Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2016/Community consultation/Communities/Set 2

Chaddy

Response by Chaddy 03:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Chaddy auf die Hauptfrage

You should realize that we - the community - are the indispensable core of the project and hence treat us at eye level.

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

3

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

Geolina163

Response by Geolina163 11:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Geolina163 auf die Hauptfrage

2+3+6

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

...hier schreiben...

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

COMMUNIST YAŞAR

Democratic Communalism

İsmimi Kullanıcı adımı Yaşar olarak Gösterin

Gereon K.

Response by Gereon K. 11:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Gereon K.'s response to the critical question

There seems to be a major problem with transparency between WMF, its boards and the community. Before, actions like Superprotect did not help to build trust either. Openness and transparency improve collaboration with local communities. If there is no openness, accessability and transparency we won't have to think about all other efforts to strenghten communities. This has to come first.

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

Most important: Approach three.

Mandruss

Response by Mandruss 12:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss's response to the critical question

Step in and end mob rule. Require the enforcement of adult behavior or retirement, evenly applied, without exemption for combative high contributors. Accept the resulting loss of a certain number of editors, knowing that they will be eventually replaced twofold by better editors after the environment becomes less toxic.

Mandruss's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

1, 6, 5, in that order.

Hans50

Response by Hans50 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Hans50 auf die Hauptfrage

...Ansatz 1...

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

...Ansatz 2 und 3...

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

First Light

Response by First Light 12:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First Light's response to the critical question

This is the biggest problem on the English Wikipedia: lack of diversity in terms of gender and age, and too many long time editors who are allowed to behave rudely towards others. These two are related, since I believe the bad behavior here is skewed more towards young males. While this is only speculation, I think it's worth researching this question and finding out if it is true.

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

Approaches 1 and 4

Marcus Cyron

Response by Marcus Cyron 12:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Marcus Cyron auf die Hauptfrage

• Die Foundation hat überhaupt keine Ahnung und kein know-how in dieser frage. Überlasst das den regionalen und thematischen Gruppen, die ihrerseits vernünftig ausgestattet werden müssen.

• The foundation has absolutely no clue and no know-how in this regard. Leave it to the local or thematical groups, that should be sufficiently equipped.

Top 4 von Marcus Cyron

• Gebt den regionalen Organisationen Raum zum wachsen, statt sie wie in den letzten Jahren aktiv zu behindern. Nur vor Ort weiß man wirklich, was zu tun ist. Und lasst endlich die Frauen in Ruhe. Seit die WMF den Gender gap für sich entdeckt hat, werden es nicht mehr sondern weniger weibliche Autoren. Die kommen wenn dann von allein und dann, wenn man ihnen nicht so nachstellt. Zumal für den Inhalt ohnehin irrelevant ist, wer Inhalte beiträgt, da diese Beiträge aufgrund seriöser Quellen zu erfolgen haben. Beim Gender gap ist nicht das Geschlecht der nicht Beitragenden das Problem, sondern die Zahl von gut 50% potentieller Autoren.

• Give the local organisations room for growth, instead of stymiing them like in the last years. What's really necessary is only known locally. And leave the women alone. Since the WMF discovered the gender gap, there are not more but less female authors. They come, if they come, by themself, if you don't hound them. Especially as it's irrelevant for the content, who's delivering it, as these articles have to be based on reputable sources. The problem with the gender gap is not the gender of those who don't participate, but the number of about 50% potential authors.

Hi Marcus, on the subject of local organizations, our strategy has been over the last two years to make creation of organizations easier. In the last year we have doubled because of the rapid growth of user groups. I would have agree that the Gender Gap has not budged, but I would also say that we have not made as much effort as we could in that area. Representation of editors as you say is important, and we should not dismiss it, but rather identify root causes and solutions. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Lila, the CE teams have broken a sweat on the gender gap and I think they've done brilliant work in the last two years. This isn't just a WMF problem. This is a global problem. It will take sustained effort, but so many of the community facing teams have done great (and difficult!) work. AStillwell (WMF) (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC) (sorry wasn't signed in the first time)

Thank you for calling out the effort the Community Engagement team at WMF has put into moving the needle on the Gender Gap, AStillwell (WMF). I'd like to recognize the dedication and hard work that both new and veteran volunteers have put into narrowing the gender gap, by participating in the Inspire Campaign, collaborating on and upholding the Friendly Space Policies used on Meta and at movement events, and keeping discussions on this important challenge alive on mailing lists and talk pages. As LilaTretikov (WMF) points out, we do not have data yet to show how these efforts have affected the gender diversity among contributors. That said, as a grants officer I am seeing positive changes that would suggest we are moving in the right direction. I have seen this in the number of women who apply for grants, in comments on grant requests from committees and community members suggesting ways that programs could be more inclusive and in community members adopting friendly space policies in board meetings and beyond. The Gender Gap is a big challenge worthy of a sustained effort, and I look forward to the ways we will continue to work toward improving it. --KHarold (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής

Response by Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής 13:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's response to the critical question

Approach two, Approach three

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

You need to provide education for the new members about the rules of the community so they can be able to contribute in the best way and for a long time. I think a Wikimedia school, such as the one in Athens, would be a great asset to the Wikimedia community.

Kertraon

Response by Kertraon 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Kertraon à la question critique

• Multiplier les démonstrations et ateliers de contribution dans les lycées, les universités, les entreprises et associations, sur les marchés, les salons, les foires.
• Encourager les opérations de Wikilove. Encourager les remerciements, gratifiants pour les contributeurs : rendre le choix "remercier" plus visible, par exemple de couleur verte au lieu de bleu environnant. Faire des campagnes périodiques pour encourager le wikilove, la cordialité, et à utiliser les remerciements. Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation; please help improve.

Multiply contribution demonstrations and workshops in high schools, universities, companies and associations, markets, exhibitions, fairs. Encourage operations Wikilove. Encourage thanks, rewarding for contributors: make a choice "thank" more visible, eg green instead of blue surrounding. Make periodic campaigns to encourage wikilove, cordiality, and to use thanks. Regards,

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

• Approche 7: Vos idées. --> Encourager le wikilove, la cordialité, l'aménité, les remerciements.
• Approche 2: Créer et soutenir des programmes pour accroître la participation bénévole par la reconnaissance, un tutorat facilité et une re-mobilisation personnalisée.
  • --> Multiplier les démonstrations et ateliers de contribution dans les lycées, les universités, les entreprises et associations, sur les marchés, les salons, les foires, les musées, les bibliothèques.
  • Idée : dans les principales bibliothèques, financer un ou quelques postes réservés pour contribuer à Wikipédia.

Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation; please help improve.

* Approach 7: Your ideas. -> Encourage wikilove, cordiality, the amenity, acknowledgments.

* Approach 2: Create and support programs to increase voluntary participation by recognition, easier tutoring and personalized re-mobilization

**-> Increase the contribution of demonstrations and workshops in high schools, universities, companies and associations, markets, exhibitions, fairs, museums, libraries.

Idea: in major libraries, or fund a few positions reserved to contribute to Wikipedia.

Regards,

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Anarchyboy

Response by Anarchyboy 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyboy's response to the critical question

Making mediawiki more global is good! Not particularly concerned with 'growth,' more about reaching the community in question, which may often span language and geographic divisions.

Anarchyboy's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

I would guess approach four, sort of, and five. Not initiatives, per se, more key subjects, some of which may be timely. Having information available initially is a good jumping-off point to make good, useful pages. I'm imagining something like an auto-translation to take updated content on an e.g. Spanish language instance of a page and making it available as source material on the e.g. English version for cleanup, improved translation, and posting, so new information can percolate around more easily and quickly.

Amage9

Response by Amage9 14:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Amage9 à la question critique

...répondez ici...

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

...répondez ici... Lors des discussions sur un article ou débats sur l'admissibilité, pouvoir solliciter automatiquement l'avis d'un wikipedien compétent dans le domaine pour éviter les "fossoyeurs" et les intervenants hors sujet. La nouveauté étant la sollicitation automatique, actuellement on ne connait pas (je suis peut-être mal informé) les compétents du domaine.

Machine translation; please help improve.

During discussions on an article or discussions about eligibility, find away to automatically seek the advice of a competent Wikipedian in the area to avoid the "gravediggers" and irrelevant stakeholders. As novelty is the automatic load, currently we do not know (I may be misinformed) who have competences on that particular domain.

Hi @Amage9: this is an interesting idea. Would this work like chat? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Devopam

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

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

Approach five. It is difficult to encourage new editors to come on-board due to the learning curve involved. The more automation can be imbibed, the easier it will be for new users to adopt and adapt.

JoeHebda

Response by JoeHebda 14:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeHebda's response to the critical question

At Main page add a Welcome Editors block which can include content pointing to Welcoming Committee, Teahouse, Help Desk, Ref. Desk. Also mention Guild of copy editors and tip-of-the-day Tips library.

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

Approach six: Simplify policies and processes for building communities and wikis. When monitoring Teahouse, Help Desk, Ref. Desk, overall, there is a great need to direct new editors away from attempting new articles which are deleted (AfD). I'm certain this frustrates new editors and consumes time and resources for those monitoring for new content. IMO it would be a great value to place more emphasis on Community portal, especially the Opentask section (including SuggestBot) for improving existing articles.

My opinioni

"Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap to facilitate a safe, welcoming, and"

Our beloved WP is not a place for feminism. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1Goldberg (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge

Response by Ynanchu alp bilge 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

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

Наиболее предпочтительным решением было бы подход второй и третий.

Machine translation; please help improve.

The most preferred solution would be to approach the second and third.

Miniapolis

Response by Miniapolis 15:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

Approaches one, three and six.

Chielbuseyne

Response by Chielbuseyne 15:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Chielbuseyne's antwoord op de kritieke vraag

2

Chielbuseyne's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee)

6 5

Ga naar het volgende onderwerpsgebied (Kennis)

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick

Response by Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick 15:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick à la question critique

Mettre dehors des contributeurs qui parlent beaucoup et font beaucoup de bruit mais qui s'avèrent totalement improductifs du côté des articles. Une erreur colossale a été de laisser se développer sur Wikipédia une classe politique (et ça se retrouve dans plusieurs versions linguistiques) qu'on entend beaucoup trop au détriment des contributeurs qui travaillent réellement sur les articles. Celui qui est malheureusement mis en avant est celui qui se montre le plus au détriment de celui qui bosse le plus. Par ailleurs, un des maux dont souffre la communauté est l'immobilisme.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Put outside contributors who talk a lot and made a lot of noise but who prove totally unproductive side items. A colossal mistake was letting grow on Wikipedia a political class (and it is found in several language versions) we hear too much at the expense of contributors who actually work on the articles. Whoever is unfortunately put forward is one that shows the most detrimental to one who works the most. Furthermore, one of the ills of the community's inaction.

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick What do you think the WMF can do to help this issue?

Machine translation; please help improve.

Que pensez-vous du WMF peut faire pour aider cette question ?LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• Approches 4 & 5 : toutes les langues doivent être développées autour de données collectées/rassemblées dans Wikidata. Mettre ses données dans Wikidata doit être aussi valorisé que de mettre ses photos sur Commons. En centralisant toutes les données, on va avoir une meilleure vérification et une meilleure mise à jour tandis que les contributeurs-rédacteurs auront le champ libre pour rédiger les articles, ce qui apporte une plus-value nécessaire pour faire augmenter le nombre de lecteurs. Ça passe donc encore par des modèles communs, comme je l'expliquais dans ma précédente intervention.
• Approche 6 : toujours faire le plus simple possible. Wikipédia a un peu trop tendance à se bureaucratiser.
• Approche 7 : Wikipédia vient de fêter ses 15 ans, c'est l'occasion de tout repenser. Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse attirer des contributeurs par un quelconque moyen, ce sont les gens eux-mêmes qui décident de venir. À partir de là, il ne faut pas faire fuir les bonnes volontés puisque nous parlons de la future génération de contributeurs. Pour l'écart hommes-femmes, je ne me pose pas trop de question, je regarde le travail de la personne et non son sexe.

Machine translation; please help improve.

