wikipedia wie die Hauptseite von Nutzern betrieben wird, die über genügend Souveränität verfügen, um diesbezügliche, innovative Vorschläge aufzunehmen - damit es nicht wieder zu Peinlichkeiten wie der Hauptseite der deutschen WP zum 15. Jubiläum kommt mit bezugslosen Hauptartikeln und einem regelrecht trotzigen Aussperren von "Rosa Luxemburg", die an diesem Tag ermordet wurde und auf zahlreichen anderen Hauptseiten erschien.
[request to not use machine translation]
[translation draft by --Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)]
Reduce machine-generated content, which can be be subdued to political or ideological purposes much more easily.
Improve the media competences of users on the projects, including in feedbacks, to ensure that the quality of sources used can be evaluated better and references meet minimal scientific standards
Research focusing on documentation of disadvantages shouldn't take center stage but the consequent demand of civil behavior, thereby promoting underrepresented groups and reducing their disadvantages.
Introduce a quota for (at least) the main page: It can't be that on many days 100% of the people noted as recently deceased [German Wikipedia main page feature] are men and that male topics dominate in other areas too.
Be mindful that female users aren't to be understood a special segment and not represent "a voice" for women or mainly "female interests" but can be motivated by very personal interests.
It should be ensured that the main page of Wikipedia is run by mature users that can accept innovative ideas and avoid unpleasantness like the issue concerning persons to be noted during the 15th anniversary, where Rosa Luxemburg, who was murdered that day, was deemed unfit for display [on De.WP] but was displayed on many other main pages.


Response by АКК-Корд 09:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

АКК-Корд — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...Создание Инструмента "КРАТКАЯ СТАТЬЯ" - что позволит улучшить процесс общения с пользователями сразу предоставляя ключевую информацию, для тех, кто выбрал такую форму общения с wiki-проектами. С возможностью перехода к большой статье.

Machine translation; please help improve
... Creation tool "short articles" - that will improve the process of communication with the users directly by providing key information for those who chose this form of communication with wiki-projects. With the ability to move to a larger article.

АКК-Корд — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

...Подходы 1, 5, 6


Response by Generator 10:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Generator's response to the critical question[edit]

I think this: "Provide easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-form text to benefit mobile and quick lookup users." is importand. Unfortunately, you cant tell this survey: "easy-to-use"

Generator's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

Jef antenne[edit]

Response by Jef antenne 10:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jef antenne's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

ervaring leert dat inhoud creëren zonder menselijke tussenkomst achteraf tè riskant is mensen maken fouten, "machines" ook maar meestal andere soorten fouten daarom blijf ik groot voorstander van hulpmiddelen, maar ook vind ik dat een mens het laatste woord moet hebben.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Experience shows that creating content without human intervention afterwards become too risky. people make mistakes, "machines" also, usually other types of errors. that is why I continue to strongly support tools, but also I think a human should have the final say.
Can the two work together better? Where are the good applications? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jef antenne's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]



Response by Rogald 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Rogald auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Allein diese Umfrage ist derart unübersichtlich und verwickelt, dass ich gleich aufgegeben habe.. Der schwer lesbare Fließtext mit seinen Endloszeilen (Desktop) müsste mal endlich zugunsten von Spalten aufgegeben werden.

This very survey is so confusing and complicated that I immediately abandoned it. The hard to read continuous text with its endless lines (desktop) needs to be finally abandoned in favor of columns.

Ігор Теслюк[edit]

Response by Ігор Теслюк 15:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2-3 найважливіші підходи, на думку Ігор Теслюк (або запропонуйте власну ідею)[edit]

Підхід п'ятий: Підвищити охоплення в ключових мовних версіях за рахунок інструментів перекладу, а також людської праці. Підхід шостий: Дослідити шляхи масштабування автоматично генерованого, автоматично підтвердженого та автоматично підтримуваного контенту.

[Approaches 5 and 6]


Response by Vinckie 15:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Vinckie à la question critique[edit]

Approche 2

Top 2-3 de Vinckie (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

Approche 6


Response by Amanouz 15:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Amanouz's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach "three" 3

Amanouz's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

This is the first time I hear about GLAM, I think it's a great programme, I hope it expands it reach beyond the languages featured in the wikipedia page. Is there a procedure to invite institutions and museums of one's country to participate?

X:: black ::X[edit]

Response by X:: black ::X 16:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von X:: black ::X[edit]

1st Priority: Approach 2,
2nd Priority: Approach 3 (this approach should also include the improvement of editing content via mobile),
3rd Priority: Approach 6.

Approach 1 is important regarding to the possibility and useability of editing content via mobile, but this aspect of approach 1 can also be included into the much more important approach 3. The rest of approach 1 is much less important as the above mentioned aproaches 2, 3 and 6.

Developing and improvoving translation tools (as mentiones in approach 5) is a very interesting project but posterior to the above mentioned aproaches 2, 3, 6 and 1. Perhaps something for the next strategy in 2017/2018.


Response by Pulsar 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Pulsar à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici...

Top 2-3 de Pulsar (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...1 5 6...


Response by Conteur-momentanement-indisponible 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Conteur-momentanement-indisponible à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici...

  • approche 2
  • approche 1

Top 2-3 de Conteur-momentanement-indisponible (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

...répondez ici...


Response by Chewbacadrunk 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Chewbacadrunk's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach one: make the readers feel like they can contribute something without actually doing too much work.

Chewbacadrunk's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach five.


Response by Daqu 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Daqu's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Daqu's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

The biggest problem I have observed with the current state of Wikipedia is the overwhelming phenomenon of poor writing. In many cases, the lack of good writing makes the content — for many, many users of Wikipedia — very unlikely for anyone to absorb who is not already an expert on the subject.

In many cases this occurs because the article was written by experts who imagine that their readers are also experts, or else who do not know or care about explaining the subject to non-experts. In some cases, the poor writing is because of contributions from people who are (for whatever reasons) not adept in the English language, or not adept at explaining things to other people.

I have noticed this especially in mathematics articles, which are the ones that I focus on the most. But I believe that the above comments of mine apply to a very wide swath of articles.

So: Instead of being concerned about new content, my main concern is making the existing content accessible to a much wider segment of readers than it currently is.

I believe that the problems I outline in the above paragraphs are mostly "invisible" problems: They are very rarely commented on in Talk pages, but they are serious problems that prevent many readers from making good use of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Kcida10 01:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kcida10's response to the critical question[edit]

  1. 2 wikipedia needs more media. pictures!

Kcida10's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Wiki Markup Language should be the first programming language learned in school. Make WIkipedia CC-BY-SA-NC so it can negotiate (quid pro quo) with Google to use its Google Maps and street view photos and screenshots.

Hi @Kcida10: can you say more about the (quid pro quo) vis-s-vis Google Maps? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not allow 3rd party commercial use without Wikipedias permission. Say if Google wants to use Wikipedia info in its search results Wikipedia should be able to use Google Maps images and street view images as a quid pro quo. If we can get Wikipedia a large enough endowment it can live off the interest of that endowment. Wikipedia could become non commercial, that would allow this idea to work and that would allow us to upload CC-BY-SA-NC content from flickr and other places.


