|Please don't hesitate to add comments or ask questions on this page. Your input will be noticed.|
On behalf of the strategy teams, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The a-c/q alliteration is accidental :)
- 1 Beeing the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge means that you need readers who like what they see
- 2 training
- 3 Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical Wikipedian
- 4 Proposed additional questions
- 5 "Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope"
Beeing the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge means that you need readers who like what they see
My understanding is that Wikipedia is used by Goggle to produce the Google Search Infobox
That means that Wikipedia is shown at the top of Googles search pages a place that if you should pay for it as an paid advertisement would cost 100 millions of dollar.
My understanding since wikipedia has got this location and 3/4 lines of Wikipedia text is shown the number of people clicking on the link to Wikipedia is significantly decreased my conclusion 3 lines of Wikipedia is "enough" for the average reader.... they are not interested in Wikipedias free knowledge and instead prefer other sources
Good or bad that 3 lines Wikipedia is enough?
- a discussion/analyse why?
- that Wikipedia actively
- ask the user was this a good article?
- did it meet your expectations?
- something like this could be anonymous and just a scale 1-10
The lack of interest in Wikipedia when you have 3-4 lines of Wikipedia I guess could be
- People dont trust the content in Wikipedia
- Wikipedia has a format/design that is not the prefered
- As most users are not logged in we have a problem customize the user interface for different target groups maybe Wikipedia should be designed to adress different target groups and tell users if you log in you wil get a more rich user interface with maps links to xxx etc.. based on Wikidata data....
- Wikipedia often lacks multimedia like videos
- Some editors of Wikipedia are "afraid" of external links and count the numbers of links displayed instead of thinking what is the target group interested in
- Compare Google trying to understand what the user is looking for and just present the best links and rank them according to the knowkedge they have about the user and his/hers location
- Should Wikipedia better use the resources in Wikidata to link to external sources?
What I miss is tools and feedbacks mechanism in Wikipedia to learn more how to make Wikipedia the preferred place to consume free knowledge. To often I see on the swedish Wikipedia that people who are active editors and discuss just focus on there own wishes/needs and miss the consumer part of Wıkipedia - Salgo60 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. When working groups are ready for work, they will be notified about your questions. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
what are the necessary skills to implement the action items to get to the strategic goals ? Where is the training program, for the necessary skills for employees, community functionaries, and editors ? What are the metrics to measure the effectiveness of training ? Slowking4 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- yes, but more - building on the GLAM camp experience, we should be training everyone in best practices in how to use tools. and we should be training everyone in the soft skills necessary for a collaborative project. we should be training chapter officers, and board members in best practices for non-profit governance. it may be review for some, but it will provide a skill improvement across the board. Slowking4 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. For a while, I've had a feeling that we should try to find better answers for Wikipedians asking about what "different forms of knowledge" can mean for Wikipedia. For that end, I've created the page Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical Wikipedian and would love to have your support in completing it. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gnom: I think basic problem is that it's difficult to find out what was discussed last year. (Because it's already written down and linked to!) But we don't disseminate knowledge about us among us well enough. Few read Meta-Wiki and even fewer read the strategic reports. Few read documentation whatsoever. For me, finding such better answers could mean just creating video on YouTube where someone could explain ideas (that have come from the community!) like multiple versions of the same article (a.k.a. content adjusted to reader's stage of development), "moar interactivity", etc. Maybe I'm biased, but I often point at the documentation reception issue. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Proposed additional questions
"Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope"
Is there any substantial difference between the template "Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope" headers that would prevent deleting one of the two when empty? James Salsman (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)