Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2016/Community consultation/Reach

Slowking4 edit

Response by Slowking4 15:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC) muti ur rehmanReply

Slowking4's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

this is combining six and one and four; need to go where the users are and improve their experience. global south engagement will be via mobile.

What is behind "two Global South countries"? edit

Response by NickK

It is unclear what WMF is planning to do in the two Global South countries. WMF already has a track record of opening offices in two Global South countries, and it would be quite honest to say that it was not a success:

  • Brazil Program first annual report shows that hardly any targets were met. In 2013, project was transferred to a local organisation Ação Educativa which received an ambitious 550,000 USD grant (only WMDE and WMFR received higher grant APG grants) but unfortunately I fail to find any impact report consistent with APG standards.
  • India Program was handed to a local organisation Centre for Internet and Society just a year after being launched. CIS is successful as an allied organisation and shows both good impact and good reporting as an APG grantee, but it does not seem to be a direct result of WMF work.

Thus the question is: what is WMF planning to do that will target only two Global South countries? It would be nice to know what lessons were learned from Brazil and India cases, as I might support some innovative and high-impact approaches but I am unlikely to support the same mistake with WMF offices in two more countries — NickK (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @NickK: we are not thinking "boots on the ground" at all. Rather consider language coverage, awareness, community support. Let's say there are top languages spoken on Earth and top languages on the internet and top languages on Wikipedia. One way to think about this strategy is to focus on supporting translation and awareness programs in languages that are underrepresented on the web, yet many people need critical information in their native tongues. Because we cannot do it all, two regions is probably what we can take on, based on the interest of our communities. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lila and thanks for the answer. I am glad that lessons were learned and that WMF is not planning any physical presence. However, language coverage and community support are two separate approaches (Approach Five in Knowledge and Approach Four in Communities) that are clearly defined and reachable. What is confusing is setting awareness in two countries as a separate goal, while this goal is reachable only with either local staff working on specific programmes (adapted to local languages and the local cultures) or local partners (either affiliates or allied organisations like CIS). Thus this point seems to be the vaguest one, is it possible to read a bit more about what WMF is planning to do about this? Thanks — NickK (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi @NickK: you make a good point, different approaches are possible. The reason we are asking these questions in a fairly abstract way and proposing possibilities is because we would like to hear some of your ideas/tactics about what you think may work or what is bound to fail. LilaTretikov (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yger edit

Response by Yger 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ygers svar på den centrala frågan edit

Tillvägagångssätt sex

I think Ygers is meaning priority six. Ellywa (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Gå till nästa fokusområde (gemenskaper)

BethNaught edit

Response by BethNaught 19:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

BethNaught's response to the critical question edit

Support the creation of quality content in all languages (such as by improving translation tools) by ways determined in conjunction with the community, and actively promote Wikimedia projects. For example, Wikisource now has the originals of Anne Frank's Diary for any Dutch speaker to read for free. That's massive - if people realised that then interest would be much greater.

@BethNaught: this is a very important point and actually what we brainstormed internally. Wikimedia seems to be an iceberg of knowledge, yet only a fraction is visible "above the waterline" of Wikipedia. The question is how do we expose more? While ensuring it is still high quality, relevant knowledge. Discovery team is investigating some of those questions and given support for the idea and results showing that it increases engagement we could fund this strategy further. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@LilaTretikov (WMF): Don't imagine I disapprove of everything the discovery team does. Introducting Elasticsearch, for example was a good idea. But holding several months of secret research funded by a large external grant is not acceptable. If they've got some ideas, why not share them? Feedback is essential to make sure the WMF doesn't go down yet another path putting it at loggerheads with the community, like Flow and Gather. Anyway, I was thinking more of a publicity drive. How many people have heard of Wikisource? The social media which are apparently an existential threat to the Wikimedia model does at least make publicity cheap - if my small circle of friends can get some inane in-joke trending on Twitter, surely Wikimedians can promote something meaningful. I disagree with the idea that WMF projects should invent radical new ways to feed knowledge to people (which is at any rate what the term "Knowledge Engine" connotes, and if you wish to make me believe it isn't such a thing you'll have to declassify it and the Knight Foundation grant agreement); if people know that we have something useful and unique they will come to us. BethNaught (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

BethNaught's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches 2, 3 and 6 are most important. 3 and 6 because people are looking for information in different venues: now people can find simple information extracted from Wiki(p|m)edia on Google, we need to make the mobile reading experience, especially in the app, more attractive. However, improvements should be made in basic quality. Introducing gimmicks such as Gather/Collections is a terrible idea because they require effort from the community to police them while providing no benefit to the content of the projects.

