I'm personally incredibly disappointed; this was the most successful intervention I'd seen anyone try in a long while, if ever, and the results blow me away. My question would be "what interventions with similarly high success rates are going to be worked on instead?" - I assume that we're not working on them because we can achieve the same outcome through easier-to-implement interventions. I would be interested to hear what those interventions are.
On 1 June 2015 at 14:57, Jon Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > TLDR: Wikigrok proved that readers are interested in and capable of making > casual, mobile contributions to Wikipedia. We are putting continued > development of the 'Wikigrok' casual contribution feature on hold until we > have a plan for optimally harnessing this interest/capability. > > Background > Given the growth of mobile traffic on wikipedia and the challenges inherent > to traditional editing on a mobile device, Wikigrok was proposed as a way to > test if regular wikipedia readers would be interested in making smaller, > more casual contributions to wikimedia projects while reading Wikipedia on a > mobile device. > > Results > By early 2015, the results were in: readers were relatively interested in > engaging with the feature[1]. Some oft-quoted comparisons include: > > 3x the number of unique responders as mobile editors during test period > (4.5K editors, 12.3K WikiGrokkers), even with WG on sample of articles & > users > 1.5x better clickthrough than 2014 Fundraising full-screen mobile banner > > (I actually do not have references for these, as they are borrowed quotes) > Furthermore, we found that the quality of responses was rather high [2,3]. > > Future > The original thought was to use these responses to fill in gaps in Wikidata > and our initial test results (2 weeks worth) were successfully ported over > in late April [4]. However, in order to production-ize the system, we would > have to: > > scale and develop queries against the new wikidata query service > create an article parser to identify potential multiple choice answers for > each question > create a system for attributing aggregated results to the specific > contributors (per Wikidata bot request discussion[5]) > > None of these are unsurpassable, but we have learned a great deal and, at > this stage, we believe that further effort should be devoted to evaluating > areas of need and fit before we commit additional efforts to specifically > porting information into Wikidata. > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or concerns about > this decision. > Best, > > Jon > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiGrok/Test2 > [2] Quality of responses, version A: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/File:All_Campagins,_Scatterplot,_version_(a).pdf > [3] Quality of responses, version B: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/File:All_Campaigns,_Scatterplot,_version_(b).pdf > [4] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiGrok?limit=500 > [5] > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/WikiGrok > > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
