Jump to content

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2015/Community consultation

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Tell us what you think[edit]

Help shape the future of the Wikimedia Foundation by clicking the button below. Your input is appreciated as we begin this process.

Please remember that all answers are publicly posted and that by submitting them here you are releasing them in the public domain,[1] so that we may use or release them for research or other purposes. Please do not provide private data here.

The questions to be answered are:

  1. What major trends would you identify in addition to mobile and the next billion users?
  2. Based on the future trends that you think are important, what would thriving and healthy Wikimedia projects look like?

In order to keep the discussion manageable sections will be archived when there has been no answer for 3 days (72 hours) or more. If the page gets especially large a section may be archived earlier if it appears that the discussion is complete or has moved to a different, related, section.

  1. (Comment/Discussion moved to #Public domain section)[edit]

Response by 06:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply'ın 1. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

...öncelikle site profilini daha eylenceli ve cocukların anlayabileceği şekilde düzenlemeli hem eğlenip hem öğrenmeye teşvik etmeli daha iyi bir arama motoru ve zengin haberlerin bulunduğu bir genel anasayfa ve tema artık temayı değiştirmelisisniz...

Machine translation; please improve: first site profile more enjoyable and should be organized in such a way that the child should be encouraged to understand both have fun learning değiştirmelisisniz a better search engine and a general index where the rich news theme and the theme now ...'ın 2. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

...wikimedia bir evren olmalı herkeze hitap etmeli forumlara ve yorumlara yer vermeli...

Machine translation; please improve: wikimedia should be a universe should appeal to everyone in forums and should give place to comment[edit]

Response by 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply'ın 1. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

Konu veya bilgi hakkında resim dışında videolar eklenebilir. Böylelikle okuyarak aynı zaman da izlenmiş olur ve bilgi zihinde daha kalıcı hale gelir. mvo''ın 2. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

Sadelik ve anlaşılır olması herkes için önemli olacaktır. Bu yüzden görünüşten çok bilgilerin güncel ve faydalı olması konusunda kafa yormak lazım. Yani 1. sorunun cevabı 2. sorunun da cevabı.[edit]

How to Response by 18:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply'ın 1. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

...buraya yaz...'ın 2. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

Görsel içeriklerin yanında videolar da kullanılabilir...[edit]

Response by 22:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply'ın 1. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

Hacı şimdi gündemi kaybetmemeniz lazım.Bunu da vikipedi olarak sizin düzenlemeniz ya da kontrol etmeniz lazım.Bilgiler güncel ve net tutulmalı.'ın 2. soru hakkındaki düşünceleri[edit]

Kendinizi hiç değiştirmenize gerek yok yeteri kadar iyisiniz zaten.1 mobil uygulama yapın bir de viki sözlük çıkartın olsun bitsin

Response by 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

نظر کاربر در مورد پرسش ۱[edit]

...در اینجا بنویسید... باتوجه به انکه اهمیت وقت و وقتشناسی که هرروز در کشور ها بیشتر میشود لازم است سایت کاملا مفید و تا حدی خلاصه باشد یا شاید بخشی خلاصه برای هر صفحه بطور جداگانه تهیه شود.

نظر کاربر در مورد پرسش ۲[edit]

...در اینجا بنویسید...

"We will report back to the community"[edit]