With regard to approach 2, there are so many woolly arguments going on about the VisualEditor that we need proper data, ideally contracted by a neutral researching party. Also the WMF needs to increase its efforts to connect with the community even further. This strategy consultation will seem meaningless to many because the WMF Board has been having secret negotiations about a major shift in strategy with no community input.

DON'T do approach 5. Enough Wiki(m|p)edia content is pilfered already by the rest of the internet, so don't make it easier for outsiders to exploit the community's work in violation of the licensing terms. The recent fiasco shows that even the WMF can't reliably attribute the community, so who can?

Snipre edit

Response by Snipre 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Réponse de Snipre à la question critique edit

Définir des groupes de contributeurs et leur proposer des contributions ciblées en fonction de leurs intérêts. Exemple: les communautés de fans de séries TV, d'univers,... Définir un ensemble de tâches classiques pour le développement de ces thèmes sur WP et contacter via les forums, les conventions, les fans en leur proposant de participer à WP. On peut imaginer la même chose pour les fans d'automobiles (via les salons automobile) et autres.

Define contributor groups and offer them targeted contribution suggestions according to their interests. Example: communities focused on TV series or broad themes... Define a set of common tasks for the development of these themes on WP and contact folks via forums, conventions, by offering to participate on WP. We can imagine the same idea for auto fans (via automobile salons) and others.

Top 2-3 de Snipre (ou partagez vos idées) edit

1, 2 et 3

Aller au domaine suivant (Communauté)

Julius Tominius edit

Response by Julius Tominius 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Julius Tominius's response to the critical question edit

All six at the same time. See below.

Julius Tominius's Wikimedia 2016 edit

Merge Wikidata and Commons under the brand Wikimedia ( Allow access to Item:, Property:, File:, Template:, Module:, User: from local Wikipedias, e.g. and as one can access Commons files already today from within a Wikipedia (

All Wikipedia language editions benefit, including those in languages from "two Global South countries". Create a mobile app "Wikimedia" that allows browsing and searching of files, items and properties.

MisterSanderson edit

Response by MisterSanderson 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

MisterSanderson's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

MisterSanderson's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach three: Understand how Wikimedia content is reused on external platforms and explore how to encourage users of such content to go to Wikimedia projects.

Approach two: Improve our understanding of how and why our users come to and stay on our projects so we can better serve their needs.

Caoimhin edit

Response by Caoimhin 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Caoimhin's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Caoimhin's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I think approach two is the most important. Some of the external sites are pure parasites adding nothing and therefore probably won’t last long. But some of them will have ideas which add a small amount of additional value. And while they are free to use Wikipedia content, Wikipedia is free to learn from and adapt and adopt their ideas.

I think approach one is also important, especially encouraging Wikipedias in many small languages. This is something the external sites are less likely to copy, since there is not much profit in it, but there is a crisis in the world at the moment with the decline and extinction of languages, and the more Wikipedia can do to help them the better. One small technical thing which would help most small languages would be I think to change the wgCategoryCollation parameter default from “uppercase” to “uca-default”. The vast majority of languages use alphabets involving accented characters or non-Latin scripts, and while uca-default may not be perfect for all of them, it is for the majority, and in all cases it is vastly better than “uppercase”. It seems a bit mad that each language should have to find out about this and request it individually. Most of them do not realise why their category items with accented characters are being sorted in the wrong order.

WereSpielChequers edit

Response by WereSpielChequers

WereSpielChequers's - Mobile, screenspace and copyright edit

The WMF has an opportunity to solve several key problems by shifting from a tech led strategy to a licensing led one.

The rise of mobile is increasing our ratio of readers to editors, and increasing the pressure on the legalese, fundraising banners and above all the editing buttons that many designers and most readers regard as clutter, but clutter that is the lifeblood of this project.

The shift to smartphone currently seems as insuperable a problem as in 1890 the rising tonnage of horse shit was to the transport planners of London and other major cities. Simply extrapolating the recent trends of screen size and the drift from Laptops to smartphones shows an existential threat to Wikimedia; Extrapolating trends is a notoriously unreliable predictor of the future and if you look again at smartphones you see that screensize among smartphones has been growing - manufacturers are competing to make smartphones that can do more of the things that PCs can do, so we may be rescued by technology or simply find that the world reaches an equilibrium in which PCs and laptops coexist with smartphones.

To a person with a hammer every problem is a nail, the WMF's hammer is technology, and simply treated as a technology problem then the Wikimedia movement looks like it will step out of the present and into the past. But there are other tools available to us, and the best tool for an existential threat of major tech players wanting to treat CC-BY-SA contributions as CC0, is diplomacy backed by lawyers.

Up to now the strategy of the WMF has been to leave copyright enforcement to the copyright holders, and for content other than a few things such as logos that has meant the community. That the WMF cares less about copyright than the community has been a contributor to many clashes between the WMF and the community, MediaWiki Viewer and the Indian Education Program being just two examples, kudos to the WMF for prompt response re the licensing problems with Wikipedia's 15th birthday site - but those problems did occur.

We can't stop major reusers of our data from stripping out our fundraising banners and edit boxes. But we can require that they comply with the legalese and provide attribution etc.

A strategic change by the Foundation from seeing intellectual property rights as someone else's problem, to seeing it as the lever to keep the movement thriving would help solve three problems:

  1. The easiest way to provide attribution online involves linking back to WMF projects, and those links are our lifeblood in terms of pageviews, new donors and new editors.
  2. Different volunteers have different motivations, but one of the most common ones is to have one's work respected and used. Use without attribution makes it more difficult for Wikimedians to even know their work is in use; It may even be demotivating to see your work used without attribution by some corporate behemoth. Whether volunteers are motivated or demotivated can significantly effect volunteer retention.
  3. Increased emphasis by the WMF on getting licensing right, and a strategy of promoting Wikimedia by encouraging major reusers to comply with licensing would help bridge the gap between the WMF and the community.

WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, WereSpielChequers - thoughtful comments as usual, with which I largely agree. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alphabets and internationalisation edit

We still have plenty of opportunities for internationalisation, take Georgian as an example, lots of people in Georgia don't have Georgian script keyboards and instead write Georgian in the Latin script or even Cyrillic. If the software detected this and enabled people to input Georgian letters using other keyboards would open the Georgian Wikipedia to many more editors. There are probably other languages with similar issues, it should be possible to detect programmatically wikis with such opportunities to improve reach. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sänger edit

Response by Sänger 15:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von Sänger auf die Hauptfrage edit

Ansatz sechs, und hierbei insbesondere die leichte Erreichbarkeit der jeweiligen Diskussionsseiten, damit die Interaktivität, nicht der reine Konsum, immer deutlich wird

Approach six, and here in particular the easy accessibility of the respective talk pages, so that the interactivity, not the pure consumption, is always obvious

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sänger edit

Ansatz vier, insbesondere auch durch entsprechende Personalpolitik in WMF und Board, d.h. das Board muss bei den Appointees deutlich diversifiziert werden.

Ansatz zwei, z.B. auch durch Verbesserung der Übersetzungstools, das hier vorhandene war eher suboptimal.

Approach four, in particular by appropriate personnel policy in the WMF and Board, i.e. the board's Appointees need to be significantly diversified
Approach two, for example, also by improving the translation tools, the existing here was rather suboptimal.

Ellywa edit

Response by Ellywa 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ellywa's response to the critical question edit

It is difficult to comment or choose a priority, as I do not know the cause of declining traffic. First you should do some research (perhaps this was done already, I did not look around to be honest).

Ellywa's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

To visitors, I think Wikipedia is getting boring, because the interface is always the same. I didn't ask around, but perhaps a more modern look would help. (Actually the look was oldfashioned when I did my first edits in 2002...) In addition, always these banners on top, a lot of links etc. discourage readers. I think if one sees a Wikipedia link in Google on top, several people might select the next best.

Taketa edit

Response by Taketa 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Taketa's response to the critical question edit

Make editing Wikimedia something to be proud of. Create editing weeks or months about regions.

