Please, remember the Wikipedia / Wikimedia mission and vision.

Our aim is to be a global movement of free, global, multi-lingual knowledge. 
Globally smartphones are already the main and primary device to access the 
Internet for the majority of people. Therefore:

(1) We should do everything we can to invite the the mobile Internet-users to 
become editors. All improvements to the mobile editing experience helps.

(2) We should invite people to work on content that works well on smartphones. 
Short summary texts and videos summarising topics are good. 

Another idea: Have anyone tried to create podcasts / audio book our of 
categories? It could be a bit like a “create a book” -feature. You collect 
articles or select a category and a software create text to audio file with the 
content. Audio works well on mobiles. 

        - Teemu 

> On 4 Jan 2019, at 9.10, Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone already mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe there is a
> concrete structural obstacle in mobile editing, which has to do with the
> ability of searching resources, quickly reading books, papers, PDF
> articles, a plethora of websites, news, etc, and using them in Wikipedia
> articles in such a limited visual space. Turning "dumb editing" easier will
> certainly have the collateral effect of bringing huge amounts of vandalism
> from some given networks, leading to the complete blocking of those
> networks from editing in Wikipedia, or even in all Wikimedia projects, as
> is has been happening with some regularity since mobile editing was
> released. This for smartphones.
> Editing from tablets is a total different story, as it can be very similar
> to what we do in the laptops and desktop computers, a tablet solution, as
> proposed, possibly could have success in providing a better environment. On
> the other hand, the current desktop version works fairly well in tablets,
> so we just have to switch from the mobile version, which is really
> suboptimal, and quite difficult to use, to that one.
> Cheers,
> Paulo
> Yethrosh <yethr...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça, 1/01/2019 à(s) 21:19:
>> I believe much depends on Wikipedia Mobile app. Users are mostly on mobile
>> now and they feel it natural to do any thing from mobile. If only, creating
>> articles and adding citations could be done easily through mobile app, can
>> make a big difference.
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2018, 2:22 a.m. David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Answering the initial question: It depends on how you understand "death".
>>> Wikipedia is the manifestation of a collection of algorithms running in
>> the
>>> minds of thousands of people. With time it could become less popular to
>> run
>>> that algorithm in your life, or you would like to try a different one.
>> With
>>> less people then the Wikipedias would be different as they are today.
>> More
>>> out-of-date information, less capacity to oversee the project,
>> stagnation,
>>> and perhaps eventually irrelevance. Myspace, digg, and winamp are still
>>> alive, however people prefer other options these days.
>>> I think it is important to move with the flow, and open new opportunities
>>> for collaboration as the technology and our contributor base are ready
>> for
>>> them. Wikidata started 6 years ago, Structured Commons is in the making,
>>> and who knows what could come next.
>>> In the age of review manipulation and mistrust, I see opportunities in
>>> identifying thought leaders, and building a balanced critique on a
>> subject
>>> based on multiple sources. Wikipedia does this partially, but it is not
>> its
>>> main aim. Assigning trust to people or organizations is something that
>> the
>>> community does quite well, so it could be applied to other contexts.
>>> A snippet-pedia also sounds useful, specially if a topic could be
>> explained
>>> with different levels of complexity. Layman's explanations are really
>>> useful and there are communities built around them (for instance ELI5
>> with
>>> 16 million subscribers), however their explanations are neither
>>> collaborative nor structured, so it is quite difficult to improve them or
>>> navigate them.
>>> It doesn't matter so much that Wikipedia "dies", what matters is that the
>>> Wikimedia community adapts with new projects that keep the spirit of
>>> gathering, organizing, and sharing knowledge alive. Perhaps we could also
>>> consider other approaches that could be executed in real life. With
>> diverse
>>> approaches, there would be different kind of contributors, aka more
>>> diversity. I would definitely welcome projects that would attract 90% of
>>> female contributors, even if they are radically different and they are
>> not
>>> a wiki. In the end our mission is to enable everyone to share knowledge,
>>> not necessarily encyclopedic, and not necessarily using current
>> technology.
>>> Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean that all problems can be
>> solved
>>> with it.
>>> Regards,
>>> Micru
>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
>>>> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
>>>> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want
>> to
>>>> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The
>>> target
>>>> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
>>>> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the
>> first
>>>> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
>>>> apologize in advance.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Yaroslav
>>>> _________________
>>>> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of
>> Wikipedia.
>>>> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless,
>> but
>>>> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
>>>> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I
>> am
>>>> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues,
>>> but
>>>> there are typically many other things going on there which make the
>>> picture
>>>> more complicated.
>>>> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since
>> 2001,
>>>> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
>>>> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have
>>> already
>>>> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to
>> point
>>>> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article
>> on
>>> an
>>>> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many
>>> articles
>>>> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and
>>> they
>>>> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular
>>> basis:
>>>> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and
>>> so
>>>> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
>>>> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world
>> in
>>>> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is
>> not
>>> so
>>>> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have
>> been
>>>> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia
>> -
>>>> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first
>>> hit
>>>> &#8212; they are likely to find what they need with more than 99%
>> chance.
>>>> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008
>> or
>>>> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody
>> could
>>>> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951
>> film
>>>> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started
>> in
>>>> 2005, as well as an article on Cy Twombly, at the time probably the
>> most
>>>> famous living artist. This is not possible anymore. This is why the
>>> number
>>>> of active editors is currently dropping - to contribute to the content
>>> in a
>>>> meaningful way, one now has to be an advanced amateur - to master some
>>>> field of knowledge much better than most others do. Or one can be a
>>>> professional - but there are very few professionals contributing to
>>>> Wikipedia in their fields, and there are very few articles written at a
>>>> professional level. Attempts to attract professionals have been made
>> for
>>>> many years, and, despite certain local success, generally failed. They
>>> have
>>>> been going now for long enough to assume they will never succeed on a
>>> large
>>>> scale. Wikipedia is written by advance amateurs for amateurs. However,
>>>> despite the decline in the number of editors, there are enough
>> resources
>>> to
>>>> maintain and to expand the project. It does not mean there are no
>>> problems
>>>> - there are in fact many problems. One of the most commonly discussed
>> one
>>>> is systemic bias - there is way more information on Wikipedia on
>> subjects
>>>> pertaining to North America than to Africa, and if a topic is viewed on
>>>> differently in different countries, one can be sure that the American
>>> view
>>>> dominates. But it is usually thought - and I agree with this - that
>> these
>>>> drawbacks are not crucial, and Wikipedia is atill a useful and
>>> sustainable
>>>> project. Wikipedia clearly has its ecosystem, there are no competitors
>> to
>>>> talk about, and all attempts to fork it were unsuccessful. There is a
>>>> steady development, and everybody is happy.
>>>> Does this mean that everything is fine and we do not need to worry?,
>> just
>>>> to wait until missing articles get written, or even to help this by
>>> writing
>>>> them ourselves?
>>>> Absolutely not. To understand this, we can look again at the editor
>> base.
>>>> There are detailed studies, but, for a starter, it is a nightmare to
>> edit
>>>> Wikipedia from a cell phone. It is possible but not much easier to edit
>>> it
>>>> from a tablet. The mobile version is different from a desktop one, and
>> it
>>>> is not really optimized for editing. This is a known problem, but one
>>>> aspect of it is clear. Most Wikipedia editors actually own a desktop
>> and
>>> a
>>>> laptop. This brings them into 18+ category. There are of course
>>> exceptions,
>>>> but the fact is that the editor base gets older, and this is a problem.
>>> The
>>>> problem is not so much at this point that we all die and there will be
>>>> nobody to edit Wikipedia. The problem is that the next generation (18-)
>>> has
>>>> very different ways of getting information. And I guess they are not
>>>> interested in editing Wikipedia, and they will not get interested when
>>> they
>>>> grow up - possibly beyond introducing minor corrections, which can be
>>> done
>>>> from a phone.
>>>> Traditionally, students were always among the core of the editors base.
>>>> They already have some knowledge and they still have time to edit. When
>>>> they graduate, find a job and start a family, they have way less time
>> and
>>>> typically stop editing. The next group are retirees. Between students
>> and
>>>> retirees, we have a tiny fraction of dedicated enthusiasts who are
>> ready
>>> to
>>>> take time from work and family, but they are really not numerous. Well,
>>> and
>>>> very soon we are going to lose students as editors. And we should be
>>> happy
>>>> if we do not lose them as readers.
>>>> I am 51, and I do not know much about the 18- generation, but I know
>> two
>>>> important things about them. They have a very short attention span and
>>>> difficulties to concentrate. And they get a graphical and visualized
>>>> information much more easier than texts. For example, my son is capable
>>> of
>>>> watching three or four movies per day, but he has difficulties to read
>> 20
>>>> pages from a book.
>>>> Well, the first question is whether an encyclopedia is an appropriate /
>>> the
>>>> best format for them to get knowledge (as it is for us). I do not know
>>> the
>>>> answer. What I write below assumes that the answer is positive,
>> otherwise
>>>> the rest of the text does not make sense.
>>>> The next question is what should be done. How Wikipedia should look
>> like
>>> to
>>>> be accessible to this generation? The answer seems to be obvious.
>>> Articles
>>>> must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be they
>> need
>>> to
>>>> be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain clips, with
>>> more
>>>> voice and less letters. If one needs more detailed information or just
>>>> further information - one hops to the next article or watches the next
>>>> clip.
>>>> This is a paradigm shift. Currently, the editors generally consider
>> that
>>> it
>>>> is good to have long Wikipedia articles - because long means more
>>> complete.
>>>> Sometimes there are even proposals (fortunately isolated and without
>>>> followup) to delete all short articles even if they describe notable
>>> topics
>>>> and contain verified information. Clips are almost not in use.  Of
>> course
>>>> they still need to be made, but this is not such a big problem - there
>>> are
>>>> plenty of school students who have their own youtube channel, if they
>> can
>>>> make clips, everybody can.
>>>> The most difficult question is how this can be realized. I believe it
>> is
>>>> not possible to just transform Wikipedia like this - make articles
>>> shorter
>>>> and simpler and spit them. First, this might be good for the young
>>>> generation, but this is still not good for the 18+ generation. Second,
>>> such
>>>> reforms should be either be approved by Wikipedia community through
>>>> consensus, or be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation who owns the
>>> project.
>>>> The likelihood of either is zero. Just to give one argument, the
>>> community
>>>> is, well, the community of editors, of the same 18+ people with laptops
>>> who
>>>> have no difficulties reading long texts.
>>>> I envision it differently. Ideally, we have the Wikipedia as it is now,
>>> but
>>>> on top of this, every article has a collection of shorter companion
>>>> articles, simple and a paragraph or two long, so that each of them can
>> be
>>>> read in half a minute, They should not have excessive markup,
>> references,
>>>> categories or anything else which can be found in the main article if
>>>> needed. References in Wikipedia are required not for the sake of having
>>>> references, but as a means to ensure that the information is
>> verifiable -
>>>> and if the main article does it the companion articles do not need to.
>>> Some
>>>> of these companion articles can be in fact clips - there is a
>> difficulty
>>>> that clips can not be edited collaboratively, but I am sure this one
>> can
>>> be
>>>> solved. If anybody wants to solve it.
>>>> The status of what I have written above is science fiction. I am sure
>> if
>>> I
>>>> come with this proposal to a village pump of Wikipedia, it will be dead
>>>> within a day. In addition, it requires some modifications of MediaWiki
>>>> which can only be done by the Foundation. And I am not really looking
>>>> forward for the Foundation implementing this either. I have a lot of
>>>> respect for some of the Foundation employees, but it has now grown up
>>> into
>>>> a big corporation now and behaves as a big corporation, where some
>> people
>>>> care less about the product and more about other things, and some look
>> at
>>>> Wikipedia editors, aka "unorganized volunteers", as some annoying
>>>> phenomenon, which they can tolerate but are not willing to listen to.
>> My
>>>> forecast is pretty pessimistic. Unless a miracle happens (and I
>>> currently,
>>>> at least not from my perspective, do not see any reasons for a miracle
>> to
>>>> happen), soon or late will realize this, It might be a startup company,
>>> or
>>>> a non-commercial. And Wikipedia will stay as it is, and, after the
>>>> standards change many times, it will not be readable / accessible to
>> most
>>>> of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were
>> were
>>>> doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and
>>> happens
>>>> to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of
>>> pieces
>>>> of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now.
>>>> Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia,
>> 125
>>>> 000 edits.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> --
>>> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to