Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Final Summary by challenges

Other languages:

This is a short summary overview of the Source pages on Meta of Cycle 3 discussion. Shortcuts used here rely on the established language and project code and languages are grouped alphabetically. For example, the Arabic language Wikipedia is Ar. To provide a rough sense of activities on the projects and platforms the Source pages summarize, the full summary by community text indicates how many source statements were available and therefore taken into account at the time of writing. (3s), for example, means 3 statements were available on the referenced source page at the time the summary was drafted.

Week 1 Challenge: How do our communities and content stay relevant in a changing world? edit

Key insights edit

The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of all people who want to learn.

Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.

  • Contributors on Arabic Wikipedia (10s) discussed that the encyclopedia model should not be changed (§Ar1.1) while we should try to serve more people by improving the mobile app (§Ar1.4), by using Artificial Intelligence (§Ar1.4) and by promoting Wikipedia in low-awareness regions. (§Ar1.5) They also discussed about integrating with social media (§Ar1.), hiring translators (§Ar1.7), ensuring reliability (§Ar1.8) and better communication among the community. (§Ar1.9)
  • On Bengali Wikipedia (12s), the community discussed that we are here to build an encyclopedia and we should not change our current model. (§Bn1.1) (§Bn1.3) We can remain relevant if we focus on quality of the content (§Bn1.10), outreach to spread awareness (§Bn1.6) and promoting our projects in social media. (§Bn1.9)
  • On Dutch Wikipedia (1s) it was discussed that Wikipedia does not need adapt to the needs of the young people. (§Nl1.1)
  • English Wikipedians (22s) discussed that we should work with partners (§En1.1) while balancing the needs of different audiences (§En1.4) and ensuring the quality (§En1.3)</> and survival of Wikipedia. (§En1.2) The community also discussed about having more videos, (§En1.9) using social media for the promotion of Wikipedia (§En1.10) and creating a new project targeted at youth. (§En1.8) It was also discussed that we should focus on teaching with Wikipedia, (§En1.16) improving mobile interface, (§En1.19) active use of social media, (§En1.20) making navigation easier, (§En1.18) creating accurate information and delivering it to various audiences. (§En1.17)
  • On French Wikipedia (37s) questions were raised about the experts (§Fr1.1) and the research was deemed biased. (§Fr1.5) They stressed on not changing the five pillars of Wikipedia (§Fr1.3) and it was also mentioned that projects like Vikidia and Wikiversity are already helping readers depending on their needs. (§Fr1.2) The community also suggested to reform the lead section of articles,(§Fr1.11) (§Fr1.12) building widgets (§Fr1.16) for providing the quick answer. Participants also talked about trends that can change quickly (§Fr1.16) and that Wikimedia's reach can be increased by using social networks. (§Fr1.17) The community also discussed about content gaps (§Fr1.26) (§Fr1.28) and presence other wikimedia projects that are used for different types of knowledge. (§Fr1.44)
  • German Wikipedians (20s) said they are here to make an encyclopedia (§De1.1) and that it does not matter whether it is of interest for a large group or a smaller one. (§De1.2) It was discussed that we can start a new project but we should not change our current model for Wikipedia (§De1.14) and we should support sister projects of Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects as well. (§De1.5) Some people said that the result of this strategy discussion has already been determined. (§De1.16) (§De1.17)
  • On Hebrew Wikipedia (5s) some people had concerns about the problem itself (§He1.1) while it was discussed that we should focus on adapting to other populations and (§He1.1) integrating with social networks. (§He1.2)
  • During Hindi Wikipedia WhatsApp discussion (6s) community stressed that we should not change our encyclopedic model (§Hi1.1) and audio-visual should complement the text. (§Hi1.4) We should collaborate with social media instead of trying to become a social media platform. (§Hi1.5) One person suggested the creation of an encyclopedia for children. (§Hi1.6) While in Hindi community one-on-one discussions (13s) community members said that we should not change our current encyclopedia model (§Hi2.1) while we should make sure to include more audio-visual content and that content should also be made available in multiple languages.(§Hi2.2) We should start a new project to answer questions. (§Hi2.7) It was discussed that we should not compete with social media (§Hi2.3) although we should integrate social media with Wikipedia. (§Hi2.13)</> A concern was also raised that most of our community members won't be able to make videos and it won't be possible to make revisions in them. (§Hi2.12)