• Approaches 4 & 5: all languages ​​should be developed around data collected / gathered in Wikidata. Put its data in Wikidata should be as valued as putting photos on Commons. By centralizing all the data, we will have a better and better verification updated while contributing editors will have space to write articles, which brings added value needed to increase the number of readers. So it goes further by common patterns, as I explained in my previous intervention.
• Approach 6: always as simple as possible. Wikipedia has a little too tend to become bureaucratic.
• Approach 7: Wikipedia has just turned 15 years is the opportunity to rethink everything. I do not think we can attract contributors by any means, it is the people themselves who decide to come. From there, it should not scare away good will since we are talking about the next generation of contributors. For the gender gap, I do not ask myself too many questions, I look at the work of the person and not their gender.

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

TeriEmbrey

Response by TeriEmbrey 15:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

TeriEmbrey's response to the critical question

It would be really nice to see some dedicated Wikimedia Foundation staff travel across North America and South America to assist local non-profit organizations (including libraries) in hosting edit-a-thons and introducing communities to Wikipedia.

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

"Approach five: Improve automation tools to reduce manual work for managing content and projects" would really help small Wikiprojects, especially GLAMs, in contributing more to Wikipedia.

ONUnicorn

Response by ONUnicorn 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn's response to the critical question

Encouraging new editors the way the foundation encourages financial donors would be a big help, especially on the smaller projects. I don't know about other projects, but on en.wikipedia, the civility policy needs more teeth. Also, governmental censorship is a big problem on some language projects. The foundation needs to enable free speech on projects where governments are trying to throttle it.

Hello, User:ONUnicorn. :) Thanks for your feedback. Specifically, do you mean doing banner outreach for new contributors? Or did you have something else in mind? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See my response to the critical question on Reach. ONUnicorn (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Approaches one and six.

Gato Preto

Response by Gato Preto 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Gato Preto a la pregunta crítica

La respuesta a la pregunta crítica se resolveria con una mayor implementación en los capítulos nacionales, es decir, tener mayor organización en cada país y conseguir entrar en el universo educativo y de mayor o menor forma implementarlo gradualmente y crear un proyecto de integración de los proyectos Wikimedia en los centros educativos.

Machine translation; please help improve.

The wing answer critical questions would be resolved with further implementation at the national chapters, that is, have more organization in each country and get into the educational universe and of varying shape gradually implement and create an integration project of the Wikimedia projects in schools.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de Gato Preto (o comparte tu propia idea)

• Segundo enfoque;
• Cuarto enfoque;
• Primer enfoque.

Machine translation; please help improve.

• Second approach;
• Fourth approach;
• First approach

Ir a la próxima área temática (Conocimiento)

FNDE

Response by FNDE 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von FNDE auf die Hauptfrage

2, 5, 6

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

Die Hürden senken um neue Autoren zu gewinnen: bisher ist der Einstieg nicht ohne Weiteres möglich. Wikipedia muss massenkompatibel werden und nicht nur von technisch versierten Menschen nutzbar sein. Außerdem halte ich Projekte wie die "Teestube" für Anfänger sehr hilfreich.

Lower the hurdles to gain new authors: up to now the access is not self explanatory. Wikipedia must become mass compatible, and not only be usable by technically versed people. I think that projects like the "Teestube"" are very good for beginners.

FNDE Thank you. Could you please link to the project?

Vielen Dank. Könnten Sie bitte Link zu dem Projekt? LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@LilaTretikov (WMF): Wikipedia:Teestube (closed at the moment due to restructuring/redevelopment works) --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Alarichall

Response by Alarichall 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Alarichall's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

1 (top), 6 (second most important)

PalaciosBertolot

Response by PalaciosBertolot 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de PalaciosBertolot a la pregunta crítica

Que el acceso a la comunicación con wikipedistas experimentados sea mas amigable y que no de la impresión de ser de constante censura, sin detrimento de la labor de vigilancia permanente que realizan.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Access to communication with experienced Wikipedians be more friendly and not give the impression of constant censorship, without detriment to the work of permanent surveillance they carried out.

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

Mejores opciones: La 05 y la 06.

Ir a la próxima área temática (Conocimiento)

Mostapha ali

3.2.4.5

Dmitry Dzhagarov

Response by Dmitry Dzhagarov 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Dzhagarov — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

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

...пишите здесь…Подход пятый

Machine translation; please help improve.

Approach 5

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

MurielMary

Response by MurielMary 19:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

Approach 1, definitely. There needs to be more encouragement for editors of under-represented groups, such as women and non-white ethnic groups. This could be done through face-to-face events led by institutions or community groups to encourage people to learn how to edit and then to write/edit on areas of interest to them. Also, once people are editing there needs to be greater understanding and support for the need to diversify the writing on WP. Frequently articles on women, for example, are tagged for deletion as "non-notable" and a strong discussion takes place to have the article kept because the nominator wasn't thinking about how "notable" for women might be different for "notable" for men (e.g. notable for being a pioneer woman in a new country, building a community focus in a pioneer environment - I've seen an editor comment "but she was just there along with her husband").

SageRad

Response by SageRad 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad's response to the critical question

Create a better editing environment, with no bullying or harassment. Enforce civility and foster integrity.

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

Approach one is important, but it's not only gender but general harassment and bullying that needs to end, and mechanisms of enforcement need to ensure integrity instead of the opposite as they often do right now.

Imeriki al-Shimoni

Response by Imeriki al-Shimoni 19:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Imeriki al-Shimoni's response to the critical question

I believe we can improve things a little by making guideline pages (such as WP:MOS) easier to find and browse for new editors. I would guess most new users are unaware they even exist until someone points it out to them in a Talk page, if they ever visit a Talk page. New users are also likely to not be sure how to even begin editing, thus may be "scared away" just by frustration (someone who has never seen before in their life, in any form, the inside of a car may want to drive one, but put them inside, and them not knowing where to begin, how to even start or operate it, would cause many to shy away and never try again). Some approach that would make it easier for less web-tech-savvy users (many older academics, for example) to learn how to contribute would be helpful.

Imeriki al-Shimoni's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

No other opinion at this moment.

Don-kun

Response by Don-kun 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Don-kun auf die Hauptfrage

Die Struktur und das Handeln der Organisationen sollten gegenüber den Communities offen und transparent sein und Feedback bei den Freiwilligen gesucht und ernstgenommen werden, ohne aufdringlich zu sein. Die Communities sollten technisch und organisatorisch unterstützt werden, dies innerhalb und gegenüber neuen Mitarbeitern ebenso umsetzen zu können. Außerdem sind Angebote an die Communities wichtig, die ihnen beim Beitragen zu den Projekten oder bei Kommunikationen mit Außenstehenden helfen (geschieht auch schon viel).

Machine translation; please help improve.

The structure and the actions of the organizations should respect to the communities to be open and transparent, and feedback be sought and taken seriously in the volunteers, without being intrusive. The communities should be supported technically and organizationally, to implement this within and to new employees as well. In addition, offers to the communities are important to help them contribute to the projects or in communications with outsiders (happens a lot).

Moin Don-kun, ich waere dankbar, wenn du bei den von dir angedachten Angeboten konkrete Beispiele - sowohl fuer bereits stattfindende als auch erstrebenswerte - nennen koenntest. Das wuerde die Evaluierung des Punktes deutlich erleichtern :) Gruss und Dank, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Schwierig, da das ein großes Feld ist und ich auch nicht jede Art des Beitragens und jedes Projekt kenne, daher auch nicht jede mögliche oder gewünschte Unterstützung kennen kann ;) Sehr gut, motivierend und förderlich für die Mitarbeit finde ich das Literaturstipendium oder die Unterstützungen für Fotoprojekte oder Wettbewerben. Schon kleine Dankeschöns kommen gut an. Vielleicht nichts direkt für die Foundation, aber etwas wozu Wissenstransfer zwischen den Chaptern stattfinden sollte, und das kann die Foundation unterstützen. Unterstützung dabei, an Institutionen zu gehen oder Workshops für Interessierte zu geben könnte es vielleicht noch mehr geben. Aber dafür braucht es auch immer die Gelegenheiten. Vielleicht ist da schon sehr der Wille da, aber noch kein Weg gefunden (bei Chaptern und Foundation). Bei Transparenz und Offenheit ist es sehr schwer, einen konkreten Vorschlag zu machen. Einiges scheint auf einem guten Weg zu sein. Der Konflikt um die Board-Besetzung ist ein Negativ-Beispiel. Ein Governance-Review auch in Hinsicht auf die Transparenz und Nachvollziehbarkeit der Entscheidungen könnte helfen? Bezüglich Offenheit der Communities können technische Entwicklungen oder organisatorische Unterstützung beim Finden neuer Konfliktlösungsmechanismen (oder ganz konkret von Konfliktlösung und Problembehandlung bei pers. Treffen wie in Deutschland schon teils praktiziert) helfen. Hier sind beim zweiten auch eher die Chapter gefragt. Wichtig ist bei beidem, dass die Initiative von der Community kommen sollte oder eine Initiative der Foundation in früher Phase in die Community getragen werden. Fast fertige Produkte der Community anbieten hat schon oft in Konflikte und zu Frustration geführt. Andersherum kann auch nicht jeder Freiwillige ständig mit den neuesten Ideen der Foundation belästigt werden, wenn er sich doch mit dem Wissens-Projekt (welchem auch immer) widmen will. Das Feuer muss aus der Community kommen oder sich in ihr entzünden - sonst wirds nicht. --Don-kun (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Don-kun. Die Beispiele und Bewertungen machen die Einordnung deutlich effektiver :) Gruss und Dank, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

2, 3 und 5

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

Pengo

Response by Pengo 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pengo's response to the critical question

• Unite communities. Reduce the number of places to talk. Say I'm looking for some quick feedback on the new article I made which lists critically endangered mammals, where do I go? Where's the community? WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Tree of Life, WikiProject Animals, one of the numerous village pump pages, the taxobox template talk page? #wikipedia-en on IRC? a mailing list? In Ideas Labs' New ideas? Where's the community? I haven't found a Wikipedia community in any of these places. There's just ghost towns where no one posts, or they're places for very specific requests. What if I just wanted to say hi and introduce myself and talk about my interest in threatened mammals? Am I meant to start a new WikiProject just to do that? Are you just going to create tools to make more of these ghost town "communities"? Why? Wiktionary (en) has just five "discussion rooms" and no WikiProjects or mailing lists and they have a much stronger community for it. For one you don't spend as much time trying to find the wrong place to post your comment, and your comments are much less likely to go ignored or unnoticed. Important in a community.

• Stop treating all comments equally. Say 100 people read through every comment here. Will that make it any easier for the next 100 people to find the insightful, interesting or useful comments? Not at all. There's a "Thank" action you could dig through the history to use, but even "publicly" thanking users for their comments through the wiki software doesn't help anyone else find those comments. I created the "Resolved" template in 2006 to help users identify at a glace which threads didn't need to be read over again, but a community needs to be built from many small actions, not monolithic statements of fact. There also needs to be a template for "10 people think this comment or thread is worthy of attention". That will never happen here because wiki software is absolutely the wrong solution for discussion threads and community participation. We've tried to make it work for 10 years and it has failed.

• Stop using a wiki for comment threads. Some things that are awful about comment pages: users must manage comment threads, do their own indenting and de-indenting-where-there's-too-much-indenting, keep track of which bits they have any haven't read is awful, and decide whether to reply directly to someone or post their comment at the end of a thread because no one will find their addition if it's in the middle. It's 2016. Time to retire this awful, awful hack and start using a non-wiki solution for discussion. Any conversation that goes for more than a page is absolutely awful to attempt to reply to or keep track of or even to read. Without fixing how communication works on Wikimedia you cannot fix anything that relies on communication.

