Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Hebrew Wikipedia village pump
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Hebrew Wikipedia|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||ויקיפדיה:התהליך האסטרטגי לשנת 2017|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||6|
Fill in the table below, using these 2 keys.
- Key Insight
- The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
- Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
- 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.
- Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
- Mobile will continue to grow. Products will evolve and use new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. These will change how we create, present, and distribute knowledge.
- 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.
- Readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created.
- Overall (either)
|Line||Week #||Key insight||Summary Statement||Overall||Keyword|
|1||1||A||All technical tools need to be upgraded and adapted to other populations. Blind, small children, etc.||supportive||Technical tools, Upgrade|
|2||1||A||We need to create a tool for editing videos in Wikipedia, so editors here can create videos that review the articles, and upload them to YouTube. Wikipedia should go into social networks and set up Twitter and Facebook accounts. We need to create a tool that will play articles, not external tools from external sites. I believe that only in this way can we be relevant in 2030, only if we open up to new audiences.||supportive||New audience, Social networks|
|3||1||A||We should first define exactly the problem, and then discuss it. Our communities will change together with the changing world because they are part of the world. The content will remain relevant only to the extent that the topics will be relevant. if anyone in the future predicts that in 2030 history will interest no one and therefore will want most of our effort invested in futuristic issues, it will challenge us. As long as it does not happen or is not serious, you can continue forward.||Concern||Define, Problem, Change, Relevant|
|4||1||A||If the question is in terms of availability to the new reader, the solution is to create a reader-readable opening so that at least the video creators from whom the young people of the future will learn the little knowledge they learn by utopias will read them without errors||neutral||Readable, Eeaders|
|5||1||A||this is not going to change. People will always read (or use knowledge of a disk connection to the brain, but again text). the education system may adopt (Toffler talked about it) a stratified approach that will cause not everyone to learn the same things, but still a classic encyclopedia, accurate and readable, will be very useful.||Concern||Change, Read, Text|
|6||2||C||Who determined that much of human knowledge can not be verified? And what are the "traditional means" in question? Through the traditional means used today, almost all human knowledge can be documented (except for what has been created in the past hour). Some of the things are difficult to prove, but the knowledge can be verified, while attributing it to the original. Really original news from the 'new' areas of the world is really a problematic issue, but it will not be wise to give 'easements' and shortcuts. Some of Africa's development goals (for example) are also lagging behind in this section, it will take time, the cultural research there will be updated, there will be critical literature, and then some encyclopedic knowledge will be made.||concern||knowledge, Verified, Traditional means|
|7||3||E||We should lower the criteria for patroling permissions, and to integrate more artificial intelligence.||supportive||Patroling, AI|
|8||3||E||We should reduce the freedom of editing of inexperienced users, especially in articles without followers. we need to set different levels of edit markup, including "not vandalism" (very simple test), "probably true" and "verified". only the most educated and reliable users will be authorized to mark the last one.||supportive||Patroling, Users, Inexperienced|
|9||3||E||We need to ignore the pressure from new editors complaining about aggression, exclusion of women, racism, ageism, etc. This disregard is also required when dealing with encyclopedic importance.||supportive||New editors, Pressure, Ignore|
|10||3||E||We need to cooperate with academia and add links to scientific articles and information.||Supportive||Cooperate, Academia, Scientific|
|11||3||E||Knowledge experts should be used to examine and evaluate articles according to areas of expertise||supportive||Experts, Knowledge, Evaluate, Articles|
|12||4||F||In order to address the increase in virtual reality consumption, I think that Wikipedia can already make available three-dimensional models of 3D objects and environments.||Supportive||VR, Wikipedia, Consumption|
|13||4||F||There's already the idea of running a Wikipedia application in a geographic area and then displaying information about sites in the environment (based on location) or sites that do not have a picture. Our interest is for the app to alert ("Do you want to get information about sites around you?"), "Wikipedia needs your help to photograph sites around you!") And not wait for the user to ask for information.||Supportive||Wikipedia, App|
|14||4||F||Give an option to photograph an object and get its identification (flower, insect, building)||Supportive||Photograph, Identification|
|15||4||F||On the subject of the AR, Wikipedia can support the development process on these issues, both inside and outside the community. In any case, the transition to mobile content will require us to switch to a more concise format to address our readers||Supportive||AR, Wikipedia, Mobile, Format|
|16||4||F||Using a mobile phone or wearable computing (such as Google Glass) - Combine Wikipedia with other applications using API or other form of interface (and look for collaborations with different companies)||Supportive||Mobile, Wearable, Wikipedia, Combine|
|17||4||F||When we read news, allow to mark a word in the article in order to "bounce" suggestions for Wikipedia entries. This will probably require creating plugins for prominent browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Explorer, Opera).||Supportive||Wikipedia, Interface, Plugins|
|18||4||F||There is an application for viewing the stars (a beautiful example of a AR) - pointing a smartphone to the sky and if there is any interesting object, you can go to the entry on Wikipedia, which will be displayed in the format required in this application. Similar applications may be required for the ability to capture and receive an object.||Supportive||AR, Wikipedia, Applications|
|19||4||F||In the case of a telephone conversation (or by telephone) between me and any professional. Suddenly there is a term that I have no idea what it means (let's say it's a lecturer and I can't interrupt it in the middle with a question) - there may be an app that will allow you to record and analyze the last sentences spoken and then focus on the term that was not clear to us,||Supportive||Telephone, App, Analyze, Sentences|
|20||4||F||In the context of the ideas mentioned above, because of our reliance on donations, Wikipedia should be based on existing and inexpensive technologies, for example, Google voice recognition, Google image recognition (using a search engine).||Supportive||Wikipedia, Technologies, Based|
|21||4||F||Artificial Intelligence - I would recommend not using artificial intelligence to create content, but rather making editorial suggestions for editors (offering categories in an article, offering a new sub-category within a category, rephrasing a sentence, identifying the basis of the sentence). There is reason to fear that artificial intelligence will be based on an unreliable source and therefore a mechanism is needed to evaluate the reliability of sources at the level of a sentence / paragraph.||Supportive||AR, Create, Content, Unreliable|
|22||4||F||Could the reliability of sources be rated? This means that the source added to the article, as long as it has not received approval from a certain number of Wikipedians, will be considered as a suspect (or not tested). One of the options to give a solution to this is the transition of Wikipedia to the format of TiddlyWiki (a significant step). This is a wiki created on a collection of templates called Tiddler. You can say that a tiddler can include one sentence, a short definition, an entire paragraph, or a full article.||Supportive||Reliability, Sources, TiddlyWiki|
|23||4||F||Assuming that in the future there will be a preference for voice content over textual content, Tiddlers have an advantage - it will reduce the amount of text that needs to be read (reducing the information load) and the user himself chooses what to focus on. We can introduce some content that we want and the articles will still be presented in a concise manner. This is perhaps the place to note that in the TED era, people will probably have less patience to read recommended articles and they will want summary articles and according to their interest they will do their study.||Supportive||Voice, Text, Content, Summary|
|24||4||F||With regard to the fear of "loss of access to material that includes additional points of view," we can offer two modes of study in Wikipedia - a "focused" response to specific questions (when we need a quick answer and it does not interest us to read a recommended article) and "enrichment" Other topics, which is roughly the situation today on the front page and in the articles themselves). If more people search for "focus", and we only give them "enrichment," they'll look elsewhere. We can hope that the "focus" that will bring them to us will bring them from there to "enrichment." It is our responsibility to implement at every level the content of the NPOV and the totality of opinions.||Supportive||Wikipedia, Study, Enrichment, Focus|
|25||4||F||I think there is nothing to fear about paid content. Eventually there will come a stage where more content will be freely available at some level.||Neutral||Paid-content, Fear|
|26||4||F||Reducing the digital gap - solutions can be found to reduce the gap, whether by publishing printed content (we can help social activists create books, activists can print them) or placing computers in public places such as library, schools or near them. With all due respect, I do not think this is a topic for Wikipedia. We can make it easier to be relevant, but the solution itself does not need to come from us (and if so, in partnership with other bodies that this is a concern to them).||concern||Digital Gap, Solutions, Concern|
|27||4||F||There is a serious problem with the conservation of material in the digital era (sites that change form or get off the net) - we have an interest in preserving the material, but we can't affect the work of archives. We can only try to make use of the content and hope that you will retain access to these resources. Perhaps the WMF or its representatives (the Israeli chapter) may be able to assist in contacting these bodies (Knesset discussions, meetings with relevant bodies)||Concern||Conservation, Material, Digital-era|
|28||5||G||If these are going to be the most common languages - Mandarin (1), Spanish (2), English (3) Hindi (4) and Arabic (5). I think the Hebrew Wikipedia has an interest in helping more in Arabic Wikipedia. In addition, this is an opportunity to combine translations from Hebrew in Mandarin, Spanish and Hindi (according to the various stakeholders - information, tourism, commerce, culture, etc.).||Supportive||Languages, Wikipedia, Translations|
|29||5||G||The distinction should be made between population growth and the increase in Internet use. Internet users will be more Mandarin and Spanish speakers and Africans? Maybe because of the lack of "Internet penetration", this increase will not affect the use of Wikipedia? With regard to population growth in Africa, one should consider the common languages of French, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Dutch / Afrikaans, Amharic and especially those who are more likely to have "penetration" of the Internet (On the other hand, it is also possible to establish projects for the documentation of missing languages).||Supportive||Population growth, Internet use increase|
|30||5||H||There is a lot of misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, and perhaps we should improve our presentation: to think of another "reception" for Internet and mobile users that will make it easier for people to know that Wikipedia is based on volunteering and donations. For example, the Wikipedia icon will be linked to an article on Wikipedia and not to the main page. In the Mobile view, the icon of Wikipedia (and also the link to the article) is more prominent. That the trial on the main page about Wikipedia and the content in "Welcome" will be adapted to the findings||Supportive||Wikipedia, Understanding, Works|
|31||5||H||Usability is more important to people, free knowledge and easier reading than transparency and lack of publicity. As to the ease of reading, a large part of our audience would prefer a concise article with links to more information than a long article (which brings me back to the tiddlers idea from the previous section). If the "lack of publicity" is less significant, perhaps the policy should be reconsidered.||Supportive||Usability, Easier reading, Free knowledge, Tiddler|
|32||5||H||One of the things that will particularly improve the user experience is "more reliable content" (57%), slightly more than the quality of the articles. If combined with the need for easy reading, it seems that some of the efforts invested in the recommended articles should be directed towards the sources. Fewer long articles, more established and relevant articles.||Supportive||User experience, Reliable content, Easy reading, Sources|
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)Edit
If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.