Response by Mgmcs2 04:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mgmcs2's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Mgmcs2's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

here is an example of me not understanding wikipedia directions: on the last question it said you do not have to fill in subject because the template will. well, it didn't for me. and since there was no edit button next to what i wrote i didn't know how to go back and put a subject. for me wikipedia's format for volunteers is very hard to understand and use. i only get how to add something to an article at this point and that took awhile to figure out.

Hi Mgmcs2. I absolutely understand your concerns about the complexity of this consultation format and of Wikimarkup is a whole. You're not the first person that's pointed that out to us, and I'm sorry we are making you have to struggle with it to give us your help and opinions. I'm the person who designed the "preload" template that created the structure ("Username's top 2-3", etc) that you typed your opinion into here, and I'd like to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce some broken code into it that caused something to not be filled in when it should have been (or write some instructions that made it hard for you to understand what was supposed to happen - bad instructions are also a problem for me to fix!). Here is what your contribution on this page looked like when you clicked the "save" button. Can you point to which section/line of that did not get filled the way it ought to have (or which you didn't expect to be filled out correctly, based on how you understood the instructions)? If there's a mistake somewhere, I may be able to fix it so the next person doesn't have to deal with the same problem you did. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Miguel Andrade[edit]

Response by Miguel Andrade 08:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Miguel Andrade's response to the critical question[edit]


Miguel Andrade's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1 2 6


Response by GerhardSchuhmacher 09:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von GerhardSchuhmacher auf die Hauptfrage[edit]


eigene Idee von GerhardSchuhmacher[edit]

Als Inhalte-Produzent kann ich nicht klagen — vielleicht kann man "Artikel-Betroffene", z.B. Gemeinden, Ortschaften, Firmen anregen, ihre Wikipedia-Adresse selbst zu veröffentlichen.
better publicity for articles

As a content producer, I can not complain - perhaps you can encourage "article subjects", for example municipalities, towns, companies to publish their Wikipedia-address themself.
Better publicity for articles

Force awakens[edit]

Response by Force awakens 10:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Force awakens's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Force awakens's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… Approach seven: Translate pages into regional languages so that people who don't know how to read English can easily choose from their native languages.


Response by Shuroo 10:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Shuroo's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Shuroo's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… Approaches one, two, and three


Response by Arjunaraoc 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Arjunaraoc's response to the critical question[edit]

Automatic summarisation technologies adopted to the users context would be crucial in serving the information needs of the next generation of users. Hence applied research in such areas would be useful.

Arjunaraoc's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]



Response by MENGİŞEVOLU 11:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

MENGİŞEVOLU kullanıcısının kritik soruya yanıtı[edit]

...buraya yazınız ...

MENGİŞEVOLU kullanıcısının seçtiği 2-3 (veya kendi fikinizi yazın)[edit]

...buraya yazınız ...



Response by Slashme 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Slashme's response to the critical question[edit]

We need to keep developing the ability to generate basic article facts from WikiData, and we need to assist editors to find, use and re-use citations effectively. The article translation tool is a great step forward for sharing knowledge between languages, and deserves continued support.

Slashme's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach one: Let's also make sure that we use short-form information in such a way that our users know where it comes from, and where to go for more information.
  • Approach three: Very important!
  • Approach six: I'm sure WikiData is key here.


Response by JediLibrarian 13:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

JediLibrarian's response to the critical question[edit]

Number 3--It's all about the quality of information. Nature published a study on the accuracy of Wikipedia in 2005, showing that Wikipedia was nearly as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'd love to see a follow-up study.

JediLibrarian's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…


Response by Maikek 14:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Maikek auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Ich wünsche mir eine Kennzeichnung oder einen Bereich für rudimentäre Artikel (stubs) in der Art von: Ich finde das Thema wichtig, hab' mal angefangen, bitte ergänzt und verbessert solange, bis der Artikel öffentlich werden kann. Die bisherige Qualitätsbemängelung ist eher abschreckend für Autorinnen, die nicht das ganze Thema abdecken können oder wollen. Wenn ich "Schnipsel" richtig verstehe (kurze Einleitungstexte?), dann ja (siehe meine Antwort zum Bereich Traffic).

I wish for a label or a area for rudimentary Articles (stubs) in the form of: "I find this issue important, I've even started, please supplement and improve until the article can be public". The current quality criticism is rather daunting for authors who can not or do not want to cover the whole subject. If I understand "snippets" correctly (brief introduction texts?), then yes (see my answer to the Traffic).

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Maikek[edit]



Response by Anthonyhcole 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole's response to the critical question[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation should tell the editing community, its institutional partners and the general public that it is aware its product is unreliable and is keen to support any sensible initiative that addresses this fatal flaw.

Anthonyhcole's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


Response by Nov6 16:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Nov6 à la question critique[edit]

Approche 2. Il me semble essentiel d'utiliser la connaissance là où elle se trouve et d'agréger ainsi le maximum de contributeurs.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Approach 2. It seems essential to me to use the knowledge where it is located and thus bring together maximum contributors.

Top 2-3 de Nov6 (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

Approche 3. Chaque fois que possible.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Approach 3. Whenever possible."


Response by Wiklol 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiklol's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Wiklol's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approche 5 Approche 1 Approche 2

Count Iblis[edit]

Response by Count Iblis 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Count Iblis's response to the critical question[edit]

We tend to think of our knowledge as universally accessible when this is only true in a very limited sense. Most of our knowledge is not easily accessible to AI systems. It may well be that machine intelligence will take over from us in a few generations, or perhaps this will take a bit longer. We thus face the prospect that while we can read and understand Julius Caesar's account of the Gallic wars more than 2000 years ago, 2000 years from now all our knowledge may well have become unintelligible.

We should therefore construct a version of Wikipedia where all knowledge is reduced in terms of fundamental mathematical or physics concepts. One can make everything understandable using wikilinks that refer any concept to more basic concepts; ultimately everything would be linked in terms of physics or mathematics, similar to the messages on board the Voyager and Pioneer probes.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Count Iblis's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach six

Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Der Chemiker von Oz[edit]

Response by Der Chemiker von Oz 18:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Der Chemiker von Oz auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

I think the best way to improve the content is to increase the number of volunteers, and perhaps make Wikipedia more inviting to professors use Wikipedia and encourage their students to improve it, like the japanese professor Kitamura Sae, who was mentioned on the Wikipedia 15 page.

Ich glaube, die beste Weise, den Inhalt der Wikipedia zu verbessern ist, die Zahl der Freiwilligen zu erhöhen und vielleicht Professoren dazu zu ermuntern, Wikipedia zu benutzen und die Wikipedia ansprechender für Professoren zu gestalten und die Wikipedia und vor allem deren Verbesserung an Studenten weiterzugeben, so wie Kitamura Sae, die auf der Wikipedia-15-Setie erwähnt war.


Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Der Chemiker von Oz[edit]

Ich würde gern die Ansätze 1, 2, 3 und ein wenig 6 vorschlagen.

I would recommend the approaches 1, 2, 3 and a bit o' 6.


Response by Amk1925 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Amk1925 — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

Amk1925 — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подход первый Обеспечить простые в использовании инструменты и стимулы для внесения медиаконтента и кратких текстов, чтобы было удобнее мобильным и быстро ищущим пользователям. Подход шестой: исследовать способы масштабирования автоматически генерируемых, автоматически проверяемых и автоматически поддерживаемых материалов.