• Where's the community for people who read Wikipedia, but don't (yet) edit? There's a huge Wikipedia community on reddit: /r/wikipedia (144,354 subscribers). Just people sharing interesting pages. But there isn't anything like that on Wikipedia itself. Here you have to be editing or at least asking questions to be part of the community. If you want to bring people into the community, give a way for people join it while they're still just readers. Right now there's no practical reason even to sign up for an account unless you're actually editing. Dedicate more space on front pages to what readers say they're interested in instead of what editors think they should be interested in and get readers participating with small actions such as publicly "liking" or "sharing" a page. ("Add page to a watchlist so I can log in later and find out if any punctuation got changed" is not a useful function for most readers and does not help foster community in any way)

Pengo's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

• 5: Improve automation tools, or rather make them unnecessary: Scrap the wiki concept on talk pages and use software that doesn't need automated bots to clean up and archive the mess of wikitext that is talk pages. Maybe you could even notify users of a new comment in a thread they participated in? How incredible would that be in 2016?
• 7: Reduce community entry points. Don't make users spend time searching for an active, relevant community before they can say anything. If you used real forum software you could even move posts between forums without causing mess and confusion.
• 7: Wiki talk pages are a failed experiment. All the bots and templates and hacks and "thank" plugins in the world aren't going to make them better means of communication. Let them go already.
• 7: Stop asking users for these endless comments and go do measurements yourselves. Have some leadership. These community outreach attempts are blackholes for ideas. 75 comments and hardly anyone has discussed anything anyone else has said. This isn't a "discussion" page, it's a dumping ground.
• 7: Create communities for readers, not just editors. Create a space where readers can simply say, "hey, I found this interesting."

Wikimpan

Response by Wikimpan 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimpan's response to the critical question

Wikimedia projects have a great documentation, but it is not easy to find. First of all: it requires searching, and people generally don’t like doing this. The path between “I want to do X” and the page that describes X should be shortened somehow, and the page itself should first describe things in possibly simple and quick way, and only then — later — get into the details. Currently this path is way too long for most users.

The issue also applies to the policies. They’re starting to be too extensive and to hard to grasp by the new users.

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

Own idea: promote, among academic staff, editing Wikipedia by students to get better grades. This could also increase quality of the articles, if students’ work will be checked.

Approach 6, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Approach 1 is important for some cases. While my cooperation with english Wikimedia project is flawless, I’ve nearly gave up editing the polish edition, as it has become — in my view — a tiny circle of editors that tend to control every aspect of how things should look like, and use their powers (on PL Wiki edits have to be checked by the privileged users before publication) to enforce it. This is completly against the original “be bold” and evolutionary approach.

Zedshort

Response by Zedshort 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zedshort's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

The community of WP editors has been winnowed down to two populations that in their extreme can be described as either Morlock or Eloi. The Morlock I characterize as thick-skinned, aggressive, territorial, conceited, vain, arrogant, highly tenacious, rule-quoters, with whom one cannot work. The Eloi are the polar opposite and are easily discouraged by the Morlock. As we all know, Morlock eat Eloi. Over the years, the very long process of winnowing the population of editors has resulted in a very large fraction of the remaining editors falling into the category of Morlock, while the very people you believe are missing from these projects, are the ones that have been chased away. To put it bluntly, the Morlock tend to be young, technologically arrogant males. It isn't that you don't need such people, it is just that such people should not rule the roost. At present, the population is not diverse enough to be healthy.

We need to draw in more mature, responsible and cooperative people. Simply by having a great many eyes on the project and the process we can keep WP alive, healthy and growing. I have made the suggestion of an “Ask a question, get and answer” feature that would draw in a large body of educators that would improve the WP population demographics. By dint of the fact that those new people would be watching what goes on here, they would act to moderate the behavior of the more aggressive. Zedshort (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Zedshort. I like your descriptive language. Really striking. :) In terms of your "Ask a question, get an answer" feature - can you link me to where that's described or perhaps describe it a little bit more? How does it differ from the RefDesk, for instance? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You will find my proposal stashed on my talk page on WP:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zedshort. I submitted it once on the Village Pump Proposals, only to have it panned by a very few, very negative and rather scatter-brained people. Thanks. Zedshort (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I find the idea intriguing and a way for people to exchange knowledge in other ways than strictly articles. Engaging, "sharing in" knowledge can take many forms. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this is all about education. At present, WP (which I think of as at the core of this endeavor) is almost sufficient for those capable of self-education. However, the fraction of people capable of self-education is small. The next step would be education facilitated via other people attempting to answer questions. If you have a clear view of your purpose and the boldness to take the next step then the future is wide open. Zedshort (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Worlddreamer

Response by Worlddreamer 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Worlddreamer's response to the critical question

...write here… Approach 2, 6, and 5. This question sounds like you're unsure what your community is. Or maybe the question is unclear to me because I'm not a part of the community your discussing. Obviously, your community must have many brilliant people but if you want to sustain yourself past this generation you'll have to reach more everyday people and their children as well.

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

...write here…

Sanglahi86

Response by Sanglahi86 20:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanglahi86's response to the critical question

Even the support and/or report abuse pages appear to have a very staid atmosphere. There should be a focus on making these pages a little bit more welcoming/hospitable to users.

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

• Approach two: Create and support programs to increase volunteer participation such as recognition, facilitated mentorship, and personalized re-engagement.
• Approach one: Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap to facilitate a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment for contributors and editors.
• Approach six: Simplify policies and processes for building communities and wikis.

ArthurPSmith

Response by ArthurPSmith 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith's response to the critical question

Greater transparency and better communication; recognize community's that do things well; have a process for reforming communities that don't.

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

Approach 2 and 3.

Seagull123

Response by Seagull123 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seagull123's response to the critical question

One way the Foundation could do this is by maybe assigning one WMF editor/employee (I don't know the ins and outs of the WMF's structure) to each project/project language (e.g. English Wikipedia, French Wikinews, Swedish Wikivoyage, etc.) to be a sort of partner/mentor/ambassador sort of thing to help the projects a bit more. What I mean is, that these "ambassadors" would build relationships with experienced editors and would be able to be approachable by new editors, they would also be able to weigh in on important community discussions to help explain/discuss what the WMF's position is on things and what the WMF could do about these discussions. This would make sure that smaller projects don't feel left out or forgotten about by the Foundation, or that they only concentrate on English Wikipedia, possibly stopping loss of editors and encouraging new editors to contribute more regularly (as they will feel that they're being welcomed by the Foundation itself if a WMF editor/employee is there to help them).

One of our big challenges is size. With nearly 900 Wikis we have to pick and choose where we can deploy resources, so natural gravity takes us to large Wikis. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Approaches 1, 5 and 6. (I would suggest approach 2, but I'm not sure what recognition, facilitated mentorship, and personalized re-engagement are - maybe that itself comes under approach 6 of simplifying "policies and processes"). I do think that approach 6 is important as complicated policies, shortcut codes (WP:OR or WP:GNG on English Wikipedia) and complicated processes could easily make new editors confused and possibly make them feel like they're forced to leave. So if there was a deletion discussion on a page on Wikipedia that a new editor had an opinion on, but after reading all the policies, they may feel like they may not know enough to contribute to the discussion or feel like they may get something wrong if they contribute, so they may just ignore the discussion and hope it goes their way or leave that project altogether as they may think that all of Wikipedia is that complicated.

Johnragla

Response by Johnragla 22:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnragla's response to the critical question

1 & 2

Johnragla's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

Ryan Hodnett

Response by Ryan Hodnett 00:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• Approach six
• Approach one
• Approach three

G41rn8

Response by G41rn8 00:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

5

JoshuaKGarner

Response by JoshuaKGarner 02:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

JoshuaKGarner's response to the critical question

Make people want to edit pages. Idealistic things like a 50/50 gender ratio are useless if nobody is actually making edits. Perhaps reach out more to multi-lingual speakers and ask for assistance in cross-translation of pages.

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

Approach seven: make better editing tools. People have been asking for this for years. I support approach two in theory, but it is incredibly vague.

Knxwrtr

Response by Knxwrtr 03:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Knxwrtr's response to the critical question

I'm constantly surprised by the lack of communication. Someone will ask a question on a Talk page and it is never answered. There has to be a way to direct people to have their questions answered.

Hello, User: Knxwrtr. :) Are you talking about questions for the Wikimedia Foundation or in general - for instance, questions on the talk page of an article? :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Two, three, five and six.

Missimack

Response by Missimack 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Missimack's response to the critical question

The single most important thing the Wikimedia Foundation can do to improve our communities is to actually listen to the contributors. Not pretend to listen and then do what they want, with no transparency and no accountability. Not become a corporation that doesn't understand the role of each Wikimedia project, or of its contributors. The Wikimedia Foundation should be helping and encouraging contributors, and the best way to do that is by listening to them. The last thing it should do is continue to sell its board of management off to corporations, trustee by trustee.

Missimack's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach one: this one is obvious really.

Approach two: mentoring and teaching best practices should be favoured over heavy-handed punishment.

Approach six: current policies and processes can be very daunting to newcomers. Simplify them and make them more accessible.

Zoeannl

Response by Zoeannl 05:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Zoeannl's response to the critical question

One: Though this is worded backwards. It should say Create a safe, welcoming environment to reduce harassment and gender imbalance. Overhaul Help-Help is not friendly. Look at Distributed Proofreaders on how to upskill and support the non-technical novice.

Zoeannl's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

+ Two + Three + Six:

Use Wikisource as a starting platform for Wiki skills, an introduction to wiki editing for the non-technical. Learning to edit is a high learning curve for many in itself, Wikisource provides the content so people can learn to edit before taking on the challenge of providing content. This supports engagement of non-digital natives: women, older folk, "poorer" people etc. are over-represented in this group. Engagement is self-driven, topic based, information seeking, enables familiarisation with wiki-ways while reading or creating texts.

This requires an over-haul of Help systems. As above—look at DP.

Brainstorm ideas on creative wikifying; Encourage/push links between communities; More guidelines on and support for annotation, translation and creation of texts from WS texts. Enrich the WS experience.

+ Four

Align Wikisource with Project Gutenberg/Distributed Proofreaders so proofreaders can transfer easily between them. Wikisource needs more proofreaders who would learn Wiki-skills that could feed into other communities. Distributed Proofreaders need more "Post-processors"-proofreaders can become more technically savvy through working at Wikisource, providing the confidence to try PPing at DP. DP has better processes for learning the basics of proofreading; WS is better for learning things like image processing, project management, bots and stuff (I'm still learning)

Align WS systems and processes, jargon, and Help with DP.

Direct copying from Project Gutenberg is embarrassing, and generally unproductive. Push to convert these texts to scan-based.

Ядерный Трамвай

Response by Ядерный Трамвай 06:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ядерный Трамвай — ответ на насущные вопросы

Ратую за параллельную работу по повышению привлекательности статуса человека, пишущего в проектах ВМ. Сейчас это довольно легко сделать неискушённому человеку (хотя нет предела совершенству). Но мотивация…

В общем, популяризация проектов в обществе, создание образа википедиста. Можно создать какое-нибудь СМИ, говорящее, чего достигла Википедия и другие проекты, истории успеха и так далее. Наверняка это и так уже есть, но вот… я и многие другие не знают.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Plead for parallel operation to increase the attractiveness of the status of the person writing projects VM. Now it is pretty easy to make an inexperienced person (although there is no limit to perfection). But the motivation ... In general, promotion of projects in the community, creating an image of Wikipedians. You can create some media saying what reached Wikipedia and other projects, success stories and so on. Surely it is already there, but ... I and many others do not know.

• Еще бы охоту писать не отбивали удалисты статей, которые сами их не пишут и много вреднее вандалов--1Goldberg (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation; please help improve.

• Still hunting repulsed udalisty not write articles that they themselves do not write a lot more harmful vandals

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

Опять выберу пятый вариант. Сейчас я вижу полезную информацию, но очень трудно её добавить в статью. Если будет возможность упростить этот процесс технически, будет хорошо. И первый вариант (опять же), частично. Нужно упростить порядок взаимодействия участников в сообществе. Например, мою правку откатили. Раньше я об этом мог узнать, только зайдя в соответствующие журналы. Сейчас, кажется, у меня будет уведомление сверху. Хорошее начало.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Again, I choose the fifth option. Now I see useful information, but it is very difficult to add to the article. If it is possible to simplify the process technically, it will be fine. Both the first embodiment (again) partially. It is necessary to simplify the procedure of interaction between the participants in the community. For example, my editing kickbacks. Before I could find out about it, only going to the appropriate journals. Now, it seems, I will notice above. A good start.

