Totally; as I think my email made clear, I was aware that the limiting factor here was the sheer cost of building out the infrastructure. The core question, though, was what the project would be replaced with - what those "highest return-on-investment" projects were.
On 1 June 2015 at 20:45, Jon Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > Thanks for sharing your disappointment. I do not think you are alone in > wanting to see wikigrok continue and grow. I would clarify that the > 'success rates' you allude to were for reader engagement and accuracy, not > in actually improving our projects by filling in important gaps in wikidata. > A great deal of work would be required to build out in order for this > project to have a scalable impact on wikidata. > > I am not saying that casual contributions are going away, simply that we are > going to recognize our resource limitations and evaluate opportunities for > them based on highest return-on-investment. We currently have 5 developers > working on readership for the entire web (due to some temporary leaves) and > there might be smaller wins using casual contributions that work towards our > end goal, but don't require the heavy upfront investment. This doesn't mean > we don't take on big thorny problems, just that we take a step back and see > if there are ways to subdivide them into smaller projects along the way. > > Best, > > Jon > > [1] > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/WikiGrok > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