Taketa's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  • Make editing Wikimedia something to be proud of. Improve appreciation of individual online volunteers. Currently many Wikimedians I talk to, do not share with their friends, family and collegues that they edit Wikipedia. This needs to change. We need to focus on making editing something to be proud of. I think we can accomplish this in the next five years and make our project healthy again.
    • Appreciation for individual online volunteers. We currently focus on people who are in boards, or organise global projects. This needs to change. We have so many awsome volunteers. People who write articles. People who upload images or entire books. People who help with wikifying. People who help in helpdesks. Spead the word and get them appreciation. I am working on getting a knighthood for a Dutch online volunteer for 15 years of volunteerwork. In the coming years, dozens will get an honour or knighthood. I hope it will positively change the way Wikimedians are viewed by the general public. The writingweek about North Brabant is held this week in cooperation with the King's Commissioner (governor) of the province of North Brabant. He will personally thank a Dutch volunteer, and if hopefully the Germans join next week, also a German volunteer. Work in different languages, with several initiative per language, over the year we can have thousands of volunteers get a personal thank you by a major, governor or member of governement. The Erasmusprice was awarded to Wikipedia last November and handed out by the king to three representatives of Wikipedia. Over 400 Wikimedia volunteers meet with the members of the royal family. All these people proudly and publicly advocate Wikimedia. The concurring media attention will get us new volunteers. Also ourselves we should be thanking our own editors. Last year the German Wikipedia started the Wiki Owls, to thank individual editors on behalf of the community. The community nominates people they appreciate and they receive an award. This has been an enormous succes. Together with Romaine last Saturday we awarded the Dutch Wiki Owls award in front of an audience of 85 people, showing our appreciation for these awsome online volunteers. We can make being a Wikimedian something everyone around us thinks is awsome. Make it something we say when we apply for a job, or when we talk about our day.
    • Appreciation by the scientific community. Currently in the Netherlands we cooperate with 3 Universities where professors give bachelors and master honours courses on Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales was awarded an honorary PhD from a Dutch University. We cooperate with museums and libraries. I believe the global GLAM project is vital to our efforts.
    • Appreciation by the general public via positive media attention. Last Friday at our 15 years aniversary over a dozen Dutch and Flemish Wikimedians were on the tv, radio and in newspapers talking about their work. We need more media attention like this. We need more of these awsome Wikimedians who publicly talk about our project. That is the way to reach people, by talking to them.
  • Create editing weeks or months about regions, in cooperation with the local government. Writing weeks and months about regions have the future. The recent Dutch Writing Week about Denmark nearly doubled our production of new articles for two weeks. Not only did we write over 800 articles, but the activity also caused other people to write about topics not related to the writing week. Writing month Asia is a great example of how we can do this globally. Topics like sports or religion are less suited for a writing week because they will only be interesting for people who are interested in those topics. But a region has everything. It has sports, is has religion, it has culture and companies. Everone can join. Writing together is fun. That is why it works, and that is why we need to do it more. Moreover, the region will want us to write about them. Get the government involved. Get the media involved. And we can reach the general public, and get new volunteers.
Thanks @Taketa: for your thoughts! I'd like to respond to your comments about how to improve awareness and appreciation of the projects in the press and general public. I'm curious about your point "Make Wikipedia editing something to be proud of." In your opinion and experience, why do you think that editors do not share that they edit Wikipedia with their family, friends, or colleagues? The Communications team is interested in finding ways to communicate more clearly about the value and importance of editing the Wikimedia projects. We would be interested in knowing more about the challenges people currently face in having these conversations.
On the subject of improving positive media attention, the WMF Communications team is interested in strengthening our ability to increase coverage of the Wikimedia projects. We have been focused first on 1) developing resources for skills sharing on communications for the movement and 2) building closer working relationships with affiliates to improve coordination and resource sharing. Do you have additional thoughts on how we can support individual online volunteers? For example, we could experiment with media skills development, or experiment with becoming more systematic in collecting strong stories from individual volunteers. Thank you! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