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Ajpolino

Response by Ajpolino 07:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ajpolino's response to the critical question

Sometimes there seems to be a great divide between the experienced editors and the newbies. I think a focus on attracting more newbies, and then convincing more to stay would help to attract a wider diversity of editors and opinions.

Ajpolino's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach 3! It's often challenging to keep track of things across various Wikimedia projects. They're unnecessarily separated! Approach 2. Increased volunteer participation and recruitment should be a major push of any organization like ours that relies almost entirely on volunteer contributions.

QuixoticLife

Response by QuixoticLife 08:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

QuixoticLife's response to the critical question

Be willing to go to the mat for people who are being harassed/abused in the community. Make it clear the project cares about inclusivity of all people even at the expense of the comfort of some. Also see my response below.

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

One. #1 all the way. Far down the list maybe #2 and #4, but #1 has to be the absolute top priority if Wikimedia isn't going to be consumed by Gamer Gate–style harassment on a regular basis -- driving home the point that Wikimedia projects aren't safe spaces and that the organization/board/admins have no desire to make it so. Don't let that continue to be the narrative. Lots of open-source software projects are making concrete steps like integrating Codes of Conduct, providing new mechanisms for reporting abuse, hiring diversity trainers, and collecting and disclosing diversity data. Wikimedia should be a part of that new, necessary, humane push for inclusion.

Jobrjobr

Response by Jobrjobr 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jobrjobr's response to the critical question

Approach one and Approach six.

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

...write here…

Tbranch1527

Response by Tbranch1527 11:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Tbranch1527's response to the critical question

Make Wikipedia content very easy and "User-Friendly" to be shared on social media networks for targeting community growth and participation.

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

I think Approaches one(1), two(2) and five(5) would most benefit the growth and diversity of Wikipedia within many individual communities and social groups.

Wlg3616

Response by Wlg3616 11:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wlg3616's response to the critical question

...write here…Approach four and six

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

...write here…

DJSupreme23

Response by DJSupreme23 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DJSupreme23's response to the critical question

It is not that the comunities are unwelcoming; it is they are demanding on time and engagement from people that are mostly already very busy in the everyday, and people either don't engage, or they fall out in short order.

As for the supposed the gender gap, this is agenda-pushing notion which assumes and results in default perceptions of marginalization (where there is none) and will thus twist WP policy.

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

+2 , +5

Juandev

Response by Juandev 11:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Juandev's response to the critical question

...Open projects to other motivation types of people, such as sociable and discovery groups. Sociable people would enjoy possibilities to socialize. This could be done by creating new wikiproject connected to others, where a user can live his wikisocial online life (i.e. to have his presentation there, run blog, chat with othere, have discussions etc.). Discovery people are motivated by the possibility to study something, so the program edit and study or edit and earn course may work.

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

...2

Sophie Graubert

Response by Sophie Graubert 12:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sophie Graubert à la question critique

...répondez ici... 2 3 1

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

...répondez ici...

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Happy Attack Dog

Response by Happy Attack Dog 14:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

...Make pages for policies that explain them in simple terms, in order to not overwhelm new users. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sargolin

Response by Sargolin 15:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sargolin à la question critique

...répondez ici...2-3-4

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

...répondez ici...

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Luke081515

Response by Luke081515 15:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Luke081515 auf die Hauptfrage

Am wichtigsten ist es, das die Beziehung WMF zu community stimmt, von der Betreiberseite. Danach sollte dann schritte wie Ansatz eins verfolgt werden.

It's most important, that the WMF's understanding of and relationship with the community is sound. After that steps like approach 1 should be followed.

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

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

Andgy

Response by Andgy 16:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Andgy — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

Andgy — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

...пишите здесь… подходы первый,второй и шестой

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Jc3s5h

Response by Jc3s5h 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jc3s5h's response to the critical question

...The best editors are rigorous about the quality of articles. We should be welcoming to those who want to improve content, but should not lose sight of the fact that some have a different agenda.

Jc3s5h's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...Two and three.

Llywrch

Response by Llywrch 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch's response to the critical question

Honestly, until the Foundation can put its own house into order & restored trust with the communities of volunteers I believe it's best contribution to Wikimedia communities is one of benign neglect. Campaigns to reduce harassment or increase participation by women, minorities, the Global South, etc. etc., have only succeeded in alienating established volunteers & demonstrating the Foundation's incompetence.

Further, the Foundation has time & again demonstrated an inability to constructively interact with the Wikipedia communities. Its mishandling of the Visual Editor fiasco, conflict with the German Wikipedia over Superprotect, controversial hirings & firing of Foundation Trustees then failing to swiftly & intelligently explain the reasons for those personnel changes -- these actions & others have served only to sour the relationship between the volunteers & the paid staff. Obviously changes must be made, but before these changes happen meaningful communication between the two groups must be established. Or the entire movement will dissolve.

P.S. Stop thinking like a high-tech startup would be a good first step.

Louis-garden

Response by Louis-garden 17:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Louis-garden à la question critique

2

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

...répondez ici...

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Joe Sewell

Response by Joe Sewell 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Joe Sewell's response to the critical question

Wikipedia has moved from acknowledging contributions to condemning legitimate edits and articles that are similar to existing ones. If there is any sense of "consensus" around, it does not show up in public areas. Editors are not treated equally. For example, one article was written that was similar to another one. The latter one had no banners or issues noted. The new one, though, attracted the attention of a "project," which didn't just edit it mercilessly (as one should expect), but criticized the very creation of the article in its Talk page and through warning banners. When the similar article was pointed out, the project representative merely said that he hadn't gotten around to it yet (even though it had been created several years prior). This tells editors of all kinds that we are no longer welcome here.

A similar discouraging act occurred when I tried to modify the format of an article to look better in the Wikipedia iOS app. The edit was rejected, claiming that it did not fix anything. I didn't even bother to argue, but decided to ignore any and all proofreading from now on.

Joe Sewell's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

1 (though I don't see a "gender gap"), 3, 6.

Gorvzavodru

Response by Gorvzavodru 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Подход первый снижать количество личных нападок, чтобы сделать рабочую среду для вкладчиков и редакторов более безопасной, доброжелательной и благоприятной.

[First approach]

Machine translation; please help improve.

First approach to reduce the number of personal attacks to make the working environment for contributors and editors more secure, friendly and supportive.

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Ing. Garin

Response by Ing. Garin 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ing. Garin's response to the critical question

2

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

5-3

Stilfehler

Response by Stilfehler 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Stilfehler auf die Hauptfrage

I think the gender gap is a humongous issue that is really overdue being tackled. I have been contributing for more than 10 years and haven't seen the slightest improvement there. Females who try to introduce female interest topics are frequently subjected to attempts of article deletion, by a male crowd who doubts the relevance of such topics. Entire subject areas (such as pedagogics, textiles, fashion, design) are tremendously underrepresented, often obviously due to a lack of qualified female contributers.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Stilfehler

One.

I have 2 ideas that I think may help to close the gender gap:

• I feel there are no considerations going on whatsoever about the visual appearance of WP, for example the main pages. The design is nerdy and appeals primarily to males, notably to IT interested males. Please involve some experts in the design who know a thing or two about impressions that a web site makes on the general public, like by design choices.
• Females love, as we all know, to work in networks rather than solitary. I would love to see tools in WP that make it possible (or much easier) for users of all sexes to congregate in virtual teams or groups (with interest in particular subjects) which would serve as a social base from which especially female contributers could work in a warmer, less anonymous, more social environment and with more confidence.

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

LovelyLillith

Response by LovelyLillith 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

LovelyLillith's response to the critical question

I think we need to get beyond online and implement more "ambassadors" into the real world. Have more meetups, work directly with schools/youth groups to introduce them to Wiki and help them develop a love for the various groups and projects. Perhaps reaching out to Girl Scouts, photography groups, women's groups, artist collectives, programmers, or other special interest groups would be good? You only keep passionate about what you know firsthand, and most people only know Wiki as a place to go for an answer to a question, not as an opportunity to contribute. If they perceive Wiki as being a safe place to be yourself, as anonymously as desired while online, it can grow as people express their interests here. More Wiknics, Editathons and meetups where people can bring a friend to a museum or other place and contribute would be great bridges to be truly social.

I've not experienced sexual or other harassment directed at me personally, but I have seen male editors scoff at the idea of underrepresentation of women's topics and historical figures. 16% representation in articles about woman is a very sad state of affairs, particularly when a portion of editors just don't get that it is a problem. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Approach one, three and five

RonnieV

Response by RonnieV 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RonnieV's antwoord op de kritieke vraag

Essentieel is dat de huidige gebruikers gaan inzien dat Wikipedia niet 'hun' project is, maar dat Wikipedia een project is van alle generaties en van alle mensen. Hetgeen iedereen heeft bijgedragen is geweldig, maar soms moet je constateren dat je eigen houdbaarheid verstreken is. Vaak blijkt dat uit een grote aanwezigheid buiten de hoofdnaamruimte en een zeer conservatieve houding ten opzichte van wat er momenteel in de Wikipedia aanwezig is. Laat dingen los en geef een nieuwe generatie de kans om verder te werken aan het project. Wil je niet loslaten, zorg dan in ieder geval dat je nieuwkomers op een enthousiastmerende wijze ontvangt en ze zo veel mogelijk begeleidt om beter bij te dragen aan Wikipedia, zonder een veto uit te spreken over nieuwe ontwikkelingen, nieuwe inzichten, nieuwe inhoud.

Machine translation; please help improve.

It is essential that current users to understand that Wikipedia is not "their" project, but that Wikipedia is a project of all generations and of all people. What anyone has contributed is great, but sometimes you observe that your own shelf life expired. Often, a large presence outside the main namespace and a very conservative attitude to what is currently in the Wikipedia site. Let go of things and give a new generation the chance to continue working on the project. Will not you let go, make sure in any case that you receive newcomers an enthusing way and guide them as much as possible in order to better contribute to Wikipedia, without a veto from speaking about new developments, new insights, new content.

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

Belangrijk is dat iedereen zich veilig voelt om aan Wikipedia bij te dragen en dat iedereen die het enigszins in zich heeft aangemoedigd wordt om dat te doen. Benadering een is dan ook belangrijk in mijn ogen. Technische hulpmiddelen (Benadering vijf) kunnen een aanwinst zijn, als ze enerzijds laagdrempelig zijn, anderzijds de gemeenschap hiervoor open staat. Momenteel is het (deels) vullen van pagina's uit Wikidata nog een groot taboe op een deel van de wiki's. Het is dan ook belangrijk om met de gemeenschappen in gesprek te gaan en te kijken hoe we dit kunnen wegnemen, voordat er meer energie gestoken wordt in andere hulpmiddelen.

Machine translation; please help improve.

It is important that everyone feels safe to contribute to Wikipedia and that anyone who is somewhat encouraged in them to do that. Approach a is important in my eyes. Technical aids ( Approach five ) can be an asset, as they both are easily accessible, on the other hand, the community is open to it. Currently, the (partially) filling pages from Wikidata still a big taboo on part of the wikis. It is important to engage with communities and see how we can take this away before more energy is put into other tools.

Ga naar het volgende onderwerpsgebied (Kennis)

VexorAbVikipædia

Response by VexorAbVikipædia 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

VexorAbVikipædia's response to the critical question

You have a tough problem here. With over 5 million articles in English Wikipedia, there aren't too many subjects remaining where an ordinary person can make a substantial contribution. Many of the present articles are poorly sourced. And I doubt that most people would want to do the boring drudgery of sourcing articles. (Sort of like volunteering to do a term paper.)

What you need is: (1) to inform people of what's needed. If someone visits an article on "Tulips", you might add a link in the border stating something like: "Do you know something about horticulture? Maybe you'd like to help with articles on these subjects. [Click here]" ; (2) to produce a simple, short video on how to edit an article. How to add an in-line citation. What qualifies as a good source. Show an actor creating an article from scratch, or uploading an image or video to Wiki Commons, etc. And spread the video around — say, to YouTube and elsewhere. You guys at Wikipedia make poor use of the Internet's resources.

