Talk:Community Engagement Insights/2018 Report

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Feel free to post your thoughts and comments about the report below. Thanks!

Thanks for all your work on this, it must have been an immense amount of effort!

Where can we find more detailed response data (things like Community_Engagement_Insights/2016-17_Report/Across_audiences)? Is that still forthcoming? --Tgr (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Partnerships & Global Reach team: Focus on emerging communities shows through awareness of partnerships support.[edit]

Hi, I don't know if it's because I'm not a native english speaker but I cannot understand what exactly this phrase means:

More organizers from emerging communities reporting being aware of this support (41%) than organizers from emerging communities (19%).

~ℳɑrio (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jakerullah Jakerullah (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ruth Tuvio villar Ruth tuvio villar (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

False community for WMF[edit]

I'm once more feel so sorry for the WMF, that we are the false kind of Community, than the WMF wanna like to have. Sorry for being male, older than 40 and so on. The WMF would deserve better unpaind volunteers who give all their spare time, knowledge and often money for their hobby than us. Sorry for making Wikipedia not better, than Wikipedia is today. Only one of the biggest Internet platforms worldwide. Millions and millions of reders. We are so wrong in what we are doing. Sorry, sorry, sorry! Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Graphics translations[edit]

In order to translate the whole report, including the graphics, I suggest to use SVG files for graphics or convert the PNG files to SVG files. This way, translators like me could be able to translate the graphics texts. Djiboun (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Differences between Wikipedia editions?[edit]

After the Harassment consultation 2015, I'm once again surprised there is no data (well, at least not presented here) which would illustrate differences between individual editions of Wikipedia. The health indicators are well-chosen (collaboration, engagement, inclusiveness, harassment, etc.), but the data is presented at a high level, which is probably sufficient to indicate global trends, but can't detect hotspots and is therefore not actionable at all. E.g. if Foobar-language Wikipedia receives dramatically lower health scores than the average, wouldn't that be a concrete, actionable finding? Absent that, one can only conclude things are - averaged over the entire globe - a little better or little worse than before, and that's pretty much it. GregorB (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply


Help for Wikipedia beginners. Zimbali Beyoncé (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Help for Wikipedia beginners?[edit]

Help for Wikipedia beginners? Zimbali Beyoncé (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply