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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Slowking4[edit]

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

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.

Yger[edit]

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

Yger's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach three

BethNaught[edit]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Snipre[edit]

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

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. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/News https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results SVentura (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

3, 4 et 6

Mautpreller[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour --LZia (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edoderoo[edit]

Sources[edit]

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)[reply]

Julius Tominius[edit]

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

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

Approach six.

Jayen466[edit]

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

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)[reply]

MisterSanderson[edit]

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

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.

MER-C[edit]

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Caoimhin[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Lajsikonik[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ellywa[edit]

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

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).

Molarus[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Sänger[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nihiltres[edit]

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

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.

NaBUru38[edit]

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

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.

Bluerasberry[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
+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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

FloNight[edit]

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

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.

Yurik[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Mattflaschen-WMF[edit]

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

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.

SSneg[edit]

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

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 IBM.com 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.

Qgil-WMF[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Ejegg[edit]

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

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.

Jane023[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Pfps[edit]

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

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

74.65.39.235[edit]

Response by 74.65.39.235 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

74.65.39.235's response to the critical question[edit]

Partner with content experts and professionals

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

Approach 2 should guide us.

Amgine[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Fil211[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Marcok[edit]

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

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.

Sujalajus[edit]

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

Antwort von Sujalajus auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

Approach two

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

Approach four

Chaddy[edit]

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

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]

2

Geolina163[edit]

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

Antwort von Geolina163 auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

2+3.

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

...hier schreiben...

AlexChirkin[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Hans50[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Aldebaran[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Amage9[edit]

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

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.

Devopam[edit]

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

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]

1

Kertraon[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Wereldburger758[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Ynanchu alp bilge[edit]

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

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…

JoeHebda[edit]

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

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.

Miniapolis[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

TeriEmbrey[edit]

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

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.

ONUnicorn[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Approach 1, 5, and 3.

FNDE[edit]

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

Antwort von FNDE auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

1

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

-> Wikidata.

Alarichall[edit]

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

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)

PalaciosBertolot[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.)

MurielMary[edit]

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

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)[reply]

SageRad[edit]

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

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.

Don-kun[edit]

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

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

Wikimpan[edit]

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

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.

Worlddreamer[edit]

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

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…

ArthurPSmith[edit]

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

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.

Nickispeaki[edit]

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

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]

Zedshort[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Sanglahi86[edit]

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

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.

Manojnmims[edit]

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

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.

Seagull123[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

  • Approach six
  • Approach five
  • Approach one

G41rn8[edit]

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

G41rn8's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

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

3

JoshuaKGarner[edit]

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

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[edit]

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?

Missimack[edit]

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

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.

Crazy1880[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

QuixoticLife[edit]

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

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).

Jobrjobr[edit]

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

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…

Rimfire47[edit]

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

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

Wlg3616[edit]

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

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…

Tbranch1527[edit]

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

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!"

DJSupreme23[edit]

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

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

Juandev[edit]

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

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

Liberal33310[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

...write her

Sargolin[edit]

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

Réponse de Sargolin à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici...2-3

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

...répondez ici...

Luke081515[edit]

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

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)

Llywrch[edit]

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

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.

Louis-garden[edit]

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

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

1

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

...répondez ici...

Gorvzavodru[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

5

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

6-2

Rory O'Kane[edit]

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

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

3, 6

LovelyLillith[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)

RonnieV[edit]

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

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.

VexorAbVikipædia[edit]

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

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.

Ambrosia10[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Carlotm[edit]

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

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.

79.201.13.49[edit]

Top 2-3[edit]

2

QVermeer[edit]

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

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.

KPFC[edit]

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

Antwort von KPFC auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

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

1, 2

Pdebee[edit]

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)[reply]

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…

Chrfwow[edit]

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

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…

Ozdiaz[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Shangkuanlc[edit]

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

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.]

Gnrc[edit]

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

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...

Timothyclethbridge[edit]

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

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…

Jojo17[edit]

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

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...

L235[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Saxonicus[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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. www.wolframalpha.com), 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.

Gailletboréal[edit]

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

Réponse de Gailletboréal à la question critique[edit]

...répondez ici... 2

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

...répondez ici... 4

Libcub[edit]

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

Libcub's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

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

Four, One, Three

Pointro[edit]

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

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

Approach 3, Approach 6, Approach 1

SusikMkr[edit]

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

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]

...one, three…

陳俊霖0208[edit]

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

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]

⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯

Schlind[edit]

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

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 ...

Yogee23[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Gabriel Burnet[edit]

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

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.

Patrickwooldridge[edit]

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

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)…

Helmutvan[edit]

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

Antwort von Helmutvan auf die Hauptfrage[edit]

...hier schreiben...

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

Ansatz 1.

Jtuom[edit]

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

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.

Filursiax[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

1, 2, 5

Jim2710[edit]

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

Jim2710's response to the critical question[edit]

...write here…

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

Approach one

Seedorfjohnny[edit]

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

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

Kippelboy[edit]

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

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

H-stt[edit]

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

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.)

Prathaplal[edit]

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

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…

Mvk608[edit]

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

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.

Argantoni[edit]

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

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...

V0d01ey[edit]

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

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.

Brownturkey[edit]

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

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).

Yngvadottir[edit]

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

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.

Flukas[edit]

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

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

Taperet[edit]

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

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

Solrezza[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Cannonmc[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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.

Happysquirrel[edit]

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

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

Imfrankliu[edit]

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

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..

Kiyoshiendo[edit]

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

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.

Flyingfischer[edit]

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

Flyingfischer's response to the critical question[edit]

Approach two, Approach three

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

Cangaran[edit]

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

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

Kuskondu[edit]

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

Kuskondu — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

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

1, 2, 3

Seescedric[edit]

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

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...

SMcCandlish[edit]

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

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)[reply]

109.187.7.252[edit]

Response by 109.187.7.252 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

109.187.7.252 — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

...пишите здесь…

109.187.7.252 — 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)[reply]

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 ...

Antur[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Julius1990[edit]

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

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

Giudark[edit]

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

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

Klebug[edit]

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

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.

EEIM[edit]

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

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".

RikardT[edit]

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

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.

Chaos4tu[edit]

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

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 Amazon.com. (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]

Lumos3[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Gungniir Loruse — ответ на насущные вопросы[edit]

Я согласен с 6 и 3

I agree with 6 and 3

Tyssul[edit