The idea of any "community" is futile. Most of your edits are done by individuals working alone, not as part of any real community. If such communities even exist, you do a lousy job of advertising them.

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

Approach two Approach five Approach three

Ambrosia10

Response by Ambrosia10 04:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambrosia10's response to the critical question

• Approach one
• Approach two

I whole heartedly support the use of editathons to create and assist an increase in volunteer participation. I am biased as that is why and how I first started editing but I do think more proactive support of editathons by the Wikimedia Foundation would help create a support network for those editors starting out and can also supply a network to assist should editors come up against harassment and other such negative engagement.

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

...write here…

Tibo Nova

Response by Tibo Nova 05:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tibo Nova's response to the critical question

Wikipedia must show that editing and engaging with content is fun (or it can be at least). Younger people see a lot of characters, no interactions, no immediately rewards. They accustomed a world where they just upload a kitten and get dozens of likes and comments instantly. Editing and waiting for acceptance (from unknowns) is another world. It will be a hard match.

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

In decreasing order: 2, 1, 5

Yngvadottir

Response by Yngvadottir 07:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's response to the critical question

Pretty much the opposite of what you have been doing. The WMF's ill-informed and condescending intervention has done significant harm to the maintenance of respectful and attentive cooperation between disparate editors. To a very great extent, the basic problem is the WMF adopting this as its business. The WMF should facilitate what we want to do to share knowledge, and not direct what we are to do and seek to police us according to its own pre-conceived notions.

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

The only one I can endorse here is Approach three: we are balkanized, better communication would be good.

Approach five leads to more obfuscation and further divides the community into techies and users. Also the emphasis on automation contributes to weighing down pages with templates that shut out both new editors and readers/users with limited connectivity. It's also served as a means of control by the WMF, as with the replacement of the editor-created and serviceable Toolserver with the more demanding and usually non-functioning Tool-lab. The latest manifestation, the WMF's promotion of machine translations, is a flat-out insult to the entire editing community (besides demonstrating colossal ignorance of languages and condescension toward their speakers).

Approach one, from the WMF, has the opposite effect from that intended. We are a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment if functioning as intended, i.e., not set against each other by a high-handed and controlling group of self-appointed bosses. There is no adequate data on the sex ratio among project participants, largely because it is and should be impossible to identify participants. What we need is mutual respect, and this is harmed, not helped, by labels and by directives from "above". Of course harassment is wrong, as is anti-newbie bias and as are a number of prejudices that corrode community (nationalistic, religious, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, political, ethnic, anti-scholarly, and class-based prejudices, to name some). But the only way to combat such biases in massive international online projects is community enforcement of the norms of civility, with a generous dose of self-examination and debate. Not "Drop everything and make special rules for what the WMF has decided is the priority bias to root out!" For one thing because the WMF is not our boss and is overriding and thus weakening the community's own communication processes. For another because it's deeply condescending for the WMF to decide which prejudices are really important. And thirdly because the WMF thereby undermines the community's own mores by implicitly declaring them bad.

Two, four and six sound like ways for the WMF to throw money around without actually helping anything except its self-image.

Approach seven: The single best thing the WMF could do to help us rebuild and strengthen our project communities would be to stop trying to find out our identities and promoting self-identification. The right of anonymity is a core value in the projects and a vital safeguard for an unknown number of participants - the greatest number of whom may be women or people living under regimes that do not like Wikipedia, I don't know - against both on-line and real-life harassment. At least one person has been imprisoned and possibly killed for his Wikipedia editing, and Gamergate has educated much of America to online harassment of women, and yet the WMF keeps trying to out volunteers, if only so it can mail them T-shirts or because conventions are so much fun. Stop it. It's none of the WMF's business whether I am a man, a woman, or a third-gender Martian, how old I am, where I am from or live now, or whether I hold a job the WMF would respect, am a double agent for a country they would disapprove of, or edit by hacking into a bordello's wifi from my shack in the bushes a block from their HQ. The site disapproves of TOR nodes and the like and of paid editing, but other than that, I and everyone else should be judged on our edits. And anonymity (and the right to a mask/user name of our choice within reasonable limits) compels people to judge on that basis and thereby reduces the possibility of prejudice.

Yes, we have problems: with snark, with the attack approach to argument, with unexamined bias regarding notability, with conflicting notions of what best serves the reader (especially around religion and science), with pervasive hostility to experts, with international and class-based conflicts between notions of profanity and civility. The WMF has been at best preventing us from dealing with these and other problems of the community with understanding and nuance and at worst and increasingly exacerbating them by overriding the community and treating us all with condescension verging on contempt. All very well-meant, no doubt.

Carlotm

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

Carlotm's response to the critical question

I see Wikipedian population divided in two opposite main ways of considering their role.

• Those who consider Wikipedia an online version of a paper encyclopedia or, even more strictly, an academic essay. They want to keep what has been achieved in term of content and consider almost any intervention as a disruption. They don't evaluate different formats and how the material may be presented differently. They are often harassers and use Wiki rules and guidelines just to cover their unwillingness to accept changes. They are usually against newcomers. On the other hand their knowledge is usually high.
• Those who consider Wikipedia the encyclopedia of what is going on online, from blogs to any other kind of trash floating on the Internet. They despise more knowledgeable editors and pretend to write whatever they like, in particular pseudo-science, religious believes smuggled as common knowledge, any conceivable theory on political and economic matters or occurrences. They too are harassers and unable to contextualize themselves in a bigger human environment where a hierarchy among knowledge holders may be the salvation of the project.

The situation is so delicate that I cannot find any suggestion but to move around these two extreme visions, with all the other in between positions, with delicacy and shrewdness. What is imperative to me is to improve democratic resolutions giving in the same time leeway (limited to contents) to knowledge holders (this Community consultation may be an example of how to try to solve Wikipedia's main struggles), and avoid any kind of marketing strategies.

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

• Combined approach 1 & 6. Policies, guidelines, How to, should be drastically reduced. Emphasis should be put to the main documents governing the community. Wikipedia:Five pillars and User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles should be strictly enforced whereas all other rules should be put in the background (ubi maior minor cessat).
• Approach 2. In particular to favour coverage of lacking sectors.
• My further approach. Rewrite policies in a way that: any edit with value will be accepted right away, without going through the Caudine Forks of writing an essay in talk page; any abuse of the reversion process will be strictly sanctioned; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ‎will be transformed into BOLD, discuss, re-edit; a new 15 days guideline will be included, where an editor, most likely an owner, not liking the last edit with value or at least equivalent value, instead of starting a war, should wait 15 days and then re-edit it; a new guideline will be included to sanction whoever enters in an edit war with futile motives.

KPFC

Response by KPFC 12:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von KPFC auf die Hauptfrage

...hier schreiben...

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

2, 3, 6

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

Tokyogirl79LVA

Response by Tokyogirl79LVA 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79LVA's response to the critical question

This is definitely a key area that needs to be improved. I have some ideas, some of which won't necessarily be truly feasible in the way I'm doing them.

Ambassador program

Right now a few of us are working on revamping the Ambassador program. We've stalled a little at the moment since we're trying to find a time to meet up virtually to discuss the scope and other issues, but there's interest in revamping and relaunching this to encompass schools and any academic-related group that would require assistance, like GLAM related matters. If not this, then something along these lines would be fantastic.

The rationale with this is that if organizations and schools have people they can turn to, they'll be more likely to leave with a positive impression of Wikipedia and continue editing on their own time or return for future projects.

Booths at events or colleges

There are already some booths held at major, major conferences and events - ie, things at the national level. However I think that Wikipedia would benefit greatly by holding booths or something similar at events on the state level or at college events. For example, I'm planning on holding a booth at the Virginia Library Association's annual conference later this year, where I'll discuss education and GLAM related matters. I'll be paying this out of my own pocket, which I don't particularly mind, but I do think that there would be some benefit to encouraging editors to do this with their own local events or facilities as they can. There would need to be an emphasis on the fact that the WMF would be unable to fund booths of this nature (although local chapters may be able to help), but I think that a lot of people would be like myself and would be willing to do this on their own dime or find ways to hold booths that wouldn't cost money.

The rationale here is that a lot of places tend to see Wikipedia as unreliable or however the media tends to depict us. Outreach of this nature could be extremely effective in helping to combat some of the more negative media depictions. A positive face-to-face interaction would also help with this, since many people are unaware of who edits Wikipedia and assume that it is random, faceless people. Response by Tokyogirl79LVA 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

SusikMkr

Response by SusikMkr 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

SusikMkr's response to the critical question

We have mechanism of online awards: First article, fifth article, .... and many other things. I am convinced, that we need build chain of events, in order to keep both: experienced editors with newcomers. We need to feel the pulse of Wikipedia. We have built chain of activities for our community. I can represent our model of enlarging and maintaining community. Wikistats doesn't represent the real picture. In addition it is all time too late.

@SusikMkr: Hi, I wanted to let you know that there is currently a new notification type being created for edit-milestones (phab:T124003), in addition to the existing notifications for translation-milestones (phab:T99071). There are also a number of other possible new notifications under discussion.

Could you explain a bit more, on what you mean by "chain of events" and "I can represent our model of enlarging and maintaining community" ? Thanks. :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Quiddity, I'll try to explain. Main thing is that we need Wikipedia in the air all time. I mean the results of an event and following regular editing of participants between two events, have to influence in involving them at following event.

How to keep people in the project, how to build a stable community? People need attention, care, and relations in their real life. In the beginning, we decided to concentrate our efforts on one school. After several workshops, we organized an event in this school gifting active students Wikipedia mugs. Second step was to multiply the number of involved schools. WikiCamp. After a successful WikiCamp our task was to sustain all participants between two terms of WikiCamp. Our little group couldn’t manage hundreds of students. Therefore, we started to found local WikiClubs in small cities, villages, schools, were we have experienced Wikipedians. Wikiclubs are places where Wikipedians can gather, edit and help newcomers. In all our events we invite experienced editors and newcomers, in order to glue newcomers with help of motivated people. Best.--SusikMkr (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SusikMkr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...one, five…

B k

Response by B k 16:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

B k's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Develop strategies or policies to limit long-term, devoted editors. There is a clear power imbalance between dedicated users who think of themselves as "page owners" and casual users who don't know WP customs and mechanisms. This is a delicate problem because dedicated editors do great work in preventing bona fide abuse and spam. But when a casual user's edits are reverted solely because the page owners felt that they weren't consulted first, that casual user now has a bad impression of WP editing and is likely to leave. Setting some sort of "term limits", hurdles to knee-jerk reversion, and otherwise limiting overzealous page owner behavior would frustrate some long-term editors but could pay off in bringing in many new editors.

This approach differs from Approach Two because the recommendation here is about reining in page owners, not about rewarding users who managed to get past overvigilant gatekeepers. It supports Approach One, because the power to block edits from a differing perspective is a key tool in harassment.

Ozdiaz

Response by Ozdiaz 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ozdiaz's response to the critical question

I believe supporting and potentially aligning with 1 or 2 major educational platforms affords an opportunity to expand the reach of Wikimedia content and impact a very necessary part of our future.

@Ozdiaz: Thanks for your feedback. Do you have any examples of the kind of educational platform you mean? Something like a library, or something else like a massively online course system? LuisV (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

In no particular order, I support: - Approach 2 - Approach 4 - Approach 5

Marcel coenders

Response by Marcel coenders 17:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Marcel coenders's antwoord op de kritieke vraag

I'am also a voluteer at Librivox. In that community rule number 1 is be nice. Unfriendly posts are removed unfriendly users are blocked. At wikipedia I made a small mistake and that (without asking why i did it) was directly called vandalism.!!!

Invite people who are not completely familiair with al the rules and sjabloons to write there contributions on the 'overleg' page. More experienced contributers can edit the contributions.

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

2. I was very proud when wikipedia won the Erasmusprice it felt I won ik myself!! But there are more ways to give volunteers credits in the real world. (like a royal medal in the netherlands for exepetional active volunteers een lintje krijgen van de koning).

@Marcel coenders: We were all proud of that - thank you for your involvement! If you have any other suggestions for ways to recognize volunteers, I would love to hear them. Thanks! LuisV (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shangkuanlc

Response by Shangkuanlc 17:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Shangkuanlc 對關鍵問題的回應

⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯

Shangkuanlc 的前2或前3優先順序（或分享您自己的想法）

策略一: 通過降低騷擾現象或性別落差，來維護對貢獻者與編輯者一個安全、友善、以及支持的環境。 策略三: 提升在維基媒體社群或自治體組織之間的溝通與透明度。 策略五: 改善自動化工具來降低手動管理內容與計畫的工作。

Machine translation; please help improve.

Strategy One: by reducing harassment or gender gap, to maintain contributors and editors for a safe, friendly, and supportive environment. Strategy Three: to enhance communication and transparency in the Wikimedia community or local government organizations. Strategy Five: Improving automation tools to reduce manually manage content with project work.

到下個主題領域（知識）

Gnrc

Response by Gnrc 18:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Gnrc à la question critique

5

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

...répondez ici...

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Besenok

Response by Besenok 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Besenok's top 2-3

Approach two: Create and support programs to increase volunteer participation such as recognition, facilitated mentor-ship, and personalized re-engagement.
Approach six: Simplify policies and processes for building communities and wikis.
Approach one: Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap to facilitate a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment for contributors and editors.

Jojo17

Response by Jojo17 21:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Jojo17 à la question critique

Améliorer les outils d'automatisation pour réduire le travail à la main pour la gestion des contenus et des projets.

[Approach 5]

L235

Response by L235 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

L235's response to the critical question

Honestly, this doesn't feel like a Foundation issue to me, at least insofar as direct involvement by WMF much farther than WMF's current role. Providing individual grants to Wikimedians with good ideas is a good idea. Intervening on direct request of a project's ArbCom would save a lot of hassle sometimes (enwiki TDA, for example). Encourage any community-led efforts to increase health, growth, and diversity, but don't be heavy-handed in any way. And finally, bluntly, drop the charters chapters. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@L235: It would be helpful for me to understand why you're uncomfortable with it. Is it because you don't trust us to be effective, don't think there are problems that we should address, or ... ? There are many possible reasons (all of them with at least some validity!) so helping me understand why you're concerned will help me better shape whatever work we do do. Thanks! LuisV (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@LuisV (WMF): As a general point, doing more than suggesting new practices will come across as heavy-handed and leads to drama. There's been quite a lot of friction between WMF and the projects at least as long as I've been an editor. (Ping me in a few hours to expand on my point; I'm heading to bed about now but might have more time later to expand.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 06:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@L235: I think as a general rule I'd say our approach for community issues should generally be "ask community about best approaches (including feedback from us) and then supporting implementation of those approaches". I don't think top-down approaches have long-term sustainability or scalability. That's the tack we're taking in the harassment work, for example. But obviously that hasn't always been the case WMF-wide, so I understand the concern and would look forward to more detail from you. LuisV (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

In order, three, one, and the rest. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

JMatazzoni (WMF)

Response by JMatazzoni (WMF) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

JMatazzoni (WMF)'s Request for More Detail in Approach Five

Approach Five is the approach in Communities that deals most with technology. It says: "Improve automation tools to reduce manual work for managing content and projects." As a member of one of the WMF technical teams, I find this directive both too specific and too general.

Too Specific as to Means

Approach Five says we should “improve automation tools.” Is automation the best or only way to build community? What if we were, for example, to focus a project on improving usability, making some key tool much simpler to use and learn but not “automating” it? Might that arguably not be an excellent way to make the community, as the directive puts it, “more welcoming”? Is automation really our objective, or are we aiming a little higher? On which topic, read on.

Not Specific Enough as to Ends

Approach Five is silent about why we should reduce manual work or for whom. How is reducing work connected to community, and how can tech teams most effectively help build community? Is it better to reduce work for the existing base of active editors, making them more productive and engaged? Or is it more beneficial to make life easier for new editors in order to broaden the base of volunteers and, one hopes, increase diversity? These are questions we ask ourselves all the time.

Clearly both groups of users are important, and in the long term the WMF will continue to serve both. But in an environment where resources are constrained, we often have to choose among projects aimed at helping one group or another. Strategic documents are most helpful when they provide guidance that focuses discussions and supports managers in making choices. So, as a product manager who has to help my team make decisions – ideally by showing how those decisions align with strategy -- I'm asking for guidance.

If we should be aiming our technical efforts at empowering experienced users and admins, then let's say so. If we're looking to build tools that encourage new and/or more diverse volunteers, then please, let's be specific. If the answer is that we always need to be doing both, then that's good to know as well. But simply telling a tech team to build tech that will “reduce manual work” doesn't do much to focus the conversation we're having already.

Лорд Бъмбъри

Response by Лорд Бъмбъри 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Лорд Бъмбъри's response to the critical question

Organising events for Wikipedians to meet in person. These do not have to be expensive - a meeting at a local restaurant (not a fancy one, one where students and young people would go with their own money), a wiki-picnic (grab some food and sit in a park), go together to the nearest mountain, etc. When people know each other in real life they discuss in a more civilised way online and give more in order to have a reason to meet the others again soon. Same goes for international meetings. Please, not a Hilton, but rather something like hostels - as soon as the rooms are clean all is fine; I'd rather have one meeting more than spend money on a fancy hotel. Especially regional cooperations like Wikimedia Central and Eastern Europe are very beneficial for the communities in them, because of their common understanding of the world.

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

1. Increase communication and transparency with and between our communities and across Wikimedia affiliates.

Transparency is hugely important. Nowadays a lot of communication between Wikipedians is being run in private groups and chats on Facebook, Google Hangouts, etc., because it is much easier as on wiki - mostly because there are no edit conflicts. If some kind of chat/forum function is added to the wiki world, it would be great.

1. Create and support programs to increase volunteer participation such as recognition, facilitated mentorship, and personalized re-engagement.

Please, in a smart way. Not some learning pattern which is usable for a set of countries and useless for most other countries. If the programs offer some measurement techniques for grants, they have to be written so that no communities are disadvantaged by it.

@Лорд Бъмбъри: Thank you for participating! I personally agree with your suggestion for better forum technology. It is not an easy area, but important. Some people have been discussing one alternative here; if you like that idea, or have other suggestions, I would love to hear them.

For learning patterns, do you have any suggestions of the best (or worst) learning patterns you've seen? That could help us improve. Thanks! LuisV (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Gailletboréal

Response by Gailletboréal 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Gailletboréal à la question critique

1, l'environnement actuel est un peu inhibant pour les nouveaux contributeurs

Machine translation; please help improve

1, the current environment is somewhat inhibiting for new contributors

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

2, je pense que les nouveaux contributeurs souhaitent un accompagnement plus personnalisé que le simple rappel des principes de Wikipedia (admissibilité des pages, style encyclopédique, importance de la forme, pas de travail inédit etc. sont des données d'emblée très présentes 6,

Machine translation; please help improve

2, I think new contributors wish for more personalized guidance than the mere reminder of the principles of Wikipedia (eligibility of pages, encyclopedic style, importance of form, no unpublished work etc. are very outset data

6

Libcub

Response by Libcub 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Libcub's response to the critical question

...write here…

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

One, Five, Six

Frank Behnsen

Response by Frank Behnsen 02:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Frank Behnsen auf die Hauptfrage

—

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Frank Behnsen

Ansatz zwei, ergänzt um Ansatz sieben: den Vorschlag, Kurse in Bildungseinrichtungen – Schulen, Hochschulen, Volkshochschulen, etc. – anzubieten, geleitet von erfahrenen ehrenamtlichen Wikipedia-Mitarbeitern – mit dem Spezialthema Wikipedia-Mitarbeit für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene, inklusive der Einrichtung von Spezial-Community-Seiten in der Wikipedia mit weiterführenden Informationen und Diskussionsseite, und das speziell für jeden einzelnen solcher Kurse und deren Teilnehmer (als ein Beispiel: „Wikipedia-Kurs VHS Neustadt, WS 2016/17“). Gruß, — Frank Behnsen (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Frank Behnsen)

Approach two, supplemented by approach seven: the proposal to provide courses in educational institutions - schools, colleges, adult education centres, etc. - led by experienced volunteer Wikipedia authors - with the special topic Wikipedia collaboration for beginners and experts, including the establishment of special Community pages in the Wikipedia for further information and a discussion page, this especially and individual for each of such courses and their participants (as an example: "Wikipedia course VHS Neustadt, WS 2016/17").

Pointro

Response by Pointro 03:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Approach 5, Approach 3, Approach 4

Gkml

Response by Gkml 09:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Gkml à la question critique

Approche 7 : vos idées ; il me semble qu'un fonctionnement selon la méthode de de.wikipedia par exemple permettrait beaucoup d'économies en matière de mises à jour : toutes les mises à jour effectuées par des IP doivent être validées par un utilisateur reconnu (qui a plus de cinq cents — par exemple — mises à jour validées à son actif), idem pour les utilisateurs enregistrés qui ont moins de cinq cents mises à jour validées à leur actif. Cordialement.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Approach 7: ideas; it seems to me that the method of operation according de.wikipedia eg allow a lot of savings for updates all the updates made by IP must be validated by a recognized user (who has more than five hundred - for example - validated updates to his credit), same for registered users that have less than five hundred validated updates to their credit. Best regards.

Aller au domaine suivant (Connaissance)

Schlind

Response by Schlind 10:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Schlind auf die Hauptfrage

...Wertschätzung dessen, was andere schreiben...

Appreciation of what others write

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

...* wichtig: Ansatz 1; * Ansatz 7: Schulprojekte initiieren und wohlwollend begleiten; * Ansatz 8: vor großen Änderungen (v.a. Löschungen, großer Textumbau (hier gestützt durch Algorithmus)) den Hauptautor informieren mit Zeitfenster; * Ansatz 9: "Stammtische" für Wikipedianer v.a. und gerade in kleineren Ortschaften organisieren...

* Important: Approach 1; * Approach 7: initiate school projects and accompany them benevolent; * Approach 8: before big changes (mainly deletions, large text conversion (here supported by algorithm)) inform the principal author with a time window; * Approach 9 organize "round tables" for Wikipedians, especially in smaller towns ...

Patrickwooldridge

Response by Patrickwooldridge 12:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrickwooldridge's response to the critical question

...I think more positive feedback/reinforcement for contributors might be useful. I note that many people today collect "badges" and "tokens" signifying their participation in projects even though these tokens have no practical value. Personally, I have made quite a number of edits which have stuck and authored a few pages and images, but have never received any positive feedback other than being invited to the Guild of Copy Editors.…

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

...My priorities would be Approach two and Approach one…

Filursiax

Response by Filursiax 12:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Filursiax's response to the critical question

I myself don't participate in any group, so my responses will be somewhat abstract. However, I have performed a number of edits and extensively consulted the Talk pages, and it seems to me that the learning curve is rather steep. First, the editing interface (though more user-friendly now than previously) could still be substantially improved and simplified. (In the Talk section, the Edit interface has not been modernized at all. This should be done immediately.) Use of "computerese" in the interface should be reduced to a minimum (what does the button "Wikipedia markup" mean, for example?). A panel consisting of non-computer-savvy users might be set up to test and critique the new interfaces. Secondly, the very widespread use of abbreviations (POV, IMHO etc. etc.) often makes it hard for a non-initiate to understand what discussions are all about. I know the abbreviations can be looked up, but that implies leaving the Talk or Edit interface one is in. How about putting a handy little link to a simple abbreviation list (in a pop-up window) in an accessible spot in these interfaces?

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

2, 5

Helmutvan

Response by Helmutvan 12:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Helmutvan auf die Hauptfrage

mehr Anlaufstellen schaffen in der realen Welt, also Veranstaltungen, Ausstellungen, Stammtische usw...

create more contact points into the real world, like events, exhibitions, regular meetings etc ...