How can we support individual online volunteers: I have seen it often that we work with great organisations. For example the Dutch Wikimedia works with the National Archives, the National Library and with the Rijksmuseum. Great. But I think we are not using our cooperation in the way we could be using it. We are not using it to motivate our own editors and we are not using it to get maximum media attention. How can we motivate editors using our cooperation? By giving editors appreciation. Make an editing day or week online, where Wikimedians help the instituation. And make an award for the Wikimedian that does it best or select a random person from the people who helped. An award costs only a piece of paper and 15 minutes time of the local director. Yet it publicly says "we the National Archive thank this online volunteer". It is nothing to the National Archive. But for that one Wikimedian, it means something. And to the press, it is also interesting. If the National Archive of the US thanks an editor from India for example. The Indian editor will be proud. He will not hide the fact that the US National Archive gave him an award. Indian media will be all over it. And Wikimedia grows. Do this for all major institutes. Have governments thank Wikimedians. Museums, universities, libraries. Thanking our volunteers is the best way to motivate volunteers AND to reach the media. We don't work with 1 institute, or 1 government in 1 country. We work with dozen in hundreds of countries. Make yearly awards for every single one, and you have thousands of these proud Wikimedians. A thousand editors from India who have been thanked. That is how to motivate editors from India, or anywhere in the world. So to summarize, what I suggest you should be doing is getting third parties to thank individual editors, and teach organisers of cooperations how to use cooperations in a way that thanks individual editors.
On your more general question: The obvious reason to think of why we do not go public with our editing is that we are on the internet. People want their privacy. Many Wikipedians at conventions do not want their names revealed or their picture taken. Privacy is ofcourse the reason, but I don't think it is just fear of vandals coming to their front door. It is deeper. People fear their family finding out, or their friends, or their work, their collegues or their future job. When I talk to Wikimedians on IRC and at conventions they generally do not tell their peers about what they do. It is a secret, not only from the world, but from their loved ones. So it is not just about privacy. In an interview with the stewards in November 2014 [1] almost noone wanted to talk about being a steward. If our own people don't want to talk about it. If people prefer to take pseudonyms instead of coming forward and stating "I wrote that article", then we should change this. Editing Wikimedia projects is something great. These are good people, working to provide free information to the world. However Wikimedia is not yet seen as full, I think we are seen as amateurs (which we indeed are), which is still frowned upon by the scientific community. Editing Wikipedia is a little bit tainted. This might also be because often when we get media attention it is to blackgoat some celebrity who edited their own page, and mark them as bad people. Editing is risky and needs to be done in private it seems. However, the reason is not important. What is important is changing it. Wikimedia the biggest single provider of medical information in the world. Yet doctors don't edit Wikimedia. In the Netherlands we have maybe a dozen physicians (that I know of) that edit. Out of over 50.000. Why... It should be fantastic for their career to edit the biggest provider of medical information. Yet they don't see it that way. We need to show them how much they can do with Wikimedia. Another example, even paid staff of Wikimedia do not edit Wikimedia. Even people who donate, and believe in our work, do not edit. I believe that providing more appreciation, by the general population, to our editors is the best way to retain editors, get mouth to mouth advertisement and get more editors. If you are personally thanked by for example your minister of culture, than it proves to everyone that you are awesome. If you are knighted for your work it proves to everyone your work is awesome. If a professor is the first person to teach you how to edit Wikimedia then maybe Wikimedia must be awesome. And we need put this in the media. Let everyone know. Let people see Wikimedians being thanked. Not one time, but hundreds of times. If you want a good future for your child. Get them to edit Wikimedia. You want to help the world as a scientist, edit Wikimedia. You want to further your career, edit Wikimedia. That is how it should be, and I am working to get there. And I hope the Foundation will also focus on this topic.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I love your thoughts, Taketa. I agree and I think this is largely a human undertaking, not to be confused with things we can do with technology. But technology can also play a supporting role. WikiCredit is a system that aims to show people how much impact they have on the movement. We can implement such a scoring system in a way that people keep their privacy and share it only if they want, but they have it there, as a silent, massive, THANK YOU. See, for example, the way that stack overflow does it, which I got chills from when I saw it the first time: (The box labeled "Impact").Milimetric (WMF) (talk)

