Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Follow-up events/Cluster H
This page contains raw minutes from the discussion of the initiative cluster H: Prioritize Topics for Impact, which took place on 5 February 2021. The minutes were cleaned up and merged from across different documents by the Strategy Support Team, and a summary of them can be found in the follow-up events report. The discussion followed a structured template (as shown below), which was also created by the Support Team.
Video summaries from the follow-up event discussions
Summary of room 2: High-Impact Topics
Summary of room 3: Knowledge + Content Gaps
Key indicator and objectives (WHAT) edit
What are the objectives of this initiative for the next 18 months? edit
- +++++Define a process for identifying, reviewing, and approving areas of high impact[1]
- (whether local or global) - workload, not pushing down regional priorities[1]
- Defining high impact: Impact is not necessarily the same as a “popular topic”. (not rigid, but a framework to focus energy)[1]
- Extend our analytics capabilities to less crude measures than pageviews, including: the time spent / scroll depth, references interacted with, readability scales, and especially reader feedback.+++Pilot with a clear set of partnerships (i.e. SDGs)[1]
- The content is influencing the decision making in the society in day to day challenges they are facing in the sectors like - water scarcity/quality, women’s issues, health, science etc.[1]
- Consider topics with short-term impact (pressing political and social challenges in a society now) and topics with long-term impact (such as women health, SDGs).[1]
- Evaluate previous understanding of impacts. [1]
- Avoid “deprioritization” because it leads to controversy and may contradict the freedom of editing.[1][2]
- A clearer sense - backed up by data - of where there are significant gaps in the world’s knowledge on Wikipedia, and what some of the tactics are to address these gaps[2]
- Suggested approach:
- Identify the steps of a reader processing and acting on our content (e.g. discovery, access to the text, looking at the text through their specific cultural lens, being able to derive actionable knowledge)[3]
- Conceptualize it as an “impact funnel” and identify bottlenecks.[3]
- Success means having a clear picture of which steps result in the biggest loss of potential impact (e.g. is offline access or readability of the text the bigger problem in practice?)[3]
- Contextualize the meaning of impact[3]
- Clarity of content gaps in each regional list to understand what is missing[3]
- Identify, categorize and prioritize current and future trends (+1) for high impact topics from a regional perspective (static/dynamic)[1]
- Do (quick) experimental research activities in focused target groups that are underserved[3]
- Mapping of tools that are already available[3]
- +- Evaluate external sources against our processes (is this in the next 18 months)?[1]
- Explain
- There should be data based stories/engagement about the utility of working on High Impact topics. What changed, how did it change, why is this important, what can be improved.[1]
- ++Assure processes for high quality content for high impact topics. (readers)[1]
- Support efficient and effective patrolling of content[1]
- Increase the longevity quotient (resilience, lasting value) of high impact topics. (High impact topics often come with a limited period of engagement. They are topics that catch the beat of the moment so to say. In smaller communities where the number of editors/Wikimedians does not vary significantly, stubs that get created often pose a challenge than constructive work) (pressure on editors vs. Importance short-lived)[1]
- Pilot initiatives that demonstrate topics for impact strategies outside of where we already have success (i.e. Gender gap, Medicine)[1]
- High impact topics speak and interact with strategic goals identified by govts, aid organisations, civil societies [1]
- Conduct a pilot project on a small wikipedia (and/or other type of wiki) to try implementing a topics coverage tool[3]
- Standardize impact measurement tools to improve the data and support better research[3]
- Need to expand abilities of the wikis to do annotations that make it easier to pull the data together: such as the PageAssessments extension and comparison tool[3]
- Enable visualizing the data as an important aspect of the tools.[3][2]
- Map of tools/features that are needed for different stakeholder groups[3]
- Examples: clear quality assessment of a page made visible to all readers, better categorize articles / taxonomy / data, suggested topics tools, analyse research trends, tools for expert editors, etc.[3]
- Capacity building for communities, enabling them to identify gaps and adequately respond[2]
- Build a central system for capacity building in different regions, to empower communities to identify and work on their own understanding of “impact”.[1]
- This research should be through a distributed model between different affiliates and communities rather than sitting with the WMF alone.[1]
- Regional hubs and capacity building could take on this growth. They could be drastically different across geographies, and they may lead to different implementation of the high impact topics.[1]
- Decolonization can be a very powerful frame for some of this work and our global distribution is perfect for it.[3][1][2]
- Bring cultural institutions into a direct conversation with source communities that are asking for cultural restitution.[2]
- Align the partnership strategy to the needs of the content in the different contexts[3]
- Outreach to partners is as important for the impact[3]
- Reduction in misinformation
- Build Support for structured citations, to deal with misinformation related to quality of references[3]
- Map out key organizations and potential partners worldwide that can help ensure dissemination and use of the information on high impact topics[1]
- Tools around disinformation and misinformation needs a conversation between the Foundation research team and project functionaries so the tools can be built together[3]
- Wikimedia projects may not cover what we need to combat disinformation beyond “fact-checking”.[3]
What are some anticipated obstacles or barriers to a successful implementation? edit
- Clear communication and coordination of efforts within the free knowledge movement[1]
- Mapping pipelines of potential contributors for topics -- it does us little good to pursue an impactful topic, if we have a hard time recruiting contributors[1]
- Creating communities of concern, little beyond interest, more serious and committed[1]
- How to measure the impact on society? Is there some value addition in the decision making process?[1]
- High impact should not limit to increased site visits (+1 -- it should also map against transformative impacts as well i.e. should change someone’s life if well shared)[1]
- Being too ambitious in planning[1]
- How to work on content gaps when these may be different for different communities (geographic and thematic)[2]
- Gaps in content usually usually originate from gaps in the community of contributors and readers (no-one has chosen to add content on this topic). Who will fill the gap?[2]
- How do we know when a gap is filled?[2]
- Framing Wikimedia projects as tools for activism (increasing representation in the internet without compromising safety and sovereignty) rather than re-colonisation/re-oppression[2]
- Decolorization could not sum up all of the content gaps: The Decolorization-like methodologies are maybe applying all of the content gaps, but not account for all gaps.[2]
- How to pass this “message” to the Wikipedia community and editors that do not participate from these discussions and that do not want a “content framing” or specific content promotion from Wikimedia structures?[2]
- Freedom of Panorama policy as a hindrance to sharing visual content in some high impact topics[2]
- The Free of Panorama policies are based on a Western concept that needs to be contextualized.[2]
- Lack of sources is the origin of the problem for creating content, especially for marginalized or unrepresented communities or languages[2]
- Most of the “indigenous” knowledge is not written but oral. This content could be connected by using Commons or other Wikimedia projects.[2]
- Diversity of priorities and capacities in different contexts[3]
- Comprehensive tools (to map all topics in all languages and all projects) might be very hard to build and take more than 18 months / technical difficulty[3]
- Language barriers / differences in implementations in different languages[3]
- We need better analytics capabilities to understand impact better, but we also want to keep ourselves to high privacy standards.[3]
- Addressing a vast issue in a really short time. Lack of measurements and tools of what we are going to achieve.[3]
- Lack of sources and reliability.[3]
- Spectrum of licences that would be needed to include partners in covering topics.[3]
Implementation steps (HOW) edit
Defining impact
- Identify a framework and process for selecting topics[1]
- Research what does “Impact” mean for different communities[1]
- Start with topics that external groups find “impactful” (such as the SDGs).[3][1]
- Discuss how local communities respond to that kind of action[1]
- In smaller communities, interest isn’t always comparable to the number of editors. Many newcomers would create stubs in topics that are exhausting for experienced editors to go back to later.[1]
- Define priorities on two different levels: global and local[1]
- For example, “women rights” could be a wide global priority, but may not be prioritized by every community in their local context.[1]
- Develop a flexible process that responds to the constant change in priority topics over time. It should provide a framework for the movement to prioritize on either a global level or a local level.[1]
- Categorize priority topics based on their longevity[1]
- Some topics have effective short term impact (e.g. politics), others are more resilient (e.g. science and health).[1]
- Research[1]
- There is some research and knowledge about readership and the importance of certain topics, but there are a lot of missing pieces and unknowns.[1]
Dedicate resources
- Prioritize resourcing against some areas[1]
- Develop a decentralization strategy that promotes this work in more parts of the movement[1]
- Pilot an area of impact (new, ie not gender gap)[1][2]
- Increased participation of state/ national institutions (for example cultural, copyright agencies) in identifying content gaps & form a strategy / program to address it[2]
- Start Initiative online meetings and Focus Group Interviews for un/under-represented groups[2]
- Maximize virtual meetings since global or intercontinental conversations became more possible rather than in person conversations[2]
- Sharing information and experience among Wikimedians from other regions[2]
- There are a lot of research projects and initiatives going on, it’s important to connect [2]
- Specific content gap follow-up meetings[2]
- Define the tools and/or skill-sharing mechanisms we need / the technical architecture we aim at:[3]
People (WHO) edit
Who would like to take part in this initiative’s working group? edit
- Regional Hubs[1]
- Online community members, affiliate, relevant foundation staff[2]
- Librarians, researchers (tools)[2]
- volunteers[2]
- Wikimedia Argentina[3]
- Wiki Education[3]
- Wikimedia sister projects’ communities[3]
- Affiliate or foundation hired staff to facilitate discussions[2]
- Experts on high impact topics[3]
Who is/are interested in having additional responsibilities to coordinate this working group? edit
- Regional/ thematic hubs[2]
- Online communities (local or global thematic)[2]
- Wikimedia UK[2]
- Wikimedians for Sustainable Development[3]
- Wiki Education[3]
- WM CEE, LGBT+ UG, GLAM Croatia in founding[3]
Is anyone missing who should be part of implementation? edit
- Foundation staff (legal, public policy, campaigns, behavioral research)
- CreativeCommons, OpenStreetMap, UN agencies with which we have previous work[3]
- Educational institutions[3]
- Disinformation experts[3]
- Experts to think about potential harm / ways things could go wrong (sociologists? Cultural critics?)[3]
Sources edit
References edit
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax Room 2: High-Impact Topics
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad Room 3: Knowledge + Content Gaps
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as Room 1: Support Systems