[Approaches 1 and 6]

Sergey Bolshakov[edit]

Response by Sergey Bolshakov 21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sergey Bolshakov — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Шестой, первый, второй

Sixth, first, second


Response by Spineas 21:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Spineas's response to the critical question[edit]

Consider making/verifying users as Subject Matter Experts to promote content in certain fields by these users as "expert."

Spineas's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3, 2, 1

Pietrobon costa[edit]

Response by Pietrobon costa 21:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pietrobon costa's response to the critical question[edit]

Wikipedia could release an knowledge research turbine and/or knowledge data bank to allow a fast and true content edition in Wikipedi posts, by colaborators.

@Pietrobon costa: You might be interested in learning more about (and contributing to) Wikidata! (See also, pt:Wikidata). :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pietrobon costa's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches three and six

Library Guy[edit]

Response by Library Guy 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Library Guy's response to the critical question[edit]

four; bias deserves in depth assessment and reduction: gender, religion, politics, nationality (what else?)

Library Guy's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

one and four


Response by JBreeschoten 23:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

JBreeschoten's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

Ik denk dat er een verschil is tussen het aanpassen van de kennisbehoefte en het verbeteren van de kwaliteit. Het eerst heeft voor een groot deel ook te maken met de presentatie en de vindbaarheid. Door die te verbeteren kan aan de wensen en hulpmiddelen van de moderne gebruiker tegemoet gekomen worden. Het verbeteren van de kwaliteit van de inhoud kan, binnen de hier voorgestelde benaderingen, op verschillende manieren gebeuren, waarbij ik zelf niet genoeg kennis en ervaring heb om te bedenken welke methode het beste is.

Tweaked machine translation; please help improve
I think that there is a difference between adapting to the changing knowledge needs and to improving the quality. The first has a large extent to do with the presentation and findability. By enhancing the tools we can meet the needs of the modern user. There may be ways to improve the quality of the content, within the approaches proposed here, done in different ways, but I do not have enough knowledge and experience to think about which method is best.

JBreeschoten's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

Benadering 1 voor de veranderende kennisbehoefte Benadering 2 en 5 voor verbeterde kwaliteit van de inhoud

Machine translation; please help improve
Approach 1 for the changing knowledge needs
Approaches 2 and 5 for improving the quality of the content


Response by Leveretth 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Leveretth's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Leveretth's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach two and Approach six


Response by Patrug 07:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Patrug's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches #3 & #5 & #6.

Mr. Magoo and McBarker[edit]

Response by Mr. Magoo and McBarker 07:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker's response to the critical question[edit]

Editing is difficult even to a veteran user. I have to constantly google certain templates I've only got vague memories of, because trying to find them through the website's own search functions is impossible.

Sometimes you see new users getting walloped with a massive introductory wall of text to their talk pages. But these link to massive articles which talk about the incredibly vague and general "mindset policies" or "five general pillars". What I'd so is BAM you want to edit then here go straight ahead this here is a simple guide for babies with images on how to do it. No blib-blab, but just visual guidance with as few words as possible. In fact the FAQ is one of the best guides around because it cuts the poetry.

For veteran editors I'd make similar visual guides on functions veteran editors may have never used before.

Mr. Magoo and McBarker's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3, 6, 1


Response by Bagratun 07:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Bagratun's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 3 & 2


Response by Ryuch 07:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryuch's response to the critical question[edit]

Still language is the barrier for spreading knowledge and collecting. I hope a kid can access the sum of the human knowledge regardless what language he or she can read. And I think by breaking the boundary of language we can pull more editors. We divided the projects with languages. It is practical but in some aspects it is non-sense. The knowledge is same across the languages. We should try to copy the success of particular articles in a language to another one. Even discussion could be multilingual. Could we setup a meta page for an article to improve other language versions?

Ryuch's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach five. If I have to add one more, approach 3.


Response by Yannmaco 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yannmaco 對關鍵問題的回應[edit]


Yannmaco 的前2或前3優先順序(或分享您自己的想法)[edit]

策略三 策略五


Response by VIGNERON 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de VIGNERON à la question critique[edit]

  • In Approach 5 (which seems very interesting) what exactly are « key languages » and why only them ?

Top 2-3 de VIGNERON (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

  • Approach 3 but it's not only a technological matters
  • Approach 4 and 6 but more for machine-verified and machine-assisted than machine-generated
  • Approach 2 because there a lot of useful content and sources in the GLAM (especially important between Libraries-Archives and Wikisource).


Response by ElieLeLazy 09:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de ElieLeLazy à la question critique[edit]

Top 2-3 de ElieLeLazy (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

1 and 4


Response by .mau. 11:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

.mau.'s response to the critical question[edit]

One size does not fit all. It should be true that the first section of an article is a quick summary, but this is not always the case. We should rethink how the encyclopedic content is presented to the users, and we should think at mobile users. Probably each section should have a small recap.

.mau.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1, 6


Response by Chints247 11:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Chints247's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Chints247's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…



Response by Thiaris 12:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thiaris — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

Thiaris — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Подход первый: обеспечить простые в использовании инструменты и стимулы для внесения медиаконтента и кратких текстов, чтобы было удобнее мобильным и быстро ищущим пользователям. Подход пятый: увеличить охват на ключевых языках за счёт использования инструментов перевода, а также процесса вовлечения новых участников.

Machine translation; please help improve.
The approach first: to provide easy to use tools and incentives for the introduction of media content and brief texts, to make it more convenient and fast mobile users looking for. Approach Five: increase coverage in key languages through the use of translation tools, as well as the process of attracting new members.


Response by K.Nevelsteen 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

K.Nevelsteen's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

K.Nevelsteen's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


C. Trifle[edit]

Response by C. Trifle 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

C. Trifle's response to the critical question[edit]

Use the old idea: mention the advantages and disadvantages

C. Trifle's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Mentioning both the advantages and disadvantages does not necessarily mean neutral approach. A writer may support a theory, technology or maker. However, one should mention in Wikipedia information given in the product brochure, government regulations or in a research article about the disadvantages of the matter in hand. There are too many biased pages on Wikipedia. People who produced such texts must have been either enchanted by their topic or, sorry to say that, biased. It may result from carelessness to fail to notice the info in a product brochure about the excessive noise made by the product, for example a heat pump, but if you have already noticed that bit, don't try to hide it in order to sell more pumps because if you do that it does no longer qualify as enchantment or carelessness. It is simply dishonest. If Planck, Einstein or another researcher writes in the article "here I make an approximation", don't try to hide it, because it is not necessary to turn scientists into gods.


Response by Sannita 13:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sannita's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach 3, above all.

Sannita's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3, 5, 2.


Response by Nnemo 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nnemo's response to the critical question[edit]

Approaches Three and Six.

Nnemo's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches Three and Six.


Response by OSeveno 15:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OSeveno's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

Er lijkt een groeiende tendens te zijn om alles aan te passen voor het gebruik op mobiele telefoons. Hierbij lijkt de desktop gebruiker het onderspit te delven. Webpagina's zien er vervolgens goed uit voor mobiele telefoons, maar de desktopgebruiker krijgt een misvormd geheel gepresenteerd, met absud grote zijbalken, en dergelijke. Graag wijs ik erop dat Wikipedia niet uitsluitend bestaad voor trendsetters c.q. een jonger publiek, maar ook ouderen, inclusief bejaarden, moeten toegang blijven houden tot een volwaardig "product". Volgens mij is het een misvatting om te denken dat de smartphone de desktopomgeving gaat vervangen. De monitor biedt een groter leesoppervlak en zal dus belangrijk blijven voor mensen die slechter zien. Het is nu eenmaal een gegeven dat bijna alle oudere mensen steeds slechter zien, en de desktop-computergebruiker zal op termijn dus eerder in aantal toenemen dan afnemen.

Machine translation; please help improve.
There seems to be a growing trend in order to adapt all for use on mobile phones. Here, the desktop user seems to taste defeat. Web pages look then good for mobile phones, but the desktop user is presented with a distorted whole, absud big sidebars, and the like. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not only relay is composed of trendsetters [which is to say] a younger audience, but also older people, including the elderly, should have access to a full 'product'. I think it's a mistake to think that the smartphone, the desktop environment is replaced. The monitor offers a larger read surface and will therefore remain important to people who see worse. It is simply a fact that almost all older people see getting worse, and the desktop computer user will eventually increase in number so rather than decrease.

OSeveno's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

Niet één van de gepresenteerde mogelijke benaderingen spreekt mij overtuigend aan. Ook ik vind dit een moeilijk vraagstuk. Misschien zit het antwoord in 'gekoppelde' zusterprojecten opzetten voor afwijkende beeldformaten. Hoe precies, dat weet ik nog niet.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Not one of the presented possible approaches appeals to me convincingly. I also find this a difficult question. Perhaps the answer is in 'linked' sister projects set up for different image formats. How, exactly, I do not know yet.


Response by B25es 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de B25es a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Pero ¿sabemos qué es lo que demandan los lectores? Porque los fragmentos cortos no van a ayudar al que busca una respuesta, por ejemplo, sobre las causas de la Primera Guerra Mundial o los usos del cromo. Simplemente, eso no cabe en veinte ni en cincuenta palabras. Ahora, si lo que quieres es saber dónde juega Messi, ese es un asunto totalmente distinto.
Sí que es importante asumir que hacen falta versiones en lenguas distintas del inglés. Aunque haya mucha gente que tenga un conocimiento básico de inglés, es muy frecuente encontrar enormes masas de personas cuyas lenguas de cultura, incluso cuando no sean su lengua materna, son el castellano, el francés, el alemán, el ruso, el chino, el árabe, el japonés, el portugués... Por extraño que parezca es perfectamente posible encontrar en muchos lugares maestros de escuela que no hablan nada de inglés, ni para pedir un café. Por ello la barrera idiomática es seria.

Machine translation; please help improve.
But do we know what readers demand? Because short fragments will not help looking for a response, for example, on the causes of the First World War or uses of chromium. That just does not fit in twenty or fifty words. Now, if you want to know where to play Messi, that's an entirely different matter.

Yes it is important to assume that there's a shortage of versions in languages other than English. Although there are many people who have a basic knowledge of English it is very common to find huge masses of people whose languages of culture, even if they are not your first language, are Castilian [Spanish], French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Portuguese ... Oddly enough it is perfectly possible to find in many places school teachers who do not speak any English, not even enough to order a coffee. Therefore, the language barrier is serious.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de B25es (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

  • El enfoque 1 tiene problemas. ¿Cómo voy a contribuir con contenido multimedia? Subir vídeos es técnicamente complejo. Es tan complejo que muy poca gente sabe hacerlo. E incluso las fotografías tropiezan muchas veces con problemas de licencia. Fotografiar ranas o monumentos españoles (porque es España hay libertad de panorama) es fácil. Fotografiar un coche de policía de Luxemburgo, yo ni me lo plantearía sin un buen equipo de abogados.
    Y respecto de consultar con el móvil, habría que plantearse hacer resúmenes ad-hoc.
  • El enfoque dos necesitaría un giro en la concepción de muchos grupos de usuarios y comunidades de los proyectos. Haría falta permitir a instituciones que editaran. Por ejemplo, dudo que haya un lugar mejor que el Museo del Prado para encontar gente capaz de explicar los cuadros que hay allí. Pero si crearan un usuario Museodelprado, iban a ser baneados en segundos. O llegamos a un concepto más flexible, o los GLAM los van a hacer cuatro voluntarios, en vez de cientos de personas muy bien preparadas.
  • El enfoque tres no lo termino de captar. Si es por crear, simplificar viene bien, pero también dar acceso facil a herramientas (por ejemplo, nunca consigo acordarme de como tachar texto, me toca buscas un ejemplo y copiar). Respecto del seguimiento, poder tener listas de seguimiento generales de todos los proyectos sería genial.
  • El enfoque cuatro es positivo. Pero nada fácil de implementar. Un poeta en español o francés de tercera fila es muy probable que tenga artículo, mientras que el mejor literato en suajili o sranantongo ya tendrán bastante si se les menciona en algún sitio.
  • El enfoque cinco es positivo. Depende del enfoque seis.
  • El enfoque seis podría acabar en pocos días con algunos problemas de discriminación. Por ejemplo, una ciudad de 100 000 habitantes del Sur Global tiene mucha probabilidad de tener un artículo penoso o incluso no tenerlo. Depende de la lengua local y de la suerte. Sin embargo un municipio español, incluso uno con 100 habitantes es seguro que tendrá artículo (hablo de la Wikipedia en español). Hay una solución, se toma un programa (bot) y se traducen, por ejemplo, todas las localidades de Botsuana. Pero hay un problema. La comunidad de editores de la Wikipedia en español no ve que eso sea la forma correcta de actuar. El resultado es que si quieres consultar la geografía de Botsuana, lo mejor es que empieces por aprender inglés. Personalmente no veo qué mal se haría traduciendo articulos de poblaciones, ríos, islas. Incluso de otros temas. Pero la comunidad se opone.
  • Mi voto será para 5 y 6.
    B25es (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Machine translation; please help improve.
  • Focus 1 has problems. How I will contribute multimedia content? Upload videos is technically complex. It is so complex that few people know so. And even photographs often faced with licensing issues. Spanish monuments frogs or photograph (because there is freedom of panorama Spain) is easy. Photographing a police car Luxembourg, nor I would consider it without a good team of lawyers.
    And regarding consulted with mobile, we should consider doing ad-hoc summaries.
  • The two focus require a shift in the conception of many user groups and community projects. Would it allow institutions edited. For example, I doubt there is a better than the Prado place to locate people who can explain the tables there. But if you create a user "Museodelprado" they were to be banned in seconds. Or we come to a more flexible, or the concept GLAM will make four volunteers, instead of hundreds of people very well prepared.
  • The three did not approach the end of capture. If you create, simplify comes good, but also give easy access to tools (for example, I never remember him and cross out text, I have to looking for an example and copy). Of monitoring, to have lists of general monitoring of all projects would be great.
  • The focus four is positive. But not easy to implement. A poet in Spanish or French third row is very likely to have article, while the best writer in Swahili or sranantongo longer have enough if they are mentioned somewhere.
  • The five positive approach. Approach depends six.
  • The focus six could end in a few days with some problems of discrimination. For example, a city of 100,000 inhabitants in the Global South have much chance of having a painful article or even not having it. It depends on the local language and luck. However, a Spanish town, including one with 100 inhabitants is sure to have items (I speak of the Wikipedia in Spanish). There is a solution, it takes a program (bot) and translated, for example, all locations in Botswana. But there's a problem. The community of editors of Wikipedia in Spanish do not see that that's the right way to act. The result is that if you want to see the geography of Botswana, it is best to start learning English. Personally I do not see what harm would translate articles populations, rivers, islands. Even other issues. But the community is opposed.
  • My vote would be for 5 and 6.


Response by Housiemousie 17:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Housiemousie's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Housiemousie's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

1 - except I do not like the idea of an incentive program - it could breed the wrong kind of competition

2 - yes

3 - yes

Madame Curieuse[edit]

Response by Madame Curieuse 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Madame Curieuse's response to the critical question[edit]

team up with museums, archives, universities, bureaus of standard and similar institutions

Madame Curieuse's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 1 and 2

Lele giannoni[edit]

Response by Lele giannoni 18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Lele giannoni's response to the critical question[edit]

Among those proposed, I think approach four is the most considerable, with regard to age gap more than to gender gap. In fact, I think Wiki represents the point of view of young people. We shoul try to involve more aged people to cover more attitudes and opinions.

Lele giannoni's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Overall, the proposed approaches seem to focus on technological improvement. However, I don't think technology should be the most important tool to increase knowledge. Conversely, I think we should try to involve in wikipedia people skilled in the different topics, who are not so expert in IT. The original vice of Wiki is the fact it has been written by computer people: as if the articles of Britannica had been written by typographers.

@Lele giannoni: Hi, I just wanted to mention that the ideas behind approaches 1, 3, 5, and partially 6, are also to do with making it easier for non-technical people to contribute to the areas that are currently very technical (e.g. uploading files, or participating in some of the more complicated workflows at various wikis, or even just finding specific types of tasks in relation to specific subject areas). Hope that helps. :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to mean that basic editing is not so technically difficult. Notwihstanding, many people skilled in topics (particularily in humanities) don't partecipate in Wkiprojects. So, i don't think technology is the cause of their absence, while motivation. Lele Giannoni
Understood. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Muzyk98 20:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Główne 2-3 koncepcje wg użytkownila Muzyk98 (albo podziel się swoim pomysłem)[edit]

...2, 5, 7…

Moje uwagi:

My notes:

Koncepcja czwarta[edit]

"Pomiar i redukcja systemowych uprzedzeń względem płci itp. w całościowym ujęciu naszej treści w poszczególnych projektach."

Ta koncepcja wydaje się dotyczyć nie tyle wiedzy, co ideologii (feministycznej, gender itp.). Według jakich obiektywnych kryteriów ma być "mierzony" poziom uprzedzeń, skoro różne kultury, a nawet różne środowiska w ramach jednej kultury, widzą kwestie płci inaczej? To, co dla jednych jest przejawem uprzedzeń i dyskryminacji, dla innych jest np. wyrazem szacunku. Zdecydowany sprzeciw.

Machine translation; please help improve
Fourth concept
"Measurement and reduction of systemic gender bias, etc. In the overall perspective of our content in individual projects."
This concept seems to concern not so much knowledge, as ideology (feminist, gender, etc.). According to which objective criteria must the level of bias be "measured" against, since different cultures, and even different environments within a single culture, see gender issues differently? What for some is a manifestation of prejudice and discrimination, for others it is e.g. an expression of respect. Strong opposition.

Własne sugestie[edit]

1. Uprościć mechanizmy wprowadzania treści. Robią się coraz bardziej skomplikowane, a więc coraz mniej przyjazne i przystępne dla przeciętnego użytkownika. Niektóre są w zasadzie dostępne tylko dla osób z przygotowaniem informatycznym.

2. Wprowadzić na szerszą skalę fachową korektę językową tekstów (stylistyczną, interpunkcyjną, typograficzną). Niekiedy są one rozpaczliwie nieudolne, co moim zdaniem odbija się na postrzeganiu Wikipedii jako źródła niezbyt wiarygodnego, gdyż tworzonego przez osoby bez dostatecznego przygotowania, skoro nie umieją nawet pisać poprawnie po polsku.

Machine translation; please help improve
My own suggestions
1. Simplify the mechanisms for implementing content. They are getting more complicated, and therefore less friendly and accessible for the average user. Some are in principle available only to people with an IT background.
2. Encourage wider linguistic professionals in the revision of texts (stylistic, punctuation, typography). Sometimes the articles are desperately clumsy, which I think is reflected in the perception of Wikipedia as a source of not very reliable information, as created by people without adequate preparation, since they can not even write correctly in Polish.


Response by HГq 20:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von HГq auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Ansatz eins und sechs. Mehr benutzerfreundliche Hilfsmittel beim Erstellen und Bearbeiten von Texten bereitstellen, um qualitativ hochwertige Inhalte schnell und unkompliziert hinzufügen zu können.

Machine translation; please help improve
Approach one and six. Provide more user-friendly tools for creating and editing of texts, to quickly and easily add quality content.


Response by Bobbyshabangu 21:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Bobbyshabangu's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach one: Provide easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-form text to benefit mobile and quick lookup users. Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums). Approach four: Measure and reduce systemic gender and other bias in our overall content by project.

Bobbyshabangu's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Amongst those proposed I think 3 is the most important.

Matthias Buchmeier[edit]

Response by Matthias Buchmeier 22:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Matthias Buchmeier's response to the critical question[edit]

I think it's important to improve the readability by mobile devices, taking additionally into account a frequently low internet connectivity/bandwidth of mobile internet.

Matthias Buchmeier's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]



Response by JoelGlennWright 23:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

JoelGlennWright's response to the critical question[edit]

I am, indeed, glad that questions of reform are at least now being asked. I think in general the necessary steps to bring about 'real' change entail an overhaul of the entire system and structure of the division of power within the wikipedia community. Unfortunately, in your well meaning attempt to provide freedom within wikipedia, what you have inadvertently done is setup a dark age medieval-style fiefdom. A power system where those people who are 'in the know' and well liked by their fellow trolls are swept into positions of absolute power. Power which can not be taken away from them should that abuse it and abuse it they have. How can there be freedom for anyone to edit if there articles can be removed at the whim of an administrator at anytime and how is it fair that administrators can block users but are allow to overrule such blocks if they are made against them. wikipedia is heading towards a civil war very soon should these transgressions not be addressed and changed.

JoelGlennWright's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

As far as rating the approaches suggested, I would say: Approach 4, Approach 2 and Approach 1 are you best bet.


Response by Magedq 03:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Magedq's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach 6: Allow users to automate translation for their proofreading. Experiment with machine translation quality, and if it attracts users from different languages. We should create a process for translation (and other forms of automation) that can overtime require less direct human supervision. This can be done carefully with with small expirements before wider roll outs.


