Badanie Życzeń Społeczności/Priorytetyzacja

Ten artykuł został napisany dla wolontariuszy, zainteresowanych Badaniem Życzeń Społeczności i zaawansowanych redaktorów. My, Community Tech, opiszemy tutaj, jak planujemy naszą pracę nad realizacją propozycji po zakończeniu głosowania. Zamierzamy wyjaśnić nasze procedury wytwarzania oprogramowania. Zachęcamy do informowania nas o tym, jak jasny jest ten dokument.

Po każdej rocznej edycji Community Wishlist Survey pojawia się nowa lista propozycji uszeregowana według liczby głosów. Przez te lata uświadomiliśmy sobie, że zobowiązywanie się do realizacji top 10 to nie najlepszy pomysł.

Stworzyliśmy więc inną metodę na ustalanie priorytetowych propozycji. Oceniamy je systematycznie i transparentnie. Priorytetyzacja pomaga nam decydować, jak mamy pracować, dzięki czemu możemy zrealizować jak najwięcej życzeń. Oto niektóre założenia:

• Popularność propozycji powinna być bardzo ważnym czynnikiem wpływającym na nasze wybory, ale nie jedynym.
• Najlepiej jest pracować nad propozycjami w porządku strategicznym i ukończyć ich tak wiele jak się da.
• Inżynierowie i projektanci powinni pracować ze sobą razem bez blokowania się wzajemnie. Na przykład, gdy projektant bada propozycję i tworzy komponenty wizualne, inżynierowie skupiają się na propozycjach, które są całkiem techniczne.
• Najlepiej jest utrzymywać komunikację transparentną ze społecznością zamiast ukrywać szczegóły. Widoczność buduje zaufanie i sprzyja dialogowi.

Summary of criteria

Podczas priorytetyzacji przeglądamy 30 najpopularniejszych propozycji. Nie przeglądamy propozycji poniżej tego poziomu, ponieważ nie jesteśmy w stanie dopuścić więcej niż 30 życzeń na rok. Punktujemy propozycje na podstawie popularności, złożoności technicznej, produktowej i projektowej oraz wpływu na społeczność. Oto podsumowanie tych kryteriów:

Prioritization Score for Community Tech Proposals

Gdy już każda propozycja otrzyma ocenę, szeregujemy je i pracujemy według takiego rankingu. Tylko wtedy możemy:

• Pracować nad jak największą liczbę życzeń przy wykorzystaniu posiadanych przez nas zasobów.
• Wybrać te życzenia, które mają największy wpływ przy jednoczesnym uwzględnieniu, że będa bardziej złożone i wymagane jest ich utrzymanie.

Konsultujemy się też z innymi zespołami Fundacji i sprawdzamy, czy czasem już nie pracują nad projektami związanymi z analizowanymi propozycjami.

Złożoność techniczna

Kryteria

Our engineers estimate how much effort they would need to put into granting a wish. They prioritize less complex (more workable) projects. Whenever something is not clear, they try to overestimate rather than underestimate.

• Technical dependency – we check if the work requires interactions with other Wikimedia Foundation teams. It could be that part of the work needs to be on other teams' roadmap or that we need other teams' input or feedback before we can complete the wish. Examples of these are schema changes, security reviews, adding a new extension, and upgrading third-party libraries.
• Technical research – we ask ourselves if we know how to approach a particular problem. Sometimes we need to evaluate and consider our options before we can start thinking about a solution. Sometimes we need to confirm that what needs to be done can be done or is within what the platform we are working on can handle.
• Technical effort – we ask ourselves how familiar we are with the underlying code and how big or complex the task can be. A high-effort score could also mean that the code we'll be working with is old, brittle, or has some degree of technical debt that will have to be dealt with before we can start working on our actual task.

Skala

Each of these is ranked on a 1-6 scale:

1 - Najmniejsza Złożoność	Rozwiązanie techniczne jest bardzo proste - problem jest obecny w ograniczonej części doświadczenia użytkownika i całości kodu Rozwiązanie mogło zostać już stworzone przez członka społeczności jako gadżet, rozszerzenie lub kod w publicznym repozytorium Członkowie zespołu inżynierów z Community Tech są zaznajomieni z modyfikowanym kodem Light QA testing required, just 1 task worth of QA
2 - Średnio Zaawansowana Złożoność	Technical solution is discrete- the problem exists in a contained part of the user experience as well the codebase Rozwiązanie mogło zostać już stworzone przez członka społeczności jako gadżet, rozszerzenie lub kod w publicznym repozytorium Członkowie zespołu inżynierów z Community Tech są zaznajomieni z modyfikowanym kodem W wielu przypadkach nie są wymagane dalsze prace nad utrzymaniem Wymagana jest tylko minimalna przebudowa kodu Możliwe są zależności od kodu osób trzecich Light QA testing required, less than 5 tasks worth of QA
3 - Średnia Złożoność	Technical solution is open-ended-- the problem exists in multiple parts of the user experience as well as one or multiple parts of the codebase or repositories Rozwiązanie częściowo istnieje lub nie ma takiego Członkowie zespołu Community Tech mają niewielką wiedzę lub są niezaznajomieni z modyfikowanym kodem Mogą być konieczne dalsze prace nad utrzymaniem Może być konieczność przebudowy kodu Może być konieczność dodania zależności QA testing required prior to release, 5+ tasks worth of QA
4 - Medium Large Complexity	Technical solution is open-ended-- the problem exists in multiple parts of the user experience as well as one or multiple parts of the codebase or repositories Solution hasn’t been implemented Członkowie zespołu Community Tech mają niewielką wiedzę lub są niezaznajomieni z modyfikowanym kodem Wymagane jest dalsze utrzymywanie projektu Może być konieczne wprowadzenie zmian w strukturze bazy danych Wymagana jest przebudowa kodu Wymagane są zmiany w komponentach związanych z autoryzacją i bezpieczeństwem Może być konieczność dodania zależności QA testing required prior to release, 5+ tasks worth of QA
5 - Large Complexity	The technical solution has unknowns-- the problem exists in multiple parts of the user experience as well as one or multiple parts of the codebase or repositories Trzeba stworzyć cały nowy system lub narzędzie Członkowie zespołu Community Tech są niezaznajomieni z modyfikowanym kodem Wymagane jest dalsze utrzymywanie projektu Może być konieczne wprowadzenie zmian w strukturze bazy danych Wymagana jest przebudowa kodu Wymagane są zmiany w komponentach związanych z autoryzacją i bezpieczeństwem Może być konieczność dodania zależności QA testing required prior to release, 5+ tasks worth of QA
6 - Extra large Complexity	The technical solution has many unknowns-- the problem exists in multiple parts of the user experience as well as one or multiple parts of the codebase or repositories Trzeba stworzyć cały nowy system lub narzędzie Members of the Community Tech team are unfamiliar with the codebase the wish pertains to Wymagane jest dalsze utrzymywanie projektu Wymagana jest znaczna przebudowa kodu Może być konieczne wprowadzenie zmian w strukturze bazy danych Substantial code refactoring is required Wymagane są zmiany w komponentach związanych z autoryzacją i bezpieczeństwem Add third party code dependencies QA testing required prior to release, 10+ tasks worth of QA

Product and Design Complexity

Kryteria

Similarly to the assessments above, our designer estimates what effort should be made to complete a project. They prioritize less complex (more workable) projects. Whenever something is not clear, they tries to overestimate rather than underestimate.

• Design research effort – we seek to understand the level of research needed for each proposal. In this case, the research involves understanding the problem, either at the very beginning through initial discovery work (the scope and details of the project, surveys or interviews with community members), or later in the process through community discussions and usability testing (e.g. how do users contribute with and without this new feature).
• Visual design effort – a significant number of proposals require changes in the user interface of Wikimedia projects. Therefore, we check to estimate the change of the user interface, how many elements need to be designed and their complexity. For instance, using existing components from our design system or creating new ones, keeping in mind how many states or warnings need to be conceived to help guide users, including newcomers.
• Workflow complexity – we ask ourselves how does this particular problem interfere with the current workflows or steps in the user experience of editors. For example, a high score here would mean that there are a lot of different scenarios or places in the user interface where contributors might interact with a new feature. It can also mean that we might have to design for different user groups, advanced and newcomers alike.

Skala

Each of these is ranked on a 1-6 scale:

1 - Najmniejsza Złożoność	Rozwiązanie projektowe jest już zawarte w samej propozycji - jest poprawką techniczną i nie są wymagane zmiany w interfejsie użytkownika Brak konieczności zbierania danych No discovery user survey collection No unmoderated user research No design
2 - Low Medium Complexity	Changes are isolated to just a single page inside of the experience with limited number of states (i.e. changes only impact one page / one wikimedia project) Requires little to no initial data collection to understand behavior and pain point via survey or quantitative data Requires little to no unmoderated research Prior to tackling the wish, we already collected the data necessary to make informed product & design decisions
3 - Medium Complexity	Prior to tackling the wish, we already collect most of the data to make informed product & design decisions but may require tracking new data prior to starting to understand the problem Requires unmoderated user research but it is not difficult to “source” users for those flows May touch more than one page in the experience but it is generally limited to a subset of the experience and straightforward Limited to designing for one type of user need
4 - Medium Large Complexity	Prior to tackling the wish, we already collect some of the data to make informed product & design decisions but may require tracking new data prior to starting to understand the problem Requires unmoderated user research but it is not difficult to “source” users for those flows May touch more than one page in the experience but it is generally limited to a subset of the experience and straightforward Requires a survey at the beginning of wish Limited to designing for two types of user needs Touches more than one page in the experience but it is generally limited to a subset of the experience and straightforward
5 - Large Complexity	Requires qualitative discovery and quantitative data collection Requires unmoderated user research and the users for the research are hard to source given the complexity of wish Can require designing new technical information into the UI Requires touching multiple pages in the flow Requires a survey at the beginning of wish Requires touching multiple pages in the flow and or has cross-project implications Impacts across multiple user states, for example Editors Czytelnicy Proofreaders etc.
6 - Extra Large Complexity	Requires investigation by the process of qualitative discovery and quantitative data collection Potentially controversial implications that must be mitigated by working with communities Requires unmoderated user research and the users for the research are hard to source given the complexity of designs Requires designing for a “learning curve” or introducing new technical information into the UI Requires touching multiple pages in the flow and or has cross-project implications Impacts across multiple user states and across needs: Editors Czytelnicy Contributors Nowicjusze

Wpływ na społeczność

In contrast to the two perspectives described above, this part is about equity. Practically, it's about ensuring that the majorities aren't the only ones whose needs we work on.

Depending on this score, proposals with similar numbers of votes and similar degrees of complexity are more or less likely to be prioritized. If a given criterion is met, the proposal gets +1. The more intersections, the higher the score. This assessment was added by our Community Relations Specialist.

• Not only for Wikipedia – proposals related to various projects and project-neutral proposals, are ranked higher than projects dedicated only to Wikipedia. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Autosave edited or new unpublished article|Autosave edited or new unpublished article]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Sister projects and smaller wikis – we additionally prioritize proposals about the undersupported projects (like Wikisource or Wiktionary). We counted Wikimedia Commons as one of these. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations|Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Critical supporting groups – we prioritize proposals dedicated to stewards, CheckUsers, admins, and similar groups serving and technically supporting the broader community. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers/Show recent block history for IPs and ranges|Show recent block history for IPs and ranges]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Reading experience – we prioritize proposals improving the experience of the largest group of users – the readers. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Select preview image|Select preview image]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Non-textual content and structured data – we prioritize proposals related to multimedia, graphs, etc. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Mass uploader|Mass uploader]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Urgency – we prioritize perennial bugs, recurring proposals, and changes which would make contributing significantly smoother. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikisource/Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor|Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.
• Barrier for entry – we prioritize proposals about communication and those which would help to make the first contributions. [[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Show editnotices on mobile|Show editnotices on mobile]] is an example of a prioritized proposal.

Wyniki z roku 2022 uszeregowane według Punktacji Priorytetów

These scores may change when we start working on the proposals. As we explained above, we have tried to overestimate rather than underestimate. Check out the proposals, in order of prioritization:

Wish	Popularity Rank	Votes	Engineering Score	Product and Design Score	Community Impact Score	Prioritization Score
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Autosave edited or new unpublished article|Autosave edited or new unpublished article]]	29	69	1.0	0.3	2	2.66
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Get WhatLinksHere's lists in alphabetical order|Get WhatLinksHere's lists in alphabetical order]]	22	74	1.3	0.3	2	2.63
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Search/Enable negation for tag filters|Enable negation for tag filters]]	26	71	2.0	0.3	2	2.47
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikisource/Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor|Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor]]	11	93	2.3	0.7	2	2.47
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Improve SVG rendering|Improve SVG rendering]]	5	108	4.0	0.8	3	2.44
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Anti-harassment/Notifications for user page edits|Notifications for user page edits]]	2	123	1.3	1.7	1	2.38
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere|Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere]]	14	89	2.7	0.7	2	2.38
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations|Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations]]	4	109	4.3	2.7	4	2.21
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Reading/IPA audio renderer|IPA audio renderer]]	9	97	3.0	2.7	3	2.15
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Reading/floating table headers|floating table headers]]	24	73	1.0	2.7	2	2.14
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers/Mass-delete to offer drop-down of standard reasons, or templated reasons.|Mass-delete to offer drop-down of standard reasons, or templated reasons.]]	25	72	1.0	2.7	2	2.14
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Formatting columns in table|Formatting columns in table]]	19	77	4.0	0.3	2	2.11
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Select preview image|Select preview image]]	8	100	3.0	2.0	2	2.07
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Translation/Add DeepL as a machine translation option in ContentTranslation|Add DeepL as a machine translation option in ContentTranslation]]	20	75	3.3	0.0	1	2.06
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Search/Change default number of search results displayed|Change default number of search results displayed]]	12	92	2.0	1.7	1	2.05
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Better diff handling of paragraph splits|Better diff handling of paragraph splits]]	1	157	3.3	2.3	1	2.04
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Table sorting on mobile|Table sorting on mobile]]	17	83	2.3	1.7	1	1.92
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Enhanced Move Logs|Enhanced Move Logs]]	10	96	2.7	2.3	1	1.79
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Gadget: Who is active|Gadget: Who is active]]	26	71	1.3	4.0	2	1.76
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers/Show recent block history for IPs and ranges|Show recent block history for IPs and ranges]]	3	120	4.0	3.7	2	1.61
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers/Reminders or edit notifications after block expiration|Reminders or edit notifications after block expiration]]	20	75	3.3	3.2	2	1.57
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikidata/Autosuggest linking Wikidata item after creating an article|Autosuggest linking Wikidata item after creating an article]]	12	92	3.3	3.8	2	1.53
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Full page editing|Full page editing]]	30	67	2.0	3.7	1	1.42
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Allow filtering of WhatLinksHere to remove links from templates|Allow filtering of WhatLinksHere to remove links from templates]]	6	106	5.0	3.3	2	1.40
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Citations/Automatic duplicate citation finder|Automatic duplicate citation finder]]	6	106	3.0	4.2	1	1.36
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/VisualEditor should use human-like names for references|VisualEditor should use human-like names for references]]	22	74	3.3	4.0	1	1.12

In addition, if you are interested in viewing a more granular version of the sub-components that make the prioritization scores, we've made the individual sub-components public:

• Product and Design Complexity
• Technical Complexity
• Community Impact

These are proposals which we found will be worked on by other teams at the WMF or third-party open source when we went through the process of estimating their complexities:

Tasks for other Product teams

Wish	Popularity Rank
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Anti-harassment/Deal with Google Chrome User-Agent deprecation|Deal with Google Chrome User-Agent deprecation]]	15
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Show editnotices on mobile|Show editnotices on mobile]]	15
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Categories in mobile app|Categories in mobile app]]	18
[[Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Mass uploader|Mass uploader]]	28

Terminologia

Unmoderated user research

Using a tool like UserTesting.com to run “mocks” of our proposed design changes and see if we are designing the right wish solution-- it’s called “unmoderated” because we let users click around and see our designs makes sense without having to explain it to them

Quantitative data collection

The process of collecting data to understand how users are interacting with the current UI to understand the wish’s pain points -- be it data regarding clicks, visits, downloads, sessions etc. Data is often limited when we first tackle a wish due to lack of tracking it prior to wish, or nonexistent data due to privacy reasons

Qualitative data collection

Understanding the wish’s problem space by talking directly to users, be it interviews or via a survey at the beginning of the wish to understand the pain points and clarify how to tackle a solution

“Sourcing” users

The process of finding users who have the knowledge required to participate in our user tests and give us the information we need to understand if our design and product decisions are headed in the right direction. Some wishes are for advanced users, which are hard to source and not available in tools like UserTesting.com

Przebudowa kodu

The process of making the existing code more maintainable so that other people may contribute to the code, as well as removing technical debt and bugs.

Zmiany w strukturze bazy danych

The alteration to a collection of logical structures of all or part of a relational database. When a change to an existing database is needed, it must be designed and then approved by a team external to CommTech. This usually takes more time and adds structural complexity to the project.

Third party code

Code written outside of the Community Tech team, examples include APIs or libraries.