Smiley.toerist edit

Response by Smiley.toerist 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Smiley.toerist's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Smiley.toerist's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Better coordination and integration with other communities such as the Openstreetmap. Geografic data can be combined on some subjects. It should be natural that Openstreetmap volunteers work in Wikipedia and vice-versa.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

NaBUru38 edit

Response by NaBUru38 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

NaBUru38's response to the critical question edit

"Traffic to Wikimedia projects has been decreasing. This is a severe challenge, because fewer people will explore related content, have the chance to become contributors, or donate."

I disagree with the statement. People will explore related content if what they find makes them want more. Moreover, redistributors may try very different user interfaces to encourage exploration, as we must.

We need more contributors, but increasing traffic won't help. The read to contributor conversion rate is very low, because of issues unrelated to traffic.

NaBUru38's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach 2 is a must. We must understand readers to better serve them.

To encourage readers to explore related content, we must improve the user interface. We need tools to show related articles. We need a better search menu, which allows to filter by category with a few clicks. We need to improve portals, for example with a tool to autogenerate article summaries. We need to interconnect the projects, so a person reading an article can easily find Commons files, Wikinews stories, etc.

Müdigkeit edit

Response by Müdigkeit 12:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Müdigkeit's response to the critical question edit

Free reuse is very important. But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing to encourage users to come to Wikipedia. No, the reverse is true, others may and should use their content, but that doesn't mean we should encourage simple copying with attribution when it is more preferable that those users go to Wikipedia( so that these things can be corrected, and that those who read don't blindly trust something that has bad sourcing)

Müdigkeit's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach 2, because the readers are the ones we write for, and knowing their motives is essential Approach 3, because this drains possible contributors away.

Bluerasberry edit

Response by Bluerasberry 12:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bluerasberry's response to the critical question edit

The best way to encourage traffic to come to Wikimedia projects is to secure the good reputation and esteem of Wikipedia. Developing the marketing strategy was not one of the recommended strategic approaches, and I feel that this is an oversight because the power of Wikimedia projects is mostly in the good feelings that people have for them and not based in higher-minded research or something limited by an unmet need for more tool development.

@Bluerasberry: this is a really good point. I work on the communications team at the WMF. The good will we received via the Wikipedia 15 birthday celebration and the support we receive daily on Facebook especially suggests a desire to take part by readers. --JElder (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry: It seems like there's been a historical ambivalence around marketing for the projects, which is something I'd like to understand better. Marketing is on the rise at non-profit organizations, which are learning to use marketing techniques to better understand their audiences, share compelling messages, inspire people to join the mission, and raise awareness about their issues. I'd be interested in better understanding community concerns around marketing, so we could think about what approaches would - or wouldn't be - right for the movement. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Katherine (WMF) Have we met? Are you at NYU? Your page suggests that you might be. I am in New York. We could talk. 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bluerasberry's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Among the listed potential strategic approaches, I favor "approach four" with India being one of the countries and either a Spanish speaking country or Brazil being the other. I want outreach to thee countries because I think the outreach itself could be effective in local regions, but more than that, I feel that now is the time to start grooming community leadership in underrepresented locations so that in a few years when Wikipedia is more mature it will have a strong pool of community voices to guide decisions. Right now, community participation and leadership from outside the Western developed world is lacking. If that leadership and participation was at least more socially welcomed, then community contributors would find ways to advance all of these other strategic approaches in time. Among the strategic approaches proposed, only personal relationships and cultural exchange cannot be rushed. With money and advances in technology, the other developments are certain to happen in time, but global expansion and mutual understanding is not at all certain to happen. Expanding into two Global South countries would also force the hand of the Wikimedia Foundation to reconsider its marketing strategies, branding, and reputation, which I feel are in poor shape. A major barrier to the expansion of Wikipedia is its poor reputation, and to some extent, the Wikimedia Foundation's own branding includes calls for pity that do not match the power of Wikimedia projects. I want a fair assessment made of Wikipedia's use among readers - not contributors - because readers are the majority stakeholders and the pool from which Wikipedia editors come. Better outreach to readers globally will bring more contributors. Traffic reports cannot be taken for granted as support or a lack of problem; readers need marketing to understand Wikipedia more deeply, and to actually talk critically about it instead of the current common practice of both using it and dismissing it as less than good.

@Bluerasberry: more good points. On our Facebook page, most of our 5 million fans are in the global south. We have more Facebook fans in India (1.9 million) than anywhere else. The feedback we get there is invaluable, and our efforts there bring great returns. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by JElder (WMF) (talk)

SSneg edit

Response by SSneg 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

SSneg's response to the critical question edit

We know for a fact that more people use internet each day. We have to understand where they look for information if not on Wikipedia. Maybe they choose IMDB to look up celebrities because it has photos and fixed their mobile view recently. Maybe Google search is so good at presenting snippets on geographic locations, country population and economic facts right in the search results that people do not need to go into Wikipedia articles for that any more. And maybe it is a good thing (for the users, ultimately). But what if 3rd party websites copy Wikipedia information without attribution and present it in a nicer layout, stealing our users and potential contributors? This has to be confronted from legal standpoint, since it is WMF job to protect our work from abuse, and also should prompt Wikipedia to catch up in terms of visual presentation.