Response by Maferlona 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Maferlona a la pregunta crítica[edit]

Aunque los proyectos Wikimedia se planteen llegar a todas las personas esto presenta un reto en cuanto a la cuestión lingüística se refiere por lo que es necesario que en todos se incremente y se trabaje con la comunidad en este aspecto, pero una buena forma de iniciar es por medio de la expansión de los programas asociados. Otro problema, que está muy ligado al mejoramiento de la comunidad es el de las brechas; al reducirla dentro de la comunidad se debe incentivar a reducirla dentro del contenido y que este pueda permanecer.

Machine translation; please help improve.
Although Wikimedia projects are beginning to reach all people this presents a challenge where the language issue is concerned, so it is necessary that everything betters and works with the community in this regard, but a good way to start is through the expansion of associated programs. Another problem, which is closely linked to the improvement of the community is the gaps; to reduce them within the community should be encouraged so as to reduce them within the content and so that it may remain.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Maferlona (o comparte tu propia idea)[edit]

  • Idea 2
  • Idea 4
  • Idea 5


Response by Samwilson 07:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Samwilson's response to the critical question[edit]

Connecting the community (i.e. both the Wikimedia community and the wider general public community) and GLAM entities is very important I think.

As for machine generation of anything, I'm suspect but I do think on Wikisource and Wiktionary it could be (and is already is in some ways) of great benefit.

Samwilson's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches 2 and 6.


Response by Gingersnappy 09:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Gingersnappy — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Нужно больше внимания обращать на то, что происходит в мире в данный момент. Сейчас и здесь люди интересуются всем, что происходит во вселенной, в мире, в стране, в республике, а прежде всего - в их жизни.

Machine translation; please help improve.
It is necessary to pay more attention to what is happening in the world at the moment. Here and now people are interested in everything that happens in the universe, the world, in the country, in the republic, and first of all - in their lives.

Gingersnappy — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

Второй, третий, пятый.

Machine translation; please help improve.
The second, third, fifth.

Ranu sharmagw[edit]

Response by Ranu sharmagw 10:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ranu sharmagw's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Ranu sharmagw's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… i am not know much more ideas but some problems i face as i make many topics but auto removed your system this is wrongs ways, because article is important all tips of if want to rich visitors so do not removed creating topic


Response by Pomptidom 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Pomptidom's response to the critical question[edit]

If readers knowledge needs change, they will discover a gap if the articles are not written yet. Make it known that everybody can participate (and that it's actually fun to do that) and make it easy to participate.

Pomptidom's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

4, 1, 5

Jon E. Dalton[edit]

Response by Jon E. Dalton 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jon E. Dalton's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

Jon E. Dalton's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here…

Whereas all six approaches are in my humble opinion strong, in my experience, the use of forums that permit others to inject expertise are very effective. I might suggest a "special" daily page that details items of current interest and invite response.

Koroleva Evgenia[edit]

Response by Koroleva Evgenia 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Koroleva Evgenia — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

Koroleva Evgenia — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)[edit]

1, 3 и 5 подходы.


Response by Tryptofish 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

4, 2, 5, in that order


Response by ThurnerRupert 22:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ThurnerRupert's response to the critical question[edit]

...a very important question. while WMF did an excellent job in many respects, it did catastrophic in "knowledge" or "contents". where can i put a video on how to make bred from growing the crop, mill, baking. with subtitles in 200 languages, and translated in 50 languages? i do not have the technology to produce it, nor to store it, nor to find it. where and how can i use parts of an article to create a book for a training course? how can i download parts of wikipedia as zim or epub and take it with me? all impossible or too difficult.

ThurnerRupert's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...approach five seems fine. approach 3 is written in complicated english and means everything and nothing, you mean easier contribute? sure! if so, approach one is approach three. approach seven is to reserve 30% of the money (i.e. 25 mio USD) to innovative content creation _outside_ of wikimedia foundation, via some competition or global/local grant giving model. WMF proofed that it is unable to innovate in the nearly 15 years of existence. it created a visual editor for the same old content, that is it. i am wondering how you make sure that such a suggestion is going to the WMF board or community instead of sticking within the foundation who has a conflict of interest and no ambition whatsoever to involve others.

위키백과 홍보!![edit]

위키백과를 홍보하세요!1655dlehdbs (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation; please help improve.
Wikipedia publicity!! Promote Wikipedia!


Response by Rslocked 01:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rslocked's response to the critical question[edit]

One thing to keep in mind is the need for the readers to comprehend this newly found information's. There should be a level of clarity between the transition of information. Another thing would be figuring out how to properly apply the information to the content throughout the foundation.

Rslocked's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1. Approach 3 2. Approach 5 3. Approach 4


Response by Abrimaal 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Odpowiedź użytkownika Abrimaal na główne pytanie[edit]

...wpisz odpowiedź tutaj… 1

Główne 2-3 koncepcje wg użytkownika Abrimaal (albo podziel sie swoim pomysłem)[edit]

...wpisz numery tutaj…

Subskrypcja na e-mail z wybranego zakresu wiedzy np. (E-mail subscription of user-selected range)
- ogólny newsletter (a general newsletter)
- nowe artykuły z wybranej tematyki (new articles from selected categories)
- aktualizacje obserwowanych artykułów (updates of watched articles)


Response by StupidChangSonla 13:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

StupidChangSonla 對關鍵問題的回應[edit]


StupidChangSonla 的前2或前3優先順序(或分享您自己的想法)[edit]

⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯ 2 4 1


Response by Fantomeoz 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fantomeoz's response to the critical question[edit]


Fantomeoz's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

1 2

Donne Cena[edit]

Response by Donne Cena 00:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Donne Cena's response to the critical question[edit]

more easy-to-understand words

Donne Cena's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I support number five. I think there should be a sub-talk page for the page to tell people the meaning of a word they do not understand on the article


Response by Cwenrich13 10:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cwenrich13's response to the critical question[edit]

Adding an additional tab for community created snippets. But also allow for users to select if they want those also displayed with pointers or highlighting what they are referring to. Augmentation of the side bar could be used for the display area or have the main page be retractable on one side exposing the snippets as if it was a piece of paper being slide out from underneath another piece of paper.

Another could be a more accessible mind-mapping diagram to help in the discovery of new subjects or even unknown connections.

Cwenrich13's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Listed in order: Approach Six Approach One Approach Two


Response by Monopoly31121993 10:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993's response to the critical question[edit]

Monopoly31121993's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]



Response by NinjaRobotPirate 11:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate's response to the critical question[edit]

I'm not sure that "changing knowledge needs" is even a thing. And even if it were, I'm not sure what it has to do with me. It's like asking me what I think about Ani DiFranco's music. I listen to heavy metal, man; I don't even have an opinion on that.

If the WMF wants good content, they'll need to help human contributors get access to more sources. Sure, this GLAM stuff sounds great, but it's not going to help me write an article. I'm deeply skeptical of machine-generated content. If done properly, it could conceivably be useful. And if we're talking about populating Wikidata, then it's substantially less of a bad idea. That doesn't make it good idea, though. I hope that test runs and public discussion are planned before any kind of automated content is added anywhere.

NinjaRobotPirate's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach 7: Contributors need access to high quality sources to write high quality content. This includes initiatives like The Wikipedia Library, which grants access to subscription-only sources.
  • Approach 3: This sounds vaguely useful, but it's difficult to understand what exactly it's about.
  • Approach 4: Useful. But how can I do anything about this if I don't access to sources?