  • On Italian Wikipedia (19s), the community discussed that we should lay more stress on visuals, (§It1.1) and better communication among wikimedians. (§It1.9) While Wikipedia is not a social network (§It1.4) but we should use social networks. (§It1.8) The community also talked about introducing an article rating system along with comments (§It1.10) and we should also archive online references. (§It1.17) They also talked about article rating system (§It1.11) and social media like chat in Wikipedia (§It1.18). Spending resource on social media got mixed comments. (§It1.12) (§It1.16)
  • Meta-Wiki (37s) contributors have contrary views on first week's insights. Some people suggested that we should consider that youngsters seek knowledge in different ways (§Meta1.22) do what the customers want (§Meta1.17) and stress on other projects as well (§Meta1.6) and other the other hand, some people said that encyclopedias should be known for quality (§Meta1.18) and don't have to be interesting (§Meta1.2) and another contributor talked about leaving the movement if the current model is not followed. (§Meta1.7) Many contributors talked about going beyond encyclopedia (§Meta1.10) such as video versions of articles (§Meta1.12) and becoming more modular. (§Meta1.25) It was also discussed that the current encyclopedic model is not bringing different language communities together (§Meta1.4) and we should recognize our failures. (§Meta1.22)
  • Polish Wikipedia (15s) community believes that traditional encyclopedic format is good enough (§Pl1.2) but we should make it more attractive by adding more multimedia (§Pl1.5) and we need external experts to produce such content. (§Pl1.7) People also discussed that popularity in Google results will ensure low risk of readership decline (§Pl1.9) but we should also be prepared that Google can become our competitor one day. (§Pl1.10) It was said that there are topics which are hard to describe shortly and briefly, therefore it cannot be cut into smaller pieces (§Pl1.13) and suggested that Wikipedia is good in providing deeper knowledge and does not need to support all educational needs of everyone. (§Pl1.15)
  • Russian-speaking community (5s) talked about not changing our format (§Ru1.1) and that our main focus should be to gather knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia. (§Ru1.3) They also discussed about having a quality assessment in place as most of our readers don't read full articles. (§Ru1.4) They talked about partnerships with other platforms (StackExchange). (§Ru1.2)
  • Urdu community (17s) discussed that there should be new projects for videos (§Ur1.1) and question answers (§Ur1.2) but we should keep focusing on developing Wikipedia as well. (§Ur1.3) It was also said that people use social media for entertainment and they come to Wikipedia when they need knowledge (§Ur1.6) but we should still make some changes such as having an on-wiki chatting platform. (§Ur1.5) Another user said that Wikipedia will always remain relevant (§Ur1.8) while he also talked about the doing extensive outreach to reach more people. (§Ur1.9) It was also discussed that we should move beyond encyclopedia (§Ur1.15) and start new project (§Ur1.14) focused on audio-visual knowledge. (§Ur1.11)
  • On Vietnamese Wikipedia (2s), it was discussed that Wikipedia is used as a reference on social media. (§Vi1.1) It was also said that Wikipedia is not a place for self-learning nowadays. (§Vi1.2)
  • During Punjabi Wikimedians Strategy salon at Patiala (4s), the community talked about making the interface more friendly (§PWUG1.28), focusing on regional languages (§PWUG1.29) and creating multilingual multimedia content. (§PWUG1.30) While during a meeting in Delhi, it was discussed that there should be different modes of learning depending upon regions. (§PWUG2.1) During a meetup at Chandigarh (12s), it was discussed that we should lay more stress on audio-visual (§PWUG.5) while the quality of the content should remain a priority. (§PWUG.9) They talked about collaborations with like-minded organizations to include other model of learning (§PWUG.6) and it was also discussed that a new project for question-answers should be started. (§PWUG.7) Regarding 2nd insight some community members felt that Wikipedia should become more social (§PWUG.1), appealing and interactive (§PWUG.3) while some other felt that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and not to become a social media media platform.(§PWUG.10)
  • Members of Wikimedia Bangladesh (5s) discussed about focusing on other projects for those who seek short information (§WMBD1.3), doing outreach in low awareness regions (§WMBD1.4) and promoting our projects on social media. (§WMBD1.6)

Week 2 Challenge: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? edit

Key insights edit

Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.

The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.

  • Some English Wikipedians (15s) discussed that we should focus on creating reliable knowledge on Wikipedia (§En1.21) while there can be a different project for oral traditions (§En1.25) and grants should be provided to document oral knowledge. (§En1.34) Some other contributors said that we don't need to capture the sum of all human knowledge (§En1.28) and also that the outcome of this consultation has already been predetermined. (§En1.27)
  • On French Wikipedia (24s) discussion they urged that oral tradition is actually something very important to deal with. (§Fr1.30) One participant said that the bias exists, but it is that of the sources and not that of Wikipedia. (§Fr1.30) Most of the participants are in favor of using the current model and if necessary then we should create a new project.(§Fr1.37) (§Fr1.42) (§Fr1.46) Participants also said that changing the rules on which Wikipedia was built upon is a risk of distorting the project and making it useless in the end. (§Fr1.58) Wikipedia is not meant and should not be used for oral culture but should facilitate as much as possible access. (§Fr1.60)
  • German Wikipedians (6s) said that there should be a new project for primary sources. (§De1.22) While one contributor talked about oral citations (§De1.23) while another contributor said that this will violate many of our policies. (§De1.24)
  • On Hebrew Wikipedia (1s), community member said that almost all human knowledge can be documented using traditional means. (§He1.6)
  • On Italian Wikipedia (13s), participants suggested about oral citation is that before they can be used on Wikipedia oral sources need be recorded/written down somewhere else so that they become verifiable. (§It1.25) The important thing here is to make sure they are both reliable. (§It1.25) Community members talked about availability of sources (§It1.31) and genuine oral sources. (§It1.34)
  • Marathi Community (5s) talked about starting a new project to document traditional and oral knowledge (§Mr1.10) and the content can then be integrated into other Wikimedia projects (§Mr1.11) after being verified by reviewers (§Mr1.13) and experts.(§Mr1.12)
  • Meta-Wiki (10s) participants suggested to use WMF grants to support oral knowledge and then using the text as a source. (§Meta1.31) Though participants also suggested that if WMF want's to use oral sources, that must be in a new project, not in a Wikipedia (§Meta1.35) and talked about partnerships. (§Meta1.36) Some also said that this kind of interview should go to projects other than Wikipedia. (§Meta1.37)
  • Polish Wikipedia (9s) those who raised concern about this argued that we need the quality, not the amount. (§Pl1.19) The other party said that the issue is if the author and/or place of publication is trustworthy (§Pl1.21).
  • Tamil Community (9s) discussed that WMF can give funds (§Ta1.9) to documenting knowledge using various formats (§Ta1.7) and wikimedia projects. (§Ta1.8) They also talked about getting content released under CC licenses (§Ta1.15), organizing more contests like wiki loves monuments (§Ta1.11) and giving less stress on policies. (§Ta1.10)
  • Urdu community (1s) member said that oral cultures and oral knowledge should be documented by making documentaries. (§Ur1.18)
  • On Wikidata discussion (2s) community talked about increasing the range of our sources, (§D1.4) and not insisting on having sources in the project language. (§D1.5)
  • During Punjabi Wikimedians Strategy salon at Patiala (17s), the community talked about focusing on engaging subject experts (§PWUG1.1), documenting knowledge in other mediums (§PWUG1.2), video citations (§PWUG1.3), regional languages (§PWUG1.4), incorporating already documented oral knowledge (§PWUG1.14) and access to content that can be used to verify information. (§PWUG1.13) It was also said that we should focus more on audio-visual sources (§PWUG1.21), create multiple versions of content (§PWUG1.18) and avoid the binary division of right and wrong. (§PWUG1.22) While during a meeting in Delhi, the community talked about including audio-video sources. (§PWUG2.4) They also talked about having different criteria about different types of content (§PWUG2.2) and also that a new project can be created to document content that can not be verified with traditional methods. (§PWUG2.3)