First of all, WMF should analyse the visitor dynamics and test some hypotheses. Did the visitor count decrease equally in developed countries and developing countries? English vs other languages? Returning vs new? Frequent vs infrequent visitors? Most importantly, compare pop culture articles (movies, celebrities, sports) vs hard science articles. And of course, compare across different Wiki projects, because their specific reasons for decline or growth could be unrelated.

In other words, before deciding on strategies to fix the water level in our ship's hold, let's understand what part of it is leaking, specifically.

SSneg's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches 1, 3, 4 – yes, improve language coverage (by working closely with local wikipedias), improve wikipedia article depth and quality, understand what users look for (but not just to increase numbers), make sure users still get to Wikipedia from 3rd party platforms.

Approach 2 is dangerous because if you simply look for ways to increase numbers, you may find out that most people come for info on pop culture and decide to support this behaviour primarily. Chasing pure visitor numbers is not a goal by itself. Wikipedia and WMF have a vision and should focus on that, not on just driving more traffic in.

Approach 6 - how many people use Wikipedia apps vs using mobile layout? I think the difference is staggering. This is because installing an app requires some effort. some encouragement and in some cases even some skills. Many users, especially in developing countries, only use the default apps on their phones. And Google spends millions to encourange them to Google stuff and then read about it in Chrome (on Wikipedia!). So investing into mobile apps provides low return and ties up a lot of engineering resources that can be used elsewhere. Also, mobile phone tech is developing and today almost anything can be done in browser, no need for native apps, especially for reading text with pictures (such as Wiki articles), not gaming in 3D. This resources should be allocated to improving mobile web layout, at the very least.

I cannot comment on Approach 5, but I feel like APIs are also technically sophisticated and require engineering resources while the return on that is not clear.

I also suggest exploring the mechanics of information sharing from Wikipedia into social networks. If a single person tweets a fun fact from Wiki to their friends, dozens will go to Wikipedia to read it. Lots of volunteers help select those "Did you know..." facts for the front page, you can at least leverage their effort.

Building on the above point, the most shareable information is pictures and graphs. Make sure that any image or graph from Wikipedia can be shared on Facebook or Twitter. We are living in an increasingly social and increasingly visual world, yet Wikipedia is still text-based closed-loop database of knowledge.

@SSneg: I certainly agree here, as the social media manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. We do see that people love to share what they have learned. We try to model that on our accounts. Sharing Commons images is a priority: We have more than tripled the media views on Twitter in the past three months. The Did You Know facts are great fodder we try to share regularly. --JElder (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mattflaschen-WMF edit

Response by Mattflaschen-WMF 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mattflaschen-WMF's response to the critical question edit

The best approach is to encourage people to consider visiting the sites, but also allow writing content and supporting the Foundation and movement from anywhere. This means, for example:

  • Use microbranding to encourage people seeing reused content to also visit the main site (approach three).
  • Work with reusers to promote editing, either by linking back to the main site's editor or in place (using the edit/discussion APIs).
  • Ask (but don't require) reusers to show the possibility of donating, even potentially directly without visiting the main site.

We also need to remember that visiting the site is not an option for some people. It is not realistic currently to expect "every single human being" to have internet access, but some of those without it still have access to downloaded copies of Wikipedia and other projects, e.g. at school. This is still reach.

The Communities pillar also reinforces this one. People come to the sites for quality content. More editors will lead to more content, and more content will lead to more readers (both on the main site, and on reusers' sites).

Mattflaschen-WMF's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  • Approach two (Improve our understanding of how and why our users come to and stay on our projects)
  • Approach three (Understand how Wikimedia content is reused on external platforms and explore how to encourage users of such content to go to Wikimedia projects). In particular, branding and working with them to promote editing and donating
  • Approach six (Improve Wikipedia mobile apps to increase use). Mobile is dominant in many parts of the world, so mobile web and mobile apps are critical for both readers and editors.

Milimetric (WMF) edit

Response by Milimetric (WMF) 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Milimetric (WMF)'s response to the critical question edit

We serve our current users brilliantly and we shouldn't care if some of them want to experience our content in other ways. But we should make sure third parties understand how this affects us and are willing to either compensate us financially or with other creative ways to solve that problem. We need to take it upon ourselves to recruit editors, relying on some tiny percentage of readers to magically jump a thousand hurdles and become editors has always seemed to me like a weird basket to put all our eggs in. We need to look beyond our self-drawn box. We are proud of our status as one of the largest sites in the world but we're in fact only reaching a single digit percentage of the world's population. We should fix that, we totally can.