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

Ansatz 3,5 und 6

Jtuom

Response by Jtuom 12:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jtuom's response to the critical question

Wiki contributions should more and more be seen as an essential part of knowledge workers' job. So far it is mostly volunteers who do this on free time I suppose. But larger research institutions, universities etc. should start moderating pages of their own field of expertise so that wiki work becomes a real job and a legitimate task. Also, contributions should be measured and evaluated, and credit should be given. There are some new approaches where scientific journals accept Wikipedia articles as scientific contributions. This is a very promising approach, and Wikimedia should encourage such development. Wikimedia should also encourage the development of "Wikipedia of Science" where original research is produced in a collaborative way in a wiki or similar web-workspace. The new wiki system would then feed results of primary research into Wikipedia in a more direct and effective way than what happens now.

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

I vote for approaches 2 and 4 (improvement of Wikipedia in new languages is vital). My own approach number seven is described above.

Seedorfjohnny

Response by Seedorfjohnny 14:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

3, 5, und 6 sind die wichtigsten. Vereinfachung und Durchsichtigkeit, auch wenn die Inhalte Differenzierung erfordern

3, 5 and 6 are the most important. Simplification and transparency, even if the content demands differentiation

Kippelboy

Response by Kippelboy 14:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kippelboy's response to the critical question

WMF is not the boss, it's the facilitator. It needs to be clarified in all its movements and projects. WMF needs to behave as a matchmaker between movement affiliates. Investigating communities, knowing their weaknesses and their key success aspects and facilitating knowledge flow. Helping to scale interesting projects and procedures and giving help and resources when needed. Also mantainting infraestructure and taking care of legal aspects. I

I always says WMF should be seen as the "projects' concierge"-> "You have "the keys" and your role is to make sure everything is working fine, but everyone knows you're not the boss, but a server. And everyone appreciate it"

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

3 and 6

H-stt

Response by H-stt 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

H-stt's response to the critical question

en:Subsidiarity. I still believe that the vast majority of new authors are self-selecting based upon their own intrinsic motivation. For them and the existing communities, just let them do their thing. If you want to support the editors, don't do it from San Francisco. You are too far removed from their (our) experience. Work by the chapters. Make sure they have the ability to engage with their editing community. Try to promote local communities of people who can meet face to face. Organized by locals, not someone who flies in from San Fran. Take a look at the still new initiatives of WMDE and WMAT to create Wiki[mp]edia spaces in several cities, for local workshops, meetups, community editing or hanging out.

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

3 2 7 (Communicate, Communicate, Communicate your goals, methods and metrics.)

Prathaplal

Response by Prathaplal 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Prathaplal's response to the critical question

Suggest an approach

Prathaplal's suggestion

• Make Wiki community easier

• Make Wiki communities update by connecting it with social networking community

Mvk608

Response by Mvk608 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mvk608 — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

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

Подход третий: улучшить связи и прозрачность взаимодействия с нашими сообществами, а также и между ними и партнёрскими организациями-участниками движения Викимедиа (региональными, тематическими и т.д.) Подход пятый: улучшить автоматические инструменты для снижения объёмов ручной работы при управлении содержанием и проектами. Подход шестой: упростить правила и процессы для построения сообществ и вики-сайтов (в т.ч. новых языковых разделов существующих проектов).

Machine translation; please help improve.

The third approach: to improve communication and the transparency of interaction with our community, as well as between them and the partner organizations participating Wikimedia movement (regional, thematic, etc.) a fifth approach: improve the automatic tools to reduce the volume of manual work in the management of content and projects . Approach Six: to simplify the rules and processes for building communities and wikis (including new language sections of existing projects).

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

V0d01ey

Response by V0d01ey 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

V0d01ey — ответ на насущные вопросы

Люди работают с самоотдачей там, где результат их труда ценится. Нужно сделать так, чтобы любые конфликты своевременно разрешались. Для этого нужно довести до приемлемого уровня первичную проверку правок (патрулирование), чтобы вовремя замечать войны правок и успеть урегулировать их до эскалации конфликта.

Machine translation; please help improve.

People are working with dedication, where the result of their work is appreciated. It is necessary to ensure that any conflicts were resolved in a timely manner. To do this you need to bring to an acceptable level the initial verification of edits (patrols), in time to ignore the war and edits them to have time to settle the conflict escalation.

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

Первый, второй и пятый подходы.

Machine translation; please help improve.

The first, second and fifth approaches.

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Argantoni

Response by Argantoni 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Argantoni a la pregunta crítica

...escriba aquí... 2

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

...escriba aquí...

Ir a la próxima área temática (Conocimiento)

Ânes-pur-sàng

Response by Ânes-pur-sàng 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ânes-pur-sàng's response to the critical question

Engage with schools and universities

Ânes-pur-sàng's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

ONE - TWO

Suggestion - Let each contributor have their name similar to a sponsor - on say 20-30 articles - whereby they take prime responsibility for those articles It can be annoying when you create an article and someone comes along and changes the whole basis of it, or even renames it to something you consider is incorrect. So certain actions need the sponsors approval.

Guillaume (WMF) / guillom

Response by Guillaume (WMF) / guillom 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Guillaume (WMF)'s response to the critical question

Introduction

(Disclosure: Some of what I'm advocating for here relates to my work. I work on those issues because I believe they're important, not the other way around.)

"What do you think is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to help improve the health, growth and diversity of our communities to help them be more welcoming and open so that the movement is sustainable?"

Well, that's quite a mouthful :) And there are a few assumptions in that question that it's useful to spell out explicitly. I understand the question as:

"We want the movement to be sustainable; therefore Wikimedia communities must be more welcoming and open; therefore the WMF must help improve the health, growth and diversity of those communities. How do we best do that?"

One obvious prerequisite is that we must be able to observe and measure the health, growth and diversity of Wikimedia communities. At the moment, growth is the only dimension we're measuring. We have some historical data (see Gender gap and Diversity as starting points), but it's old and spotty. If we're hoping to have any kind of impact at all in those areas, the first step is to set up a process to measure them, and stick to it over time.

Recruitment and Retention

The lack of diversity is by definition a compound issue: for example, the lack of geographical diversity might be primarily caused by the poor quality of internet access in emerging communities, while the lack of gender diversity might be primarily caused by combative environments on wikis. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem.

However, one thing we can work on that would benefit everyone is to make sure that we're not hemorrhaging users once they're here. Because of our prominence, Recruitment (getting people to want to contribute) is something we can (at least for now) worry about later. Retention (getting people to become and remain contributors) is a more pressing issue, in my opinion.

Addressing Retention

Addressing Retention means investigating why people leave, and fixing the leaks. The good news is that we already have a pretty good idea of why people leave (see SSneg's and Halfak (WMF)'s excellent points above). The bad news is that fixing the leaks involves social and cultural change, which takes time.

I believe the best way to address our Retention issue is to make it both desirable and easier to foster a nurturing environment. Right now we have a problem of communities not being "welcoming and open" enough, as mentioned in the question. This partly stems from a widespread culture of suspicion towards newcomers, which itself finds one of its causes in the fact that experienced editors became overwhelmed by the influx of newcomers as the site became more popular.

Addressing Retention with social and cultural change

By 'desirable', I mean leading social and cultural change to shift perceptions and behavior. Newcomers who stay very much emulate the behavior they observe in the existing communities. Right now this emulation tends to fuel a vicious cycle leading to toxic environments; what we want is to turn this cycle into a virtuous one, so that it's socially desirable to be welcoming.

Addressing Retention with tools and infrastructure

By 'easier', I mean providing tools and infrastructure to support and facilitate this social and cultural change. There have been a few rare examples, and we need more.

The Teahouse experiment is one of the rare initiatives that have been proven to have a positive impact on newcomer retention. We need to invest more resources to support that kind of initiatives, both socially and technically.

We also need to make it easier for contributors to self-organize in smaller communities, like WikiProjects. Welcoming, on-boarding and socializing newcomers is easier when they have common interests with existing contributors. We may not be able to go back to the pre-2006 atmosphere, but we can get back some of the collegiality that we've lost along the way. Improving WikiProject infrastructure will also help with task recommendations (see Trevor Parscal (WMF)'s point above).

Summary

Fighting harassment is a good start, but harassment is just the extreme part of the iceberg. The problem of toxicity runs much deeper, and addressing harassment won't be enough unless we provide communities with the tools (both social and technical) to address toxic behavior themselves.

In other words, I believe the role of the WMF is not only to lead by example, but also (and more importantly) to gradually facilitate and implement social and cultural change, and to empower communities to address those issues by themselves in the long term with the appropriate tools.

By making it both socially desirable, and technically easier, to be welcoming, our communities can get back some of their lost collegiality, which in turns will improve community health and diversity.

Guillaume (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Following from my analysis above, I think I'm in favor of:

• Approach 1, with the caveat that it's not just about harassment, but more generally about the deeper issue of the vicious cycle and how to change it to one where newcomers emulate positive behavior.
• Approach 5, to the extent that it refers to social and technical tools to support Approach 1.
• Approach 2, as it relates to socialization, mentoring and helping users find their place in the communities.

Brownturkey

Response by Brownturkey 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Brownturkey's response to the critical question

student assignments to edit wikipedia pages

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

Approach one: Reduce harassment issues and the gender gap to facilitate a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment for contributors and editors

Rcgardne

Response by Rcgardne 19:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rcgardne's response to the critical question

I've never had a negative interaction with another wiki community member. My only problem has been lack of interaction. The result is confusion about the sometimes vague nature of projects, or reluctance to contribute. Wikimedia is about sharing, but feels lonely sometimes, and "Be bold" lacks meaning in a vacuum. Other knowledge-base sites feel more connected (Kahn Academy sends subscribers emails with fun articles & feels much more personal but is more difficult imo to contribute. Stack exchange, etc.)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, User:Rcgardne. I most often hear from the other side of this spectrum, and this is a welcome reminder that a "welcoming" environment isn't just one where negative communication is minimal, but one where positive communication thrives. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rcgardne's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach two

Kaldari

Response by Kaldari 21:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kaldari's response to the critical question

Wikipedia is a bad user experience for pretty much everyone except readers. We need to improve the technology that editors and tool builders use (including documentation) and we need to address the problems of toxicity and harassment.

Kaldari's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

• Approach one - Wikipedia has become a toxic environment for women that want to participate at a high level. Efforts to increase the representation and participation of women, while given nominal support by the majority of Wikipedians (and the WMF), are typically undermined by a small number of trolls and misogynists who have become very effective at exploiting the rules of Wikipedia (and off-wiki harassment) to drive prominent female editors off the projects. Any editors or admins who challenge this pattern of harassment immediately become targets of harassment themselves. A related issue is that the civility policy has become completely unenforced and unenforcable, as the people who try to enforce it also become targets for harassment, even if they are ArbCom members (the people elected to handle such issues).
• Approach five - A huge percentage of the work on Wikipedia these days is curating and monitoring content. The workflows for doing these tasks are complicated, inefficient, and arcane. We need to build better tools for these workflows and improve the tools that exist, including automating processes that can be automated. In many cases, there are already community-built tools for handling common workflows, but these tools are undocumented, unmaintained, limited to specific wikis, or have poor user interfaces. We could help improve and expand them. Some examples of semi-automated tools that are specific to English Wikipedia that could be expanded to other wikis include Plagiabot, Citation bot, and PageCuration.

Flukas

Response by Flukas 21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Flukas's response to the critical question

Encourage new contributors over legacy "rights" of older users.

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

Approach five

Approach three

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Lingawakad

Response by Lingawakad 23:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lingawakad's response to the critical question

education programs highlighting the educational - Wikipedia is a legitimate starting point for research, and teachers should acknowledge and share this - and personal benefits - visible/shareable kudos for quality contributions, similar to GitHub for open source developers. edit: i did not realize that harassment is so prevalent in the Wiki world. obviously, that needs to be given priority.

Lingawakad's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

2, 3, 4

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Solrezza

Response by Solrezza 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Solrezza a la pregunta crítica

3

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

...escriba aquí...

Ir a la próxima área temática (Conocimiento)

Jzsj

Response by Jzsj 02:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jzsj's response to the critical question

How to increase "engaged communities (that) can create content."