Week 3 Challenge: As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation? edit

Key insight edit

Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.

  • Members of Bengali community (4s) discussed that we can consider govt. registered newspaper sources as credible in the respective local Wikipedia (§Bn1.17) and a designated guideline/common practice to check the fact should be made. (§Bn1.18) One participant thinks that it entirely depends on the user who is using the specific source though we can train users.(§Bn1.20)
  • On Dutch Wikipedia (9s) participants talked about fake news (§Nl1.2) (§Nl1.4) and how to overcome them though one user thinks that it is wiser to focus on what we want to achieve than on what we want to counteract. (§Nl1.9) They also talked about having a process to block users (§Nl1.9) for posting fake news after prior investigation. (§Nl1.9)
  • On French Wikipedia (10s) some of the participants said that challenge 3 conflicts with the previous two (§Fr1.62) and two Wikipedia principles, when they are applied, naturally and effectively prevent fake news. (§Fr1.68) The success of Wikipedia is based on the possibility given to anyone to participate in the project and on the democratic principles underneath its organization. (§Fr1.71)
  • On German Wikipedia (2s) it was said that this insight is meaningless for Wikipedia as policies to counter misinformation already exist such as en:Wikipedia:Verifiability. (§De1.27) They also talked about finding new ways to check facts. (§De1.28)
  • On Hindi community's WhatsApp group (2s) it was discussed that we should decide between right and wrong sources (§Hi1.16) and also that events covered by just one newspaper should not be included. (§Hi1.17) During one on one discussions (5s) Hindi community members talked about using multiple sources (§Hi2.22) and blacklisting poor sources. (§Hi2.23) It was also noted that not all the mediums can be controlled and influenced by an entity (§Hi2.24) and we should keep looking for reliable sources. (§Hi2.25)
  • Meta-Wiki (5s) community discussed about rating the content (§Meta1.48) and the flaw in dividing sources into reliable and non-reliable ones. (§Meta1.45)
  • Polish Wikipedia (18s) community talked about various biases (§Pl1.27) and one contributor talked about only using high quality sources (§Pl1.30) while another user said that our content is expected to be up to date which is not possible by using traditional sources (§Pl1.31) and also mentioned the economic limitations in using those sources. (§Pl1.32) It was also pointed out that the WMF is helping the Wikimedians with The Wikipedia Library initiative. (§Pl1.33) (§Pl1.34)
  • Tamil Community (8s) discussed that we should increase user-base (§Ta1.17), look beyond current model of fact checking (§Ta1.20) and stop relying too much on online sources (§Ta1.22) to counteract misinformation.
  • On Wikidata discussion (1s) one participant suggested hosting a central repository of tools and techniques for verifying sources or detecting that they have been fabricated.(§D1.6)

Challenge 4: How does Wikimedia continue to be as useful as possible to the world as the creation, presentation, and distribution of knowledge change? edit

Key insights edit

Trends indicate that changes are coming for all regions – both those emerging and those saturated with mobile internet.

For the areas just coming online, developing local, mobile content is a strong opportunity.

Globally, products will continue to evolve from “simple” websites with different device experiences (desktop, mobile) to even more sophisticated integrated platforms, incorporating technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality.

