Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2016/Community consultation/Knowledge: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →{{subst:Tryptofish}}: new section |
GVarnum-WMF (talk | contribs) m GVarnum-WMF moved page Talk:2016 Strategy/Community consultation/Knowledge to Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2016/Community consultation/Knowledge |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{TNT|2016 Strategy/closeNote}}
{{TOC limit|2}}
{{:Talk:2016 Strategy/Knowledge/Set 1}}
Line 28 ⟶ 29:
::::''Machine translation; please help improve''
:::''The bias in issues and articles on many Wikipedia large. 'Approach four' is in my view therefore important. In the Dutch Wikipedia, there is a bias towards male subjects to Neerlandocentrisme, and a disproportionate focus on things like football and music from contemporary charts. There are more sports, Dutch is spoken in more countries and there is so much more music than just the Top 40. Computer Supported content ('' Approach six '', for example via Wiki Data) can complement for Wikipedia. It is important to let this land on the users, in several large wiki communities there is opposition to this way of working. I can imagine what the fear of giving the control out of your hands, but I also see many opportunities to make a profit from this common input. Why should we enter the death of persons on 200+ wikis, where it can be passed from a central database? Consider also results in international sporting events, and so many other details. It is important that it is supporting, not leading.''
:::''A third idea is to secure the information. Many wikis refer to external web pages. Unfortunately, practice shows that the operators of these sites, there is not always strong interest to make this information available permanently. It would therefore be desirable if Wikipedia in one way or another, is able to ensure that they
== VexorAbVikipædia ==
Line 118 ⟶ 119:
==Pdebee==
I am only a plain-vanilla editor on en.Wikipedia, and I've entered this survey (my first on Wikipedia) out of curiosity and solely because it was advertised at the top of my user page. So, my comment might not be directly relevant to the goals of this survey, and I expect it will most likely be discarded. For what it's worth, though: I have read through all the options offered in this survey, and am saddened to find that it completely ignores the impact of rampant vandalism on our community of editors and readers. My grandsons (aged 12 and 14) are expressly forbidden by their school from relying on Wikipedia as a source of information for their research/essays, because teaching staff consider it unreliable, since anyone can enter anything at any time and the community of editors is known to be constantly battling against vandals.
IMHO, the best 15th birthday present our community of editors should have been given is a survey on a strategy for defeating vandalism, which is a cancer constantly eating away at all our efforts. In any case, best wishes of success with the present survey and I apologise for being off-topic. With kind regards; Patrick. [[w:en:User:Pdebee|Pdebee]] ([[w:en:User talk:Pdebee|talk]]) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Line 177 ⟶ 178:
策略二: 藉由以社群領導的館聯機構（美術館、圖書館、檔案館、與博物館）合作計畫，來更快速的擴展維基媒體的內容。
策略五: 透過翻譯工具與人工處理，提升維基媒體計畫主要語言版本的收錄內容。
::::''Machine translation; please help improve''
:::''Strategy One: Provide upload multimedia content as well as short stories, letters, simple-to-use tool with incentives to make mobile devices and users can quickly find more convenient. Strategy II: community - led by Hall-linked institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) cooperation program to more rapid expansion of the content of Wikimedia. Strategy Five: Through translation tool with manual processing, improve Wikimedia project included the main language versions of the content.''
:::''[Approaches 1, 2, 5.]''
Line 891 ⟶ 896:
-- Hay un desequilibrio de wikipedistas en cuanto a género y a otros criterios, y reducir esta brecha siempre puede ser muy interesante para el proyecto Wikipedia.
::::''Machine translation; please help improve''
:::''- There is an imbalance of Wikipedians in gender and other criteria, and reducing this gap can always be very interesting for the Wikipedia project.''
== Atsme ==
Line 1,072 ⟶ 1,077:
=== OverQuantum's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
There should be a way to link blocks of text from different languages of same article, to be able to automatically translate text of missing block in one of languages from another and better translate for third language there many/all blocks are missing.
::{{reply to|OverQuantum}} Some good progress here with features like the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation Content Translation] tool. There's also a [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/29/content-translation-50000-articles/ blog post] about this tool, if you want to read more. [[User:WMoran (WMF)|WMoran (WMF)]] ([[User talk:WMoran (WMF)|talk]]) 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
== HG Alvarez ==
Line 1,464 ⟶ 1,470:
''better publicity for articles''
:''As a content producer, I can not complain - perhaps you can
:''Better publicity for articles''
Line 1,860 ⟶ 1,866:
:{{machine translation}}
:''But do we know what readers demand? Because short fragments will not help looking for a response, for example, on the causes of the First World War or uses of chromium. That just does not fit in twenty or fifty words. Now, if you want to know where to play Messi, that's an entirely different matter.''
''Yes it is important to assume that
=== Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de B25es (o comparte tu propia idea) ===
Line 1,917 ⟶ 1,923:
:{{reply to|Lele giannoni}} Hi, I just wanted to mention that the ideas behind approaches 1, 3, 5, and partially 6, are also to do with making it easier for non-technical people to contribute to the areas that are currently very technical (e.g. uploading files, or participating in some of the more complicated workflows at various wikis, or even just finding specific types of tasks in relation to specific subject areas). Hope that helps. :-) [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 23:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::I wanted to mean that basic editing is not so technically difficult. Notwihstanding, many people skilled in topics (particularily in humanities) don't partecipate in Wkiprojects. So, i don't think technology is the cause of their absence, while motivation. Lele Giannoni
:::Understood. Thank you! [[User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]]) 22:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
== Muzyk98 ==
Line 2,078 ⟶ 2,085:
1, 3 и 5 подходы.
==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Tryptofish|Tryptofish]]</small> 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Tryptofish's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
4, 2, 5, in that order
== ThurnerRupert ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/ThurnerRupert|ThurnerRupert]]</small> 22:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
=== ThurnerRupert's response to the critical question ===
...a very important question. while WMF did an excellent job in many respects, it did catastrophic in "knowledge" or "contents". where can i put a video on how to make bred from growing the crop, mill, baking. with subtitles in 200 languages, and translated in 50 languages? i do not have the technology to produce it, nor to store it, nor to find it. where and how can i use parts of an article to create a book for a training course? how can i download parts of wikipedia as zim or epub and take it with me? all impossible or too difficult.
=== ThurnerRupert's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
...approach five seems fine. approach 3 is written in complicated english and means everything and nothing, you mean easier contribute? sure! if so, approach one is approach three. approach seven is to reserve 30% of the money (i.e. 25 mio USD) to innovative content creation _outside_ of wikimedia foundation, via some competition or global/local grant giving model. WMF proofed that it is unable to innovate in the nearly 15 years of existence. it created a visual editor for the same old content, that is it. i am wondering how you make sure that such a suggestion is going to the WMF board or community instead of sticking within the foundation who has a conflict of interest and no ambition whatsoever to involve others.
== 위키백과 홍보!! ==
위키백과를 홍보하세요![[User:1655dlehdbs|1655dlehdbs]] ([[User talk:1655dlehdbs|talk]]) 00:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{machine translation}}
:''Wikipedia publicity!! Promote Wikipedia!''
== Rslocked ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Rslocked|Rslocked]]</small> 01:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Rslocked's response to the critical question ===
One thing to keep in mind is the need for the readers to comprehend this newly found information's. There should be a level of clarity between the transition of information. Another thing would be figuring out how to properly apply the information to the content throughout the foundation.
=== Rslocked's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
1. Approach 3
2. Approach 5
3. Approach 4
== Abrimaal ==
<!-- Ten kawałek: "subst:REVISIONUSER" wstawi Twoją nazwę użytkownika automatycznie. Nie musisz edytować tej linii. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Abrimaal|Abrimaal]]</small> 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Odpowiedź użytkownika Abrimaal na główne pytanie ===
...wpisz odpowiedź tutaj…
1
=== Główne 2-3 koncepcje wg użytkownika Abrimaal (albo podziel sie swoim pomysłem) ===
...wpisz numery tutaj…
:Subskrypcja na e-mail z wybranego zakresu wiedzy np. (E-mail subscription of user-selected range)
:- ogólny newsletter (a general newsletter)
:- nowe artykuły z wybranej tematyki (new articles from selected categories)
:- aktualizacje obserwowanych artykułów (updates of watched articles)
== StupidChangSonla ==
<!-- 「 "subst:REVISIONUSER" 」將會自動加入您的使用者姓名。請在發文的時候保留這行。 -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/StupidChangSonla|StupidChangSonla]]</small> 13:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
=== StupidChangSonla 對關鍵問題的回應 ===
⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯
=== StupidChangSonla 的前2或前3優先順序（或分享您自己的想法） ===
⋯⋯在這裡寫⋯⋯
2 4 1
== Fantomeoz ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Fantomeoz|Fantomeoz]]</small> 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Fantomeoz's response to the critical question ===
3
=== Fantomeoz's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
1
2
== Donne Cena ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Donne Cena|Donne Cena]]</small> 00:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Donne Cena's response to the critical question ===
more easy-to-understand words
=== Donne Cena's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
I support number five. I think there should be a sub-talk page for the page to tell people the meaning of a word they do not understand on the article
== Cwenrich13 ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Cwenrich13|Cwenrich13]]</small> 10:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Cwenrich13's response to the critical question ===
Adding an additional tab for community created snippets. But also allow for users to select if they want those also displayed with pointers or highlighting what they are referring to. Augmentation of the side bar could be used for the display area or have the main page be retractable on one side exposing the snippets as if it was a piece of paper being slide out from underneath another piece of paper.
Another could be a more accessible mind-mapping diagram to help in the discovery of new subjects or even unknown connections.
=== Cwenrich13's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
Listed in order:
Approach Six
Approach One
Approach Two
== Monopoly31121993 ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Monopoly31121993|Monopoly31121993]]</small> 10:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Monopoly31121993's response to the critical question ===
=== Monopoly31121993's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
2,5
== NinjaRobotPirate ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]]</small> 11:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== NinjaRobotPirate's response to the critical question ===
I'm not sure that "changing knowledge needs" is even a thing. And even if it were, I'm not sure what it has to do with me. It's like asking me what I think about Ani DiFranco's music. I listen to heavy metal, man; I don't even have an opinion on that.
If the WMF wants good content, they'll need to help human contributors get access to more sources. Sure, this GLAM stuff sounds great, but it's not going to help me write an article. I'm deeply skeptical of machine-generated content. If done properly, it could conceivably be useful. And if we're talking about populating Wikidata, then it's substantially less of a bad idea. That doesn't make it good idea, though. I hope that test runs and public discussion are planned before any kind of automated content is added anywhere.
=== NinjaRobotPirate's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
* Approach 7: Contributors need access to high quality sources to write high quality content. This includes initiatives like The Wikipedia Library, which grants access to subscription-only sources.
* Approach 3: This sounds vaguely useful, but it's difficult to understand what exactly it's about.
* Approach 4: Useful. But how can I do anything about this if I don't access to sources?
== Arvidex ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Arvidex|Arvidex]]</small> 11:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Arvidex's response to the critical question ===
1
=== Arvidex's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
4, 3
== Drahtloser ==
<!-- Dieser "subst:REVISIONUSER" Teil wird deinen Benutzernamen automatisch zufügen. Du kannst diese Zeile auch auslassen. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Drahtloser|Drahtloser]]</small> 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Antwort von Drahtloser auf die Hauptfrage ===
...hier schreiben...
=== Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Drahtloser ===
Delete the idea of a "gender gap" from the community minds: Thinking is not limited to genus. But bullying appears to be a real threat. It creates a hard disappointment, when uninforned and unproductive "authors" focus on "delete" and "merge" and succeed without brains.
== Hendrikvander ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Hendrikvander|Hendrikvander]]</small> 10:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Hendrikvander's response to the critical question ===
Two
=== Hendrikvander's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
One, Three and six: rinse and repeat.
Partner up with Universities, booksellers, scientists etc. to improve the accuracy, timeliness and range of information. Consider incorporating a Google search engine for scientific publications and documentations; then display the website contents on the wikimedia page (after getting permission of course).
== Hollth ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Hollth|Hollth]]</small> 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Hollth's response to the critical question ===
...write here…
IMO having a larger Community focus will result in better Knowledge more than Knowledge will lead to a larger/ better Community. I.e., Knowledge seems mostly a consequence and does not seem like it will address the fundamental issues that threaten WMF self sustenance.
=== Hollth's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
...write here…
Six, two, one. NOT four.
Six appears to be a very high risk, high reward strategy, so I definitely would not put many eggs in that basket, however I would still think it wise to invest in this for the long term.
Two appears to have the simultaneous benefit of addressing the community aspect as well. I would encourage this to expand to universities and clubs to further emphasis the community aspect. IMO having a larger Community focus will result in better Knowledge more than Knowledge will lead to a larger/ better Community.
One also looks like it is twofold in dealing with Reach and Knowledge, so I have to say that looks to be a prime candidate on a first glance cost benefit analysis.
I've also included NOT four. In short, believe this will be a money sink. There will always be systematic bias of some kind. It is in essence a statistical truth analogous to how individual variance leads to evolution. The conglomeration of all the variance will always have some deviation. In the context of WMF the bias mostly comes from the volunteers origins (e.g. male, anglo) and interests and addressing that would require a monumental amount of time, effort and money that I believe would be best utilised in other areas of Knowledge (or even better IMO, Community and Reach). As most people know, it takes much longer to do a task that one is either not interested in or unaware of.
== Aspiriniks ==
<!-- Dieser "subst:REVISIONUSER" Teil wird deinen Benutzernamen automatisch zufügen. Du kannst diese Zeile auch auslassen. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Aspiriniks|Aspiriniks]]</small> 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Antwort von Aspiriniks auf die Hauptfrage ===
None of the six approaches makes sense. For the reader, Wikipedia is perfect as it is. If the communities of some languages want some help, give it to them, but accept that what makes sense for one language (for instance having articles written by bots) does not automatically make sense for others. What could be discussed in the communities would be an ''abstract'' in the beginning of long articles, where the content of the article is condensed on 5 to 10 % of the article length within a box, but this should not be forced on the communities (and it would be possible without any technical change, only maybe by introducing a URL like de.wikipedia.org/'''abstract'''/Martin_Luther to only load the abstract without the rest of the article).
=== Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Aspiriniks ===
== HHill ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/HHill|HHill]]</small> 22:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
=== HHill's response to the critical question ===
As has been noted above, the term ''knowledge'' sits badly with some of the proposed strategic approaches. Looking at todays content of Wikidata and infoboxes, said ''snippets'', devoid of context, might be useful for identification and disambiguation purposes. But most of them probably do not constitute ''knowledge'' one should bother memorizing, e.g. for an examination at university. At best it's the stuff one should know where to look up.<br>
Tablets, e-book readers and even smartphones could also serve as plattforms for quite long (maybe even literally epic) texts that to this day have only been transmitted by e. g. palm leaf manuscript. Wikisource quite possibly has the potential to become a central site for e-books of old or even ancient texts in asian and african languages. On the one hand it should provide texts in formats usable by the most common devices, on the other hand it should be compatible with scholarly text encoding standards and practices. Learning from (and perhaps cooperating with) institutions such as the [http://www.hmml.org/ Hill Museum & Manuscript Library], who engaged in the preservation of texts (and knowledge) long before the advent of the internet, the Wikimedia Foundation could serve as a hub and a facilitator for volunteers all over the world. Digitizing manuscripts held by their traditional keepers or scattered (and, being often only badly catalogued, mostly hidden) in small collections e.g. in libraries in Europe and America and transcribing the texts contained therein will give those texts a whole new audience (and add valuable content to our projects that is not just badly translated from e. g. en.wikipedia).
=== HHill's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
* Approach two
* Approach four
== Kein Einstein ==
<!-- Dieser "subst:REVISIONUSER" Teil wird deinen Benutzernamen automatisch zufügen. Du kannst diese Zeile auch auslassen. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Kein Einstein|Kein Einstein]]</small> 10:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Antwort von Kein Einstein auf die Hauptfrage ===
3
=== Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Kein Einstein ===
6, 5
== Chris Rodgers ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Chris Rodgers|Chris Rodgers]]</small> 10:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Chris Rodgers's response to the critical question ===
Paradoxically, I suspect the way to best adapt to changing knowledge needs is by being ''less'' restrictive regarding sources - policy creep being a real problem - rather than more.
=== Chris Rodgers's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
#5 has utility, #3 I'm suspicious of since I sometimes trust users more than editors, but #7: be less restrictive of content rather than more. I believe WP was not meant to be a mere parroting of secondaries already out there in abundance.
== ArnoldReinhold ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/ArnoldReinhold|ArnoldReinhold]]</small> 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
=== ArnoldReinhold's response to the critical question ===
Quality is all important. I think the number on threat to Wikimedia quality is link rot. Our content must be verifiable and that requires links to sources. We have tens of millions of such links, too many for volunteers to effectively patrol for rot. We need automated tools to archive linked material in our own or tower's repositories.
The second biggest threat is the accumulation of small changes, through well intentioned but poorly sourced edits of undetected vandalism. Article reviews are one way to improve quality, but they would be much more useful if there was an easy way to display the difference between the current state of an article and its state at its last review.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|ArnoldReinhold]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
=== ArnoldReinhold's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
Approach 1 should begin by providing ways to at least accept common multimedia formats.
My least favorite is number six. I really scares me.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|ArnoldReinhold]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
== Baruneju ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Baruneju|Baruneju]]</small> 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Baruneju 's response to the critical question ===
Expand the availability of reliable sources for the editors (i.e Wikipedia Library), also by easing the access to them (also from a technological point of view).
Create and improve solutions to identify loops of information (i.e. wikipedia using a newspaper as source, but the newspaper used wikipedia as source).
=== Baruneju 's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
2,3,7.
== Ad Huikeshoven ==
<!-- Dit "subst:REVISIONUSER" zal je gebruikersnaam automatisch vullen. Voel je vrij om deze regel te laten staan. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]]</small> 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Ad Huikeshoven's antwoord op de kritieke vraag ===
What do you think is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to adapt to changing knowledge needs of readers (short snippets, diverse formats, language, etc.) and to help facilitate content quality?
:Our readers love to read human generated and curated content. Readers what to find information. They don't want to spend time searching. Google provides a search engine to find information on Wikipedia. Reimburse the quarter million dollar to the Knight Foundation. The movement doesn't need their money. Do something in support of the volunteer base with which the Foundation is endowed.
=== Ad Huikeshoven's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee) ===
* Anything but 6.
* Integrate Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedia futher. The semantic relationships on Wikidata allow tagging of articles titles just like categories on Wikipedia or on Commons. Those tags can be multilingual on Wikidata. Move the categories from Commons and Wikipedia to Wikidata, so users can look for images in category names in any language on Commons for example. Having the tags on Wikidata will make it possible to search for articles that fit multiple tags.
== Romaine ==
<!-- Dit "subst:REVISIONUSER" zal je gebruikersnaam automatisch vullen. Voel je vrij om deze regel te laten staan. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Romaine|Romaine]]</small> 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Romaine's antwoord op de kritieke vraag ===
* Make mobile editing much much much easier.
* Work closer together with OpenStreetMap as Wikipedia is used more and more for finding knowledge about geographic sites and improve the possibilities in geotagging of articles.
=== Romaine's top 2-3 (of deel je eigen idee) ===
Approach five: we need more tools (or better working ones) to make translations easier and to make sharing knowledge between two language versions easier.
And approach one: like special:nearby is great, but not developed further enough. It needs more development to make it easier to access local knowledge, knowledge that is around you.
== Ghilt ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Ghilt|Ghilt]]</small> 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Ghilt's response to the critical question ===
1
=== Ghilt's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
3, 4
== Discott ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Discott|Discott]]</small> 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Discott's response to the critical question ===
A very good question and one that is of great importance.
=== Discott's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
In no particular order:
*Approach 1: articles could be greatly increase by making it easier to add more and better multimedia sources to articles
*Approach 3: It would be super awesome if we had more and better tools to illustrate content. A good example might be tools to help create interactive data visualisations.
*Approach 4: Systemic bias is a problem which distorts the 'structure' of knowledge on Wikipedia by providing an incomplete account of the overall human experience of global knowledge.
== Thuthu77 ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Thuthu77|Thuthu77]]</small> 18:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Thuthu77's response to the critical question ===
Once again, I have to go with approach one as the best strategy to use right now. Through this approach will Wikimedia be able to adapt to the current modern features of the internet. This includes abilities such as, to see videos on Wiki Websites and ways to share content on social media platforms. Approach two and four are also very good strategies that i can get by as well.
=== Thuthu77's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
All ideas posted here are really good strategic approaches that i really can't think of any more to add.
In conclusion though i wanna say is that all of these strategies and approaches across the three sections can be achieved if we all (the Wikimedia community) chip in, however big or small it may be. Together we can all change Wikimedia for the better and help make the movement create an impact on the whole world.
== Ashaio ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Ashaio|Ashaio]]</small> 21:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Ashaio's response to the critical question ===
Instead of (or in addition to) approach 4 I propose to measure the complexity (reading level) of the articles, and to organize projects to reduce it. Simple English Wikipedia is a great example.
=== Ashaio's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
Strong support for approaches 2 and 6. Also approach 5.
== NickK ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/NickK|NickK]]</small> 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== NickK's response to the critical question ===
There are two questions here:
# Changing needs: we should not change our approach. I do not get the point about "short snippets": what can we do with this? Is this a new fancy name for stubs in small Wikipedias? Or does anyone want to replace, say, a Wikivoyage guide with a short snippet? This is not the way to go, we should find ways to improve our content and present it in a better and a more user-friendly way. Of course we need higher-quality materials to meet expectations, but this is not enough. Let us develop 3D models, improve videos support, provide reacher diagrams and maps etc.: that's what our readers will appreciate.
# Facilitate content quality: we seriously lack sources. We have a lot of knowledge locked somewhere in printed form under copyright: books we can use to improve Wikipedia, works we can scan and upload to Wikisource, images we can upload on Commons etc. Please help us unlock them and share them with public. Please also facilitate content curation by sharing best tools and practices: many wikis have successful initiatives but we know little about them.
I would like to pay particular attention to the word "language". Wikimedia projects are multilingual and we should have neither "changing language needs" nor "key languages". There are no "good" and "bad" languages, we should support Wikimedia projects in all available languages. Most people do you a favour by answering in English (and not in their mother tongue) here, please do them a favour as well and give the same attention to their language as you would give to any other language — [[User:NickK|NickK]] ([[User talk:NickK|talk]]) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== NickK's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
# Approach three: if successful this would be a major step forward, as tools for curating content are far from efficient at the moment.
# Approach two
# A mix of approaches 1 and 6 to support Wikidata. Wikidata has an excellent knowledge database but unfortunately it is very badly presented to our readers. I believe that our "quick lookup users" can get a much better experience of Wikidata as Wikidata can generate an excellent quick summary of any topic. We underestimate this opportunity and reinvent the wheel: we should make Wikidata a powerful tool for readers, not just a feeder tool for Wikipedia.
One particular point about approach four. It is so English Wikipedia-centric again: do you seriously believe Basque Wikibooks need this? I think they need content first, not looking for non-existent gender bias — [[User:NickK|NickK]] ([[User talk:NickK|talk]]) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
== Papischou ==
<!-- Le texte "subst:REVISIONUSER" ajoutera automatiquement votre nom d'utilisateur. Modifier cette ligne est facultatif. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Papischou|Papischou]]</small> 08:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Réponse de Papischou à la question critique ===
...répondez ici...
=== Top 2-3 de Papischou (ou partagez vos idées) ===
Approche 1,2 & 3
== Pakeha ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Pakeha|Pakeha]]</small> 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Pakeha's response to the critical question ===
I'm not an expert in this. Spontaneously I would just answer: Improve Wikidata and publicize it nearly as much as Wikipedia!
=== Pakeha's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
Approaches 2, 3 and 6. Multimedia content is fine as well, but mobile users are also able to browse longer texts.
== Charles Matthews ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]]</small> 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Charles Matthews's response to the critical question ===
Approach Five. If Wikidata shows nothing else, it is that there are two topics out there not covered by enWP for every one that is; and the ratio is much larger for the other languages. I'd start by beefing up the ArticleWizard, which is not a great example of how to do a "holding area". [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Charles Matthews's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
There is an untackled issue with referencing, which is going to be a limiting factor, going forward, for ''verifiable'' knowledge.
First step is to separate content from presentation with references. Already this is radical, but ought to be the natural continuation of the Visual Editor. Then find the good way of consolidating references. That has to be seen in the context of open access and data mining.
Truth is, facts are "cheap"; collating verifiable facts into prose our area of expertise, when reference material is wanted.
We need a direction on the "substrate" of our work, for example to tackle link rot in a way that isn't ''ad hoc''. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
== Aegis Maelstrom ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Aegis Maelstrom|Aegis Maelstrom]]</small> 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Aegis Maelstrom's response to the critical question ===
As mentioned before, new UIs/UXes are needed to invite participants unable (not computer literate enough, not having time or a proper device) or unwilling (e.g. because they have their attention span lowered with social media) to participate in the old production model.
#New projects, interfaces, production and usage models are needed. Commons, references and links should be structured and converted to Wikidata. More games and tasks with new UX (e.g. a game where players are verifying particular claims, with simple tablet, smartphone UX) should be introduced. Additional namespaces e.g. to gather relevant links, with simplified policies, should be considered.
#* Unfortunate thing is this would mean more interfaces to support: power users editing from their desktops, running bots and whatnots have different needs than e.g. mobile wikidatagame users. However, in the end of the day, as volunteers do 99+% of the work, it is the tech job to provide them proper, ergonomic tools for particular tasks.
# Remember that in Wikimedia the process has been more important than the content. We are neither an educational organization (despite the fact that we do educate and our old mission kept saying so), nor tech organization (despite the fact we do use tech and need to invest 'more in it). We are a distributed co-operation organization; what is truly unique and successful is our content production and wikimanagement model. We could underline it more in the content area, introducing additional namespaces/projects using more ''wiki'' principles - that is with heavily relaxed rules, e.g. collaborative discussion merged with information, with no NPOV etc. (sth like old c2 or MeatBallWiki could be considered).
=== Aegis Maelstrom's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
Approach seven: provide new UIs, tools and activities for new usergroups / usage scenarios (e.g. I ride on a subway with Internet access and I would like to check the edits on my observed list / play some wikidata game / add categories to the Commons articles etc. on my mobile device). Perhaps we could make it even more of a game, collaborative and fun.
Approach three, six.
== Alexmar983 ==
<!-- This "subst:REVISIONUSER" bit will add your username automatically. Feel free to leave this line alone. -->
<small> Response by [[Special:Contributions/Alexmar983|Alexmar983]]</small> 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
=== Alexmar983's response to the critical question ===
Approach 1 is ok.
Does number 2 mean basically more GLAM? ok, but do we have the money for that? In many countries these institutions are penniless. Is it also funny how we seem to care about the gap with poor countries, but not so much the gaps inside rich countries. A small mountain city council has no mean compared to a big town. Maybe it is easy and probably more interesting to start from there than from a big town where soon or later money for a project can be found.
Approach 3 is ok, maybe too vague, but it always useful.
Approach 4 is vague. On itWiki I helped the refining one of the article about a women, I work with women, but I have no idea what can make th situation better. I would start with some good list from wikidata. We have too many to do's list, it's dispersive.
Approach 5: I helped to introduce the CT/CX to itwiki, it is not "great". Crossed finger for the future.
Approach 6: ok, whatever you can implement is welcome. As usual, we should be free to test it on some platforms, opt-out on others.
=== Alexmar983's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) ===
I prefer 3 and 6
| |||