That looks very interesting! Happy to already see Wikidata in the list which, I think, lends itself well to small contributions. I'd be happy to exchange about easier contribution possibilities there.
I also CCed Lydia, Wikidata's Project Manager. Jan 2016-08-30 20:21 GMT+02:00 Dario Taraborelli <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>: > Forwarding a wikitech-l note from Moushira (cc'ed) and the WMF reading > team, relevant to the discussion on microcontributions. > > Hello Everyone, > > I am writing to share with you an effort from the Android team to start > identifying > themes of products > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Readers_contributions> [0] that > would allow readers to create micro-contributions that are welcomed and > actually needed by fellow Wikipedia editors. > > The team has already identified 18 ideas as examples of tasks readers can > do to help editors, we would like to expand the conversation to help us > evaluate the importance of the idea*s*. While thinking, the team already > had criteria for evaluating the ideas > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Readers_contributions/Reading_team_thoughts>, > but this is still missing community input on how ideas are evaluated and > what would actually get high votes for being something that matters, in > order for the team to start working on. Please feel encouraged to add > more ideas and adjust criteria for evaluation if needed. > > This work is a continuation of the reading consultation > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_Interaction_Consultation> earlier > done in April. The team is excited to continue the conversation early with > the community in order to define product themes. > > Ideas promoted from this conversation will be designed in Android first, > given the consideration of lower traffic and relative ease of > implementation, but the team will be excited and watching for lessons > learned in order to move ideas to the web. > > This work is made possible by Jon Katz, Reading team's senior PM, and > Dmitry Brant, the product owner of Android. Thanks for their thoughtful > and collaborative approach". > > We will allow the conversation to run for a month, after which we can > already start exploring ideas for implementation in Q3. Please help > spread the word across village pumps. > > > Looking forward to your input -- > > > Best, > Moushira > Community Liaison for Reading team > > [0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Readers_contributions > [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Readers_ > contributions/Reading_team_thoughts > [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_Interaction_Consultation > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hoi Bob, >> Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It has its own problems and it could >> do better as well. The point of a marketing approach is not only in >> reaching more editors. Having people help with more content for instance >> with micro tasks is achievable. The point must be that the work done makes >> a difference. It is not something we have ever shown that individual work >> makes a difference even though we could do this. We could produce lists of >> articles waiting to be written in domains. They could be our red links, >> they could be the articles that exist in other Wikipedias. They could even >> be items in Wikidata. >> >> The biggest point of our projects is not our contributors, it is what >> they produce. What we could do is make sure is that this is easier >> available. Has a better user experience. Take Commons or Wikisource I do >> not use it because I do not know what to find and in what state I will find >> it. This has technical issues but the main thing is that our audience is >> hardly what we are interested in. >> >> In them days I asked loudly for Commons but I find it impossible to find >> material for my blog so I gave up on Commons. I have done a lot of work on >> Wiktionary but I found that there was too much repetition so I started >> OmegaWiki and hoped for the WMF to adopt it. Wikidata has much promise and >> it could do a lot of good but that is where I am at the moment. >> >> With proper marketing we will improve the user experience for our >> audience, they may cooperate in micro tasks and, we will as a consequence >> grow an interest by some to edit text. They could stay if we do a better >> job of maintaining a friendly space. That is not marketing not technology >> but it is necessary. We are at a state where we have a technology that more >> or less works for most editors in the bigger projects. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 28 August 2016 at 21:26, Bob Kosovsky <bobkosov...@nypl.org> wrote: >> >>> I've been active with Wikipedia since 2006. My impression (which >>> corresponds with data) is that 2008 was the year with the highest number of >>> editors on English Wikipedia. While it may sound good on paper, in some >>> ways it was a mess because of the frequency of vandalism. Nowadays I know >>> there are more automated techniques for detecting vandalism, but if you >>> want to increase the number of users just to make the stats look good, >>> you're going to get more dubious data into the encyclopedia as well as >>> frustration from editors who dislike spending their time on so much >>> maintenance (although I'm sure there are some editors who would jump at the >>> chance to make corrections all day). >>> >>> I suspected from the outset of Wikipedia's creation that the project >>> would mirror the well-known "life cycle of email lists" as I've always >>> believed Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia." I feel this well-known meme >>> accurately reflect's Wikipedia's evolution so I repeat it here as a tool >>> from which to learn: >>> >>> *1. Initial enthusiasm* (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot >>> about how wonderful it is to find kindred souls). >>> >>> *2. Evangelism* (people moan about how few folks are posting to the >>> list, and brainstorm recruitment strategies). >>> >>> *3. Growth* (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads >>> develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up). >>> >>> *4. Community* (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots >>> of information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as well >>> as less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease each >>> other; newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience; everyone -- >>> newbie and expert alike -- feels comfortable asking questions, suggesting >>> answers, and sharing opinions). >>> >>> *5. Discomfort with diversity* (the number of messages increases >>> dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people start >>> complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens to quit if >>> *other* people don't limit discussion to person 1's pet topic; person 2 >>> agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more bandwidth is >>> wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used for the threads >>> themselves; everyone gets annoyed). >>> >>> *6a. Smug complacency and stagnation* (the purists flame everyone who >>> asks an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies >>> are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor >>> issues; all interesting discussions happen by private email and are limited >>> to a few participants; the purists spend lots of time self-righteously >>> congratulating each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list). >>> >>> *OR* >>> >>> *6b. Maturity* (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the >>> participants stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few >>> weeks; many people wear out their second or third 'delete' key, but the >>> list lives contentedly ever after). >>> >>> >>> I feel Wikipedia is at stage 6 (both a and b). Unless there's a >>> significant change in functionality and design, the days of 2008 will never >>> return, and we should stop bothering to think it's possible to replicate >>> them (because their existence was due to the novelty of the project). >>> >>> Instead, I think Wikimedia projects should cultivate those individuals >>> with specialized knowledge. A lot of these people are in specialized >>> communities (for example educators, medical professionals, >>> researchers/scholars, devoted amateurs). These are communities which >>> formerly looked down on Wikipedia but now are reconsidering their formerly >>> negative opinions of the encyclopedia. I feel the as-yet small successes in >>> the medical and GLAM communities (I am sure there are others) show great >>> promise. Being part of the GLAM community, I know there are outreach >>> efforts underway to others within that community. Being part of WM NYC, I >>> know there's a lot of librarians involved in chapter activities--and most >>> of those activities take place in libraries or museums (often museum >>> libraries). >>> >>> Until this year, the WMF showed no real interest in continuous >>> engagement and dialogue with the community that edits the projects. I >>> totally agree with the person who said WMF needs to have a marketing >>> department. This is especially true for the kinds of research which >>> marketers report on and are typical of any organization, profit or >>> non-profit. That would be a first step: Understanding who are the variety >>> of its users/editors from which it can then create action items to >>> determine how it can increase the number of users by going after specific >>> market segments. This would not eliminate the "anyone can edit" ethos, but >>> could be a more effective means to increasing users rather than appealing >>> to a broad public. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, >>> Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts >>> blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 >>> Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users >>> - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions - >>> >>> *Inspiring Lifelong Learning* | *Advancing Knowledge* | *Strengthening >>> Our Communities * >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > > -- > > *Dario Taraborelli *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter > <http://twitter.com/readermeter> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > -- Jan Dittrich UX Design/ User Research Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That‘s our commitment. Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