Response by Arvidex 11:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Arvidex's response to the critical question[edit]


Arvidex's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

4, 3


Response by Drahtloser 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Drahtloser auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Drahtloser[edit]

Delete the idea of a "gender gap" from the community minds: Thinking is not limited to genus. But bullying appears to be a real threat. It creates a hard disappointment, when uninforned and unproductive "authors" focus on "delete" and "merge" and succeed without brains.


Response by Hendrikvander 10:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hendrikvander's response to the critical question[edit]


Hendrikvander's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

One, Three and six: rinse and repeat. Partner up with Universities, booksellers, scientists etc. to improve the accuracy, timeliness and range of information. Consider incorporating a Google search engine for scientific publications and documentations; then display the website contents on the wikimedia page (after getting permission of course).


Response by Hollth 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hollth's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

IMO  having a larger Community focus will result in better Knowledge more than Knowledge will lead to a larger/ better Community. I.e., Knowledge seems mostly a consequence and does not seem like it will address the fundamental issues that threaten WMF self sustenance.

Hollth's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

...write here… Six, two, one. NOT four.

Six appears to be a very high risk, high reward strategy, so I definitely would not put many eggs in that basket, however I would still think it wise to invest in this for the long term.

Two appears to have the simultaneous benefit of addressing the community aspect as well. I would encourage this to expand to universities and clubs to further emphasis the community aspect. IMO having a larger Community focus will result in better Knowledge more than Knowledge will lead to a larger/ better Community.

One also looks like it is twofold in dealing with Reach and Knowledge, so I have to say that looks to be a prime candidate on a first glance cost benefit analysis.

I've also included NOT four. In short, believe this will be a money sink. There will always be systematic bias of some kind. It is in essence a statistical truth analogous to how individual variance leads to evolution. The conglomeration of all the variance will always have some deviation. In the context of WMF the bias mostly comes from the volunteers origins (e.g. male, anglo) and interests and addressing that would require a monumental amount of time, effort and money that I believe would be best utilised in other areas of Knowledge (or even better IMO, Community and Reach). As most people know, it takes much longer to do a task that one is either not interested in or unaware of.


Response by Aspiriniks 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Aspiriniks auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

None of the six approaches makes sense. For the reader, Wikipedia is perfect as it is. If the communities of some languages want some help, give it to them, but accept that what makes sense for one language (for instance having articles written by bots) does not automatically make sense for others. What could be discussed in the communities would be an abstract in the beginning of long articles, where the content of the article is condensed on 5 to 10 % of the article length within a box, but this should not be forced on the communities (and it would be possible without any technical change, only maybe by introducing a URL like to only load the abstract without the rest of the article).

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Aspiriniks[edit]


Response by HHill 22:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

HHill's response to the critical question[edit]

As has been noted above, the term knowledge sits badly with some of the proposed strategic approaches. Looking at todays content of Wikidata and infoboxes, said snippets, devoid of context, might be useful for identification and disambiguation purposes. But most of them probably do not constitute knowledge one should bother memorizing, e.g. for an examination at university. At best it's the stuff one should know where to look up.
Tablets, e-book readers and even smartphones could also serve as plattforms for quite long (maybe even literally epic) texts that to this day have only been transmitted by e. g. palm leaf manuscript. Wikisource quite possibly has the potential to become a central site for e-books of old or even ancient texts in asian and african languages. On the one hand it should provide texts in formats usable by the most common devices, on the other hand it should be compatible with scholarly text encoding standards and practices. Learning from (and perhaps cooperating with) institutions such as the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library, who engaged in the preservation of texts (and knowledge) long before the advent of the internet, the Wikimedia Foundation could serve as a hub and a facilitator for volunteers all over the world. Digitizing manuscripts held by their traditional keepers or scattered (and, being often only badly catalogued, mostly hidden) in small collections e.g. in libraries in Europe and America and transcribing the texts contained therein will give those texts a whole new audience (and add valuable content to our projects that is not just badly translated from e. g. en.wikipedia).

HHill's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  • Approach two
  • Approach four

Kein Einstein[edit]

Response by Kein Einstein 10:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Kein Einstein auf die Hauptfrage[edit]


Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Kein Einstein[edit]

6, 5

Chris Rodgers[edit]

Response by Chris Rodgers 10:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Chris Rodgers's response to the critical question[edit]

Paradoxically, I suspect the way to best adapt to changing knowledge needs is by being less restrictive regarding sources - policy creep being a real problem - rather than more.

Chris Rodgers's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  1. 5 has utility, #3 I'm suspicious of since I sometimes trust users more than editors, but #7: be less restrictive of content rather than more. I believe WP was not meant to be a mere parroting of secondaries already out there in abundance.


Response by ArnoldReinhold 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold's response to the critical question[edit]

Quality is all important. I think the number on threat to Wikimedia quality is link rot. Our content must be verifiable and that requires links to sources. We have tens of millions of such links, too many for volunteers to effectively patrol for rot. We need automated tools to archive linked material in our own or tower's repositories.

The second biggest threat is the accumulation of small changes, through well intentioned but poorly sourced edits of undetected vandalism. Article reviews are one way to improve quality, but they would be much more useful if there was an easy way to display the difference between the current state of an article and its state at its last review.--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach 1 should begin by providing ways to at least accept common multimedia formats. My least favorite is number six. I really scares me.--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Baruneju 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Baruneju 's response to the critical question[edit]

Expand the availability of reliable sources for the editors (i.e Wikipedia Library), also by easing the access to them (also from a technological point of view).

Create and improve solutions to identify loops of information (i.e. wikipedia using a newspaper as source, but the newspaper used wikipedia as source).

Baruneju 's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]


Ad Huikeshoven[edit]

Response by Ad Huikeshoven 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ad Huikeshoven's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

What do you think is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to adapt to changing knowledge needs of readers (short snippets, diverse formats, language, etc.) and to help facilitate content quality?

Our readers love to read human generated and curated content. Readers what to find information. They don't want to spend time searching. Google provides a search engine to find information on Wikipedia. Reimburse the quarter million dollar to the Knight Foundation. The movement doesn't need their money. Do something in support of the volunteer base with which the Foundation is endowed.

Ad Huikeshoven's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

  • Anything but 6.
  • Integrate Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedia futher. The semantic relationships on Wikidata allow tagging of articles titles just like categories on Wikipedia or on Commons. Those tags can be multilingual on Wikidata. Move the categories from Commons and Wikipedia to Wikidata, so users can look for images in category names in any language on Commons for example. Having the tags on Wikidata will make it possible to search for articles that fit multiple tags.


Response by Romaine 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Romaine's antwoord op de kritieke vraag[edit]

  • Make mobile editing much much much easier.
  • Work closer together with OpenStreetMap as Wikipedia is used more and more for finding knowledge about geographic sites and improve the possibilities in geotagging of articles.

Romaine's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)[edit]

Approach five: we need more tools (or better working ones) to make translations easier and to make sharing knowledge between two language versions easier.

And approach one: like special:nearby is great, but not developed further enough. It needs more development to make it easier to access local knowledge, knowledge that is around you.


Response by Ghilt 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ghilt's response to the critical question[edit]


Ghilt's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

3, 4


Response by Discott 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Discott's response to the critical question[edit]

A very good question and one that is of great importance.

Discott's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

In no particular order:

  • Approach 1: articles could be greatly increase by making it easier to add more and better multimedia sources to articles
  • Approach 3: It would be super awesome if we had more and better tools to illustrate content. A good example might be tools to help create interactive data visualisations.
  • Approach 4: Systemic bias is a problem which distorts the 'structure' of knowledge on Wikipedia by providing an incomplete account of the overall human experience of global knowledge.


Response by Thuthu77 18:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thuthu77's response to the critical question[edit]

Once again, I have to go with approach one as the best strategy to use right now. Through this approach will Wikimedia be able to adapt to the current modern features of the internet. This includes abilities such as, to see videos on Wiki Websites and ways to share content on social media platforms. Approach two and four are also very good strategies that i can get by as well.

Thuthu77's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

All ideas posted here are really good strategic approaches that i really can't think of any more to add. In conclusion though i wanna say is that all of these strategies and approaches across the three sections can be achieved if we all (the Wikimedia community) chip in, however big or small it may be. Together we can all change Wikimedia for the better and help make the movement create an impact on the whole world.


Response by Ashaio 21:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ashaio's response to the critical question[edit]

Instead of (or in addition to) approach 4 I propose to measure the complexity (reading level) of the articles, and to organize projects to reduce it. Simple English Wikipedia is a great example.

Ashaio's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Strong support for approaches 2 and 6. Also approach 5.


Response by NickK 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NickK's response to the critical question[edit]

There are two questions here:

  1. Changing needs: we should not change our approach. I do not get the point about "short snippets": what can we do with this? Is this a new fancy name for stubs in small Wikipedias? Or does anyone want to replace, say, a Wikivoyage guide with a short snippet? This is not the way to go, we should find ways to improve our content and present it in a better and a more user-friendly way. Of course we need higher-quality materials to meet expectations, but this is not enough. Let us develop 3D models, improve videos support, provide reacher diagrams and maps etc.: that's what our readers will appreciate.
  2. Facilitate content quality: we seriously lack sources. We have a lot of knowledge locked somewhere in printed form under copyright: books we can use to improve Wikipedia, works we can scan and upload to Wikisource, images we can upload on Commons etc. Please help us unlock them and share them with public. Please also facilitate content curation by sharing best tools and practices: many wikis have successful initiatives but we know little about them.

I would like to pay particular attention to the word "language". Wikimedia projects are multilingual and we should have neither "changing language needs" nor "key languages". There are no "good" and "bad" languages, we should support Wikimedia projects in all available languages. Most people do you a favour by answering in English (and not in their mother tongue) here, please do them a favour as well and give the same attention to their language as you would give to any other language — NickK (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NickK's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

  1. Approach three: if successful this would be a major step forward, as tools for curating content are far from efficient at the moment.
  2. Approach two
  3. A mix of approaches 1 and 6 to support Wikidata. Wikidata has an excellent knowledge database but unfortunately it is very badly presented to our readers. I believe that our "quick lookup users" can get a much better experience of Wikidata as Wikidata can generate an excellent quick summary of any topic. We underestimate this opportunity and reinvent the wheel: we should make Wikidata a powerful tool for readers, not just a feeder tool for Wikipedia.

One particular point about approach four. It is so English Wikipedia-centric again: do you seriously believe Basque Wikibooks need this? I think they need content first, not looking for non-existent gender bias — NickK (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Response by Papischou 08:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Papischou à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici...

Top 2-3 de Papischou (ou partagez vos idées)[edit]

Approche 1,2 & 3


Response by Pakeha 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pakeha's response to the critical question[edit]

I'm not an expert in this. Spontaneously I would just answer: Improve Wikidata and publicize it nearly as much as Wikipedia!

Pakeha's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approaches 2, 3 and 6. Multimedia content is fine as well, but mobile users are also able to browse longer texts.

Charles Matthews[edit]

Response by Charles Matthews 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles Matthews's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach Five. If Wikidata shows nothing else, it is that there are two topics out there not covered by enWP for every one that is; and the ratio is much larger for the other languages. I'd start by beefing up the ArticleWizard, which is not a great example of how to do a "holding area". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles Matthews's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

There is an untackled issue with referencing, which is going to be a limiting factor, going forward, for verifiable knowledge.

First step is to separate content from presentation with references. Already this is radical, but ought to be the natural continuation of the Visual Editor. Then find the good way of consolidating references. That has to be seen in the context of open access and data mining.

Truth is, facts are "cheap"; collating verifiable facts into prose our area of expertise, when reference material is wanted.

We need a direction on the "substrate" of our work, for example to tackle link rot in a way that isn't ad hoc. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Aegis Maelstrom[edit]

Response by Aegis Maelstrom 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Aegis Maelstrom's response to the critical question[edit]

As mentioned before, new UIs/UXes are needed to invite participants unable (not computer literate enough, not having time or a proper device) or unwilling (e.g. because they have their attention span lowered with social media) to participate in the old production model.

  1. New projects, interfaces, production and usage models are needed. Commons, references and links should be structured and converted to Wikidata. More games and tasks with new UX (e.g. a game where players are verifying particular claims, with simple tablet, smartphone UX) should be introduced. Additional namespaces e.g. to gather relevant links, with simplified policies, should be considered.
    • Unfortunate thing is this would mean more interfaces to support: power users editing from their desktops, running bots and whatnots have different needs than e.g. mobile wikidatagame users. However, in the end of the day, as volunteers do 99+% of the work, it is the tech job to provide them proper, ergonomic tools for particular tasks.
  2. Remember that in Wikimedia the process has been more important than the content. We are neither an educational organization (despite the fact that we do educate and our old mission kept saying so), nor tech organization (despite the fact we do use tech and need to invest 'more in it). We are a distributed co-operation organization; what is truly unique and successful is our content production and wikimanagement model. We could underline it more in the content area, introducing additional namespaces/projects using more wiki principles - that is with heavily relaxed rules, e.g. collaborative discussion merged with information, with no NPOV etc. (sth like old c2 or MeatBallWiki could be considered).

Aegis Maelstrom's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

Approach seven: provide new UIs, tools and activities for new usergroups / usage scenarios (e.g. I ride on a subway with Internet access and I would like to check the edits on my observed list / play some wikidata game / add categories to the Commons articles etc. on my mobile device). Perhaps we could make it even more of a game, collaborative and fun.

Approach three, six.


Response by Alexmar983 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexmar983's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach 1 is ok.

Does number 2 mean basically more GLAM? ok, but do we have the money for that? In many countries these institutions are penniless. Is it also funny how we seem to care about the gap with poor countries, but not so much the gaps inside rich countries. A small mountain city council has no mean compared to a big town. Maybe it is easy and probably more interesting to start from there than from a big town where soon or later money for a project can be found.

Approach 3 is ok, maybe too vague, but it always useful.

Approach 4 is vague. On itWiki I helped the refining one of the article about a women, I work with women, but I have no idea what can make th situation better. I would start with some good list from wikidata. We have too many to do's list, it's dispersive.

Approach 5: I helped to introduce the CT/CX to itwiki, it is not "great". Crossed finger for the future.

Approach 6: ok, whatever you can implement is welcome. As usual, we should be free to test it on some platforms, opt-out on others.

Alexmar983's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)[edit]

I prefer 3 and 6