  • On Hebrew Wikipedia (16s) the community talked about addressing virtual reality consumption (§He1.12), combining Wikipedia with other APIs (§He1.16), fear of paid content (§He1.25) and reducing the digital gap. (§He1.26) It was also discussed about the fear of using artificial intelligence (§He1.21) and that sources can be rated to ensure the quality of content. (§He1.22)
  • Hindi community (4s) talked about investing more into mobile technology (§Hi2.27) and easily translatable images. (§Hi2.28) They also talked about partnering with platforms like Google Assistant and Siri. (§Hi2.30)
  • Marathi Community (5s) discussed that creation will not be affected much (§Mr1.17) but presentation has to change. (§Mr1.21) They also discussed that content should be displayed based on user's search history (§Mr1.20) and for better presentation more videos (§Mr1.18) and tools like text to speech should be used. (§Mr1.19)
  • Meta-Wiki (7s) community discussed about the issues in the Wikipedia's mobile interface (§Meta1.53) while also recognizing the possibilities of easily recording and uploading audios and videos. (§Meta1.54) They also talked about keeping the internet multi-platform. (§Meta1.63)
  • Spanish Wikipedia (4s) community talked about being flexible to be able to adapt to technological advancements (§Es1.16) and that Wikimedia's role of knowledge dissemination might change. (§Es1.20) While on the telegram group (3s), the community talked about adjusting to the technological advancements (§Es2.38), availability of content in multiple formats (§Es2.39) and the problems with current WMF software governance. (§Es2.40)
  • Vietnamese Wikipedia (2s) community talked about the ability to edit and comment articles on Wikipedia application (§Vi1.7) and recent changes of watchlist should be delivered on mobile phone. (§Vi1.9)

Challenge 5: How does Wikimedia meet our current and future readers’ needs as the world undergoes significant population shifts in the next 15 years? edit

Key insights edit

As the world population undergoes major shifts, the Wikimedia movement has an opportunity to help improve the knowledge available in more places and to more people. The continent of Africa is expected to have a 40% increase in population, along with improved internet access and literacy rates in the next 15 years. Spanish is expected to become the second most common language within 35 years. As new cultures and geographies become more dominant, the Wikimedia projects as they currently exist may be less relevant for the majority of the world’s population.

According to recent research, readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created. This is especially true among 13-19 year olds. The research also found that readers mainly consider utility (usefulness), readability, and ‘free knowledge for every person,’ the most important attributes of Wikipedia. They associate Wikipedia least strongly with “neutral, unbiased content” and “transparency.” This represents an opportunity to increase brand awareness and knowledge.

  • Italian Wikipedia community (13s) discussed about creating more awareness about Wikipedia by through social media, TV, (§It1.37) press and also with meetings. (§It1.38) They also talked about creating awareness in mobile users (§It1.40) and stop spreading misinformation with the fundraising banners. (§It1.41)
  • Polish Wikipedia (7s) community discussed about unpredictability of the future (§Pl1.45), global awareness campaign (§Pl1.47) and engaging older generations. (§Pl1.50) They also talked that focusing on small languages does not mean to just create new language versions of Wikipedia. (§Pl1.51)
  • Spanish Wikipedia (4s) community talked about promoting Wikipedia at all education levels (§Es1.23), quality and reliability of content (§Es1.22) and availability of knowledge of all cultures in all the languages. (§Es1.21) While on the telegram group (10s), the community talked about diversity in the movement (§Es2.43), strategic communication (§Es2.44) and problems with communication in fundraising campaign. (§Es2.45)
  • Tamil Community (9s) talked about focusing on local language content (§Ta1.31), availability across languages and formats (§Ta1.32), adapting to the needs of the readers (§Ta1.33), creating tools like text to speech (§Ta1.37) and becoming more vocal about our cause. (§Ta1.39)
  • Vietnamese Wikipedia (2s) community talked about Wikipedia being too west centric. (§Vi1.11) They also discussed about the issue of neutrality of Wikipedia in Vietnamese as the Vietnamese newspapers are government controlled. (§Vi1.11)

See also edit