That report was promised in March. Could somebody add a pointer to that report please. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Responded on Philippe's talk page but responding here for others to see. Right now there is no report to link too but nudges have been sent to those responsible and I will try to ensure that someone (me or someone else) reports back when we have a better idea of timing. I imagine that changes within the foundation (such as the Engineering reorg caused the time line to be extended but I apologize for the lack of communication about that here. Jalexander--WMF 09:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that. A lot of volunteer time and effort went into the survey and it will be good to close the loop. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought I would just point out that over a month has passed since this discussion. It would be very much appreciated if the staff involved were to check in here to share their progress with the community: for example, by giving some indications as to when and where results will be published. Let me acknowledge the internal discussion at the Metrics meeting a few weeks ago: [1]
In the interim, on a related topic, I was told by the Executive Director today [2] that We are working on a draft that we intend to publish this quarter on improvements to our software process. Engineering management has an offsite specifically focused on that at the end of August. I am grateful to her for that information, which I thought would be of interest to anyone reading these pages. Is it going to be related to the results of this consultation? If so, please would a staff member update this project page with the date of the offsite, or, better, the last date by which community comments will be able to be considered at that meeting. It would also of course be much appreciated if when that draft is published, a link to it could be put on this project page, together with a link to the page where you will host community discussions. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Community Consultation on Strategy, WMF Metrics Meeting July 2015
At WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2015-07 there are "Results of the Community Strategy Consultation", but obviously nobody from WMF cared to "report back to the community" as promised above. Looking at the takeaways of this "Community Strategy Consultation", this was a waste of my time. --Atlasowa (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nevermind results, go to the next "consultation": Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign "Learning Campaign: What does a healthy community look like to you" "The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community." Has WMF never heard of "survey fatigue"? --Atlasowa (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand [3] that the report is being prepared by @Kgilbey (WMF): unfortunately nothing has been published to the community since I was given that information back in June. It so happens that I too have already asked about the Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign survey [4]:
It is important to say who is going to use the results of this survey, what they are going to be used for, and when. Please never say "we want to understand" whatever. It's what happens as a result that counts. A clear statement that says something like "The survey is being managed by this team, and will close on this date. That team will collate the result and publish a report on that date. Ideas which are easy to implement will be agreed and carried out by the other date. More far-reaching suggestions will be considered by such a team by such a date and form part of the plans for some later date". This will attract more participants, who are more likely to take part if they see a serious pathway to action in the planning, improve the quality of the suggestions, and make it possible for the community to hold to account those responsible for delivering the changes the community wants.
Those remarks apply to this consultation too of course. I find it surprising that a survey should be launched without those questions having been considered, especially in view of the Eecutive Director's remark [5] It did not have an expected outcome and a timeline (which projects should have) when referring to yet another survey that had not (and still has not) produced any public reports or demonstrated outcome. I think it is clear that WMF should not be spendinf donor money and volunteer time on yet another survey until it demonstrates that it is capable of deriving value from the results of the three at least that are still awaiting publication of any reports or demonstration of any action taken as a result. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I'm asking this in the wrong place, I'm getting a bit lost. On page 30 of Lila's presentation at Wikimania 2015 she mentions logged out users wanted 'Sharing & social integration', is there any more public information on on what people wanted in regards to this area?
Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Mrjohncummings: I believe that refers to ideas covered by 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous#Cite : Share : Export. HTH. :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Report published[edit]

The report has been published, with both the presentation and the blog post linked from the front of this page. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to see those, thank you. I now look forward to seeing how these results shape WMF strategy. For example, Rich Content is already mentioned under Innovation and I hope that the messages of the WMF Feedback section may help to promote action within the WMF towards more effective community engagement. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • "For discussion purposes, it is interesting to note that the Logged-in users may reflect a more Wikimedian-centric perspective." What does this mean?
  • "Use of templates simplified participation." This is only one possible explanation; the other is that registered users faced issues, presumably not technical.
--Nemo 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I believe that "Wikimedian-centric perspective" means that logged-in users are more focused on the use of the sites for "editing", rather than the use of the sites for "reading". (Both "reading" and "editing" in the preceding sentence need to be interpreted as broad and partly overlapping sets of activities.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Public domain or CC-BY-SA?[edit]

The page text currently says that submissions are public domain, the page footer and the editing interface contradict this and instead say that anything written here has to be dual licensed CC-BY-SA and GFDL. The difference is non trivial and at the heart of one of the areas of strategic dissonance between the Foundation and the Community. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

WSC, it is indeed public domain, or more precisely, all of the above. This was deliberately chosen as being easier for researchers to anonymize comments. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
That may have been the intent, but does that page text actually overright the footer and the rubric on the editing screen? I'd also question the logic behind this, Wikimedians like to have their work attributed, in my case I care little about individual typo fixes, a proposal on a strategy consultation is rather different. WereSpielChequers (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

CentralNotice investment[edit]

The CentralNotice banner run for two weeks targeting registered and unregistered users, per CentralNotice/Calendar/Archive#2015. According to [6] and [7], the base page got some 680k clicks, of which some 20k trickled to the talk page [8] [9] (compare Talk:2016 Strategy). --Nemo 12:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply