Inspire Campaigns are month-long events to focus collaborative efforts on some of the most pressing challenges of the Wikimedia movement. This is a time to share and create new ideas.
After the campaign, grants are available to turn these ideas into collective action. For projects that do not need funding, planning and logistical support are available
Inspire பரப்புரை பற்றி
In this campaign, we invite your ideas on how to measure the health of your editing community.
Healthy projects promote high quality content creation, respectful collaboration, efficient workflows, and effective conflict resolution. Patterns of experiences that result in editor frustration, poor editor retention, broken workflows, and unresolved conflicts can be seen as unhealthy.
As a movement, Wikimedians have always measured aspects of their communities. Data points such as editor activity levels, new users, and editor retention are regularly collected. While these metrics provide some useful indications about the health of a project, they do not give major insights into challenges and specific areas needing improvement.
We need to collect data that evaluate projects holistically, like overall editing stats, but we also need to measure the smaller, specific circumstances and processes that editors encounter in their work.
If you have ideas on how to measure community health, please share them during the current campaign!
Questions about this campaign or Inspire Campaigns generally?
Please review the FAQ page.
Identify knowledge or skill bottlenecks
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 28 September 2018
In many projects of the Wikiverse, there are single or very small groups of users which are the only ones to possess a required knowledge or skill. This is most obvious for skills such as operation of a bot, fixing and creating templates or adjusting editing filters. Non-technical skills are e.g. the creation of maps or diagrams. This is problematic for at least two distinct reasons: On the one hand, it places pressure on these users to continue providing their knowledge or skill to their community which can quickly become a burden. On the other hand, when these users are absent temporarily or leave permanently, vital parts or workflows of the project cease to function. This is again most obvious when e.g. a vital bot stops working, but is true for all other knowledge and skill bottlenecks....
Reminders to know when you need to stop and take a rest
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 06 September 2018
In the Spanish Wikipedia exists a description of a number of symptoms, commonly known as "Wikipedia disease", a set of behaviors linked to particularly lengthy sessions of Wikipedia editing. You and I have found ourselves at 3 AM editing and finding an appropriate source, finishing a hard work session behind a category, maybe trying to have the last argument on a discussion... What is the maximum healthy amount of work that an average person can perform, according to scientific evidence? How many edits were made by a burned-out person, with warped perceptions of reality due to fatigue, loneliness, isolation, or the simple need for Wikipedia to be the only thing in the world? What happens if, with the help of experts, we can design an add-on that can remind Wikipedians about basic necessities like resting, going around, looking at something other than the screen, drinking water, sleeping, or getting out to real world? This could be based on the calculation of bytes added, on the session length, on the days and hours that the person has been sitting down editing? A series of messages could make a difference....
Check how many edits done by users are deleted and how many old users are "guarding" articles from any change, or deleting new stuff added by unlogged users
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 10 August 2018
Wikipedia should study the fact that nearly EVERY edit done by IP is reverted. Those who have accounts (especially for a long time) wrongly believe that they own wikipedia - and they push out every other contributor, because they simply delete every edit. They often give ridiculous excuses to delete things (for examples: if they dont like the source, they delete the edit). If they are so interested in sources for stubs, maybe they should go and delete poorly sourced articles? Another problem is that if one even manages to edit an article, then you have to "guard" it forever, because your changes will be reverted in a week or two by people whose activity is just deleting stuff. Many of them even BOAST about how many items they deleted from the site: changes (often thousands) or articles (hundreds). This means that hundreds of people who tried to contribute were burned - and their contributions, discarded. This is very discouraging to try to do anything in this "community" - which in fact seems to be more of a clique of old timers, who seem to try to everything possible, to push away new people. After all, the old timers are "proven", while in reality they did hundreds of reverts, or small changes - and most of true wikipedia was written by IPs....
Classify abandoned and new articles by importance
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 08 August 2018
Create a classification for abandoned articles (or not completed or without references) and new ones (links not yet created) based on their importance (number of researches of the item in the Web, for example in Google search, or other parameters). It would be fantastic creating a competition with prices (t-shirts or pens, cheap stuff), where the most active member awards a price. It is also possibile to organize open days in some cities, where experts and active members explain some topics to people, like TedEd, but from a more professional point of view....
You Are Fake News
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 07 August 2018
Stop allowing "established editors" to incorporate PEJORATIVES into the personal bios of individuals with "protected" pages; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia and it discredits you entirely. If you're going to lock editors out of making page edits, AT LEAST provide a reporting method that can be used repeatedly until the attention of a reasonable, adult, critically-thinking editor can be acquired. If you're going to let people tag political figures they dislike with pejorative remarks, at least leave the page open to ALL editors. Otherwise, YOU ARE FAKE NEWS and this daily reader will stop using (or promoting) your service. In the past, I have repeatedly, aggressively defended Wikipedia as a reasonable source, due to enforcement of critical thinking standards and the ability to quickly correct erroneous content. Now, you're making me regret that defense. Your job is NOT to enforce critical thinking among political pundits! Your job is to enforce critical thinking standards in _your own_ content. You're no longer accomplishing that task, based on my recent observation....
Make sysops a technical role, but for real
கடைசியாக இற்றைப்படுத்தபட்டது: 06 August 2018
Wikimedia policies say that sysops have a merely a technical role, and they just enforce consensus. But reality is much different: many procedures (like Articles for deletion) involve last word decision-making by sysops; when they think consensus is obvious, sysops are allowed to "be bold" and decide themselves; and that's not simply "applying the rules", because differents sysops come out with different decisions. Even when real discussion takes place, it is not uncommon that the case is enterely or mainly decided by sysops (that's to say, the same one who will enforce the decision). Not even in the wild west it was allowed to the same person to be, at the same time, sheriff and judge. What Wikipedia lacks is a separation of powers: those who decide should always be sharply divided from those who enforce decisions. No exception allowed....
உருவாக்கியவர்: User:Una giornata uggiosa '94