Jzsj's share your own idea

I've finished graduate studies in 3 areas and have a research MS in mathematics, and have also spent tons of time working with computer programs, but I don't find most of the instruction pages for editing very user-friendly: I think there's a need for simplification of many of them, say "Editing for Dummies". I usually get my creating/editing help simply by going to articles that use the various templates, but such help might be better offered in, perhaps, a special category of help pages.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Connor Behan

Response by Connor Behan 02:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Connor Behan's response to the critical question

Have certain weeks when all talk pages are just disabled to force editors to go into "beast mode". If people stopped posting random talk page opinions (like this one), the encyclopedia would be so much further along.

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

1, 5 and 6. Good things happen when a site is low in policy and high in automation. And I don't know the best way to make people less sexist but I hope you figure it out. Even when talk pages discussions are infrequent because everyone has realized they are a waste of time, women in this community still need to know that they will be collegial.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Soy Juampayo

Response by Soy Juampayo 03:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Solamente la opción dos me parece interesante.

Only option two seems interesting to me.

Happysquirrel

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

Happysquirrel's response to the critical question

First and foremost, increase support for editors. Right now I would say poor welcoming of newbies and burn-out of long term contributors are the two main causes of loss of editors and they are connected. An embattled, exhausted, over-worked long term contributor is less likely to be tolerant to and welcoming of newbies. Conversely, well-meaning newbies who are not properly welcomed and oriented are more likely to cause huge amounts of disruption by not knowing what is going on. Editors at all stages need to be valued more. They also need to feel part of the community. Right now one often feels one is alone and abandoned.

I also think it is crucial we reach out more to Universities. WikiEd is great, but we need more edit-a-thons and other things like that. A university is always full of people passionate about knowledge and with lots of access to references. It could be a great source of contributors. Student clubs could also be nuclei for meet-ups and other social interaction and community building in their surrounding area.

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

I would say approach 1 and 2 are crucial. I would strongly support a modified 5 whereby the WMF adopts and provides support for some of the community tools that already exist and have become essential (X! tools, Cluebot NG). This means you are guaranteed to focus on stuff the community already uses and wants and it doubles as super great recognition of the original contributor who developed it. Also, keeping highly useful existing tools running smoothly would greatly reduce frustration.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Imfrankliu

Response by Imfrankliu 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Imfrankliu's response to the critical question

I do not believe approach one is going to improve WMF significantly. The identity, including race and gender, is not public unless the user puts it on their user page.

I think approach three will improve WMF. I have been an WMF user for roughly one month, and in total only one WMF staff contacted me. (Via Wikipedia teahouse).

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Kiyoshiendo

Response by Kiyoshiendo 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kiyoshiendo's response to the critical question

Make it easy for people to contribute. Don't waste the user's time with dozens of pages of guidelines and help documents. Simplify that shit so people are actually willing to read the rules and improve Wikipedia. In essence, cut out what isn't strictly necessary.

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

A few ideas: 1. Trim the help guides down to the bare minimum. Deal with issues as they come up. 2. Improve the visual editor so anybody with a computer can understand and use it within five minutes. 3. Introduce a new tutorial for users to be able to contribute after a few minutes of instruction.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Flyingfischer

Response by Flyingfischer 07:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyingfischer's response to the critical question

Approach six, Approach one, Approach five

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

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Cangaran

Response by Cangaran 11:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cangaran's response to the critical question

Approach six is the most important. Editors and contributors from more diverse environment should be encouraged especially different school of thoughts.Main problem in India is lack of wide spread culture of critical thinking. The academia and academics of India is below par. So skilled editors are in scarce. For this case facilitated mentorship will be useful

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

Approach two, Approach Five, Approach six

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Kuskondu

Response by Kuskondu 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuskondu — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

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

... 1, 5

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Seescedric

Response by Seescedric 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Seescedric auf die Hauptfrage

Nummer 6 und dann auch freundlicher werden wie eng Wikipedia und auch bitte zu modern mit dieser Digitalen Bearbeitung von Artikeln.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Number 6 and then are also friendly as closely Wikipedia and also please to state with this digital editing of articles.

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

...hier schreiben...

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

SMcCandlish

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

SMcCandlish's response to the critical question

The gender gap is a major issue, harassment is not (it's a major issue for anyone it happens to, but it doesn't happen frequently). The main community issues are that the openness of the system leads to two synergistically negative problems: these systems are dominated by people who are here to squabble, not work; and the community is too accepting of squabbling, especially special-interest (and lone nut-job) disruption and pushing of points of view, in particular. We've coming into a new phase in the organizational lifecycle. The "gee-whiz, anyone can edit!" factor of the project's (really, the projects') adolescence has faded. It's time to get serious. In the words of one of the co-founders, it's time to "show the door" to disruptive personalities, with considerably more decisiveness than in the past. This will become important, because as en.wikipedia is now the #5 to #7 (depending on whose stats you like) most used website in the world, and in the top 3 search results for nearly everything, the memetic power and influence it quietly wields is an irresistibly powerful magnet for attempts to skew its content. We already know for a fact that the government of Pakistan, for example, has a small army of pro editors warping WP's coverage of everything relating to do with that company; numerous commercial, religious, political, and other interests have both paid and fanatic PoV pushers (often colluding offline in a highly organized way); and as the real-work editors dwindle and fewer become admins, it really is coming to pass that (in the words of the same co-founder) "the inmates are in control of the asylum". More and more of these external interests who do not share WMF / WP's goal, but just want to use them as a tool, are actually getting admins in place, taking over wikiprojects, etc. Well, to hell with that.

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

1. Elements of approach one.
2. Three.
3. Two.

Constructive new suggestion: WMF mandates adminship system reform at en.wikipedia (from which the changes would propagate to other projects by memetic osmosis), with a number of pre-determined requisites. Pretty much exactly as happened with the Arbitration Committee being planned an implemented within a specific timeframe. The goals in short would be to make ti so that virtually any competent and non-disruptive editor with 18 months or so under their belt will (not just can) become an admin, and an end to present really horrible and easily gameable popularity contest. The administrative backlog is astounds, often months behind in many areas of the project.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

109.187.7.252

Response by 109.187.7.252 14:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

109.187.7.252 — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

109.187.7.252 — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

...пишите здесь… Третий и пятый

The third and fifth

Перейти к следующей тематической области: «Знания»

Muhittin çiftçi

Response by Muhittin çiftçi 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhittin çiftçi kullanıcısının kritik soruya yanıtı

...buraya yazınız ... 3,4 v e5 nolu madde uygulanabilir

Machine translation; please help improve.

3, 4, and 5 may be applied

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

... buraya yazınız ...

Sonraki konu alanına (Bilgi) gidiniz

Antur

Response by Antur 15:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de Antur a la pregunta crítica

...escriba aquí...

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

Enfoque dos

Approach 2

Ir a la próxima área temática (Conocimiento)

Poupou l'quourouce

Response by Poupou l'quourouce 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Poupou l'quourouce auf die Hauptfrage

Ich würde hier sehr gerne sagen, dass Nr.2 am wichtigsten ist. Allerdings sind Transparenz und Kommunikation derart schlecht, dass ich diesen Punkt vorziehe.

I would very much like to say here that No.2 is most important. However, transparency and communication are so bad, that I prefer this point.

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

3 - 2 - 4

Julius1990

Response by Julius1990 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Julius1990 auf die Hauptfrage

First of all it needs the realization by the WMF that there is nothing more important than the volunteers in the projects. Let's be honest with each other right now for the WMF the central point is the money and then to put through own ideas (often badly programmed, in every case badly communicated) against the wishes of the volunteers. This went so far for a memeber of the Board of Trustees to tell us long editing volunteers to go. That is the situation up to now. It needs a change of 180° by the WMF on this matter. The money comes by the donors, but on which pages is your begging put? Without the content created by us there would be no Wikipedia, no other Wikimedia project you could monetarize in this way. That makes us volunteers the sovereign of the movement and all of you in Frisco, staff, Board, all of you have to serve our needs and your own ideas for the movement can just go as far as they don't disrupt the movement that is a grass-root thing and nothing that should be challanged top-down. In this context you shoudl get rid of big Jimbo in the Board who acts liek a bully on the schoolground, but is noone any decent volunteer would choose as representative. Beside all that the WMF is no Sillicon Valley Tec Company, the only way you can stand infront of the communities is in total transparence. The last weeks were especially disappointing in this respect.

Stop disruptive projects like Flow, reboot your thinking (writing an encyclopedia will never become a mainstream hobby neither will it be filling Wikidata with items, those are special interests works made by idealists in whose faces you as Foundation have spit many times in the past years). Don't ever push a not ready programm on the projects, make it always opt-in, promise to keep the old structure alive (what you can afford with the millions and millions of money our work pushes in your pockets). Keeping this in mind the conflicts between WMF and volunteers will reduce what also should be the best for the work athmosphere of the paid staff.

I write this in the knowledge that you think you actually gover our movement and you won't give a shit about anything that challanges your preassumptions.

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

3 and 4, for details see above

Gehe zum nächsten Schwerpunkt (Wissen)

Mautpreller

Response by Mautpreller 20:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mautpreller's response to the critical question

I don't like the question because of its wording ("health" should not be applied to communities, and a buzzword like "welcoming" would not have been my choice. Nevertheless, the question is valid. I think the possibilities of participation, co-determination anmd co-decision in communities should be strengthened. At the moment, the influence of communities upon WMF decisions is zero. This will not work. No "sustainable movement" can be built if the movement members cannot influence WMF decisions, most particularly in an open project.

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

Approach three is reasonable since it might enhance the scope of the communities and their members. I am not sympathetic to approaches one and two. I don't like this language of "welcomimg and supportive etc." which doesn't seem to say anything substantial. Approach five is harmful, because of preventing people to participate instead of inciting them to participate.

My approach is number seven: Give the communities real solid rights in the government of the Wikimedia Foundation. You can be sure this is a step to sustainability.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

116.109.58.192

Response by 116.109.58.192 20:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

116.109.58.192's response to the critical question

...write here…

116.109.58.192's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Giudark

Response by Giudark 23:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Giudark's response to the critical question

(Detto per "Reach" ma riguarda anche questo) Bisogna dare un senso di progressione agli utenti che vogliono partecipare, ricompensarli con punteggi e livelli che sbloccano nuove funzionalità

Machine translation; please help improve

(Ditto for "Reach" but far too) should give a sense of progression to users who want to participate, reward them with scores and levels that unlock new features

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

forse 5 ... 7: un sistema di punteggi che invogli ad effettuare sempre nuove modifiche

Machine translation; please help improve

maybe 5 ... 7: a scoring system that makes you want to always make new changes

Vejlefjord

Response by Vejlefjord 23:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Vejlefjord's response to the critical question

• Whittle down the 5M+ articles to whatever number adequate articles by removing uncited material
• Require that people join Wikipedia to edit

Vejlefjord's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approaches One and Five

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Outlier59

Response by Outlier59 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Outlier59's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

5, 6

Instead of having separate author pages on Wikisource from people pages on Wikipedia, have one list of author's works the same on both pages.

@Outlier59: And also for Commons, meta, etc.? LuisV (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RikardT

Response by RikardT 10:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RikardT's response to the critical question

...write here…

Perhaps I am of an older generation, but I have generally found Wikimedia/Wikipedia to be (1) accessible, (2) helpful and friendly and (3) providing well-researched information. I rely on it for an overview of a topic, though I may delve deeper into that topic if I need greater information. I certainly had not picked up on the issue(s) addressed in Approach One, which talks of harassment and gender gap.

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

...write here…

Approaches 4, 2 and 6 in that order, though 5 (improved automation tools) may have merit.

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)

Mathmensch

Response by Mathmensch 11:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mathmensch's response to the critical question

7 - Number seven

Mathmensch's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

From my experience in the German Wikipedia, it seems of utmost importance that administrators are obliged to follow the legal code of Wikimedia word by word, and are forbidden to invent their own rules just in order to silence a user unpleasant to the establishment. For example, I was permanently banished from the German Wikipedia for admitting not to know if any admins from the German WP were involved in paid editing; the desired response was apparently for me to say that I was 100% certain that they were not involved in such activities. For the details, see [1] (German)

Go to next topic area (Knowledge)