Milimetric (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I support approaches 4, 5, and my own idea. That is, make sure third parties that re-package our content want to see the content creation part of our community thrive. So they need to give us money we lose through lack of banner impressions and help us find the editors we lose through lack of readers. Resting on that will allow us to focus on 4 and 5.

Qgil-WMF edit

Response by Qgil-WMF 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Qgil-WMF's response to the critical question edit

There is an assumption here that needs to be challenged: more reuse of Wikimedia content doesn't necessarily imply less visits to our sites, neither impedes more contributions made from external sources. Maybe we are getting less users because we haven't really joined any of the big user trends / expectations of the past decade (social, mobile, microcontributions, result-oriented crowdfunding...), our UI is less usable and attractive than other sites crowdsourcing content, etc. And while our APIs allow others to reuse our content, they also allow them to channel and recycle contributions, but this is an area where we have done no promotion at all.

Another point to consider is that there are external sources and external sources. If an external source is fully aligned with our mission (other independent not-for-profit organizations working on free culture and free software), then we should not really be deterred by the fact that they are not Wikimedia. Their mission is our mission. A different story are for-profit organizations with a mission to make rich their shareholders and with competition and monopoly as their main strategic tool.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Qgil-WMF's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  1. Enable others to reuse our content and build their own products by improving and documenting our APIs (application programming interfaces).
  2. Understand how Wikimedia content is reused on external platforms and explore how to encourage users of such content to go to Wikimedia projects.
  3. Improve our understanding of how and why our users come to and stay on our projects so we can better serve their needs.

Tfinc (WMF) edit

Response by Tfinc-WMF 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tfinc-WMF's response to the critical question edit

Our drop in page traffic has steadily increased as third parties have re-used our content. This it itself is good and should be encouraged as our core mission is to share in the sum of all human knowledge. Our stated problems focuses on how to increase our reach/traffic/etc which in itself is a focus on how to increase how many people benefit from Wikipedia and its sibling projects. Alongside this, we've seen great success from our GLAM projects and they have steadily increased the amount of content available on our projects. These projects have long requested tools that could make their workflows easier and attract new volunteers but have yet to receive much help. Instead I'd like to see more partnerships form with these institutions and for them to get the tech help they've requested for a long time.

Tfinc (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach #1 and #2 are most important to me alongside:

  1. Improve discoverability of not just Wikipedia but all Wikimedia project content
  2. Improve third party search of our sibling sites

We have no shortage of amazing content. Fewer people are *choosing* to come to our project because our experience is not as compelling as the third parties that use our data.

Trevor Parscal (WMF) edit

Response by Trevor Parscal (WMF) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Trevor Parscal (WMF)'s response to the critical question edit

Syndication is only a threat when the direct-delivery experience is inferior. Because we've been wildly successful, we've become lazy. We must earn traffic, not just expect it. We must provide greater value to our readers by providing tools to our editors that support making content clearer, accessible and richer (beyond text and simple images). We must also make it possible to access that content easily and inexpensively throughout the world.

Trevor Parscal (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach 1 is the most important, as we have failed to do this so far and we are now seeing our impact diminish as the world changes around us. Approach 2 is critical to knowing how to succeed with approach 1. Finally, approach 4 is important, or we risk increasing value for only the subset of users that are easiest to serve or most similar to the natural biases of WMF staff.

Dario (WMF) edit

Response by Dario (WMF) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dario (WMF)'s response to the critical question edit

I am answering this question as a 10-year wikimedian as well as a WMF staffer who–since joining the Foundation–has been watching closely how content reuse by major platforms affects our ability to pursue our mission. Content distribution and reuse is a given and something we should embrace: it's built into Wikimedia's DNA and licensing structure, it is inevitable – whether we like it or not – and desirable. What is less inevitable and less desirable is allowing 3rd parties to "accidentally" intermediate Wikimedia's visitors, contributors, donors by designing interfaces that break the connection between content, on the one hand, and its creators and original sources on the other. Also: traffic per se is not the goal, the question should be about how to drive back human attention to the source. With these caveats, the best way to encourage attention to return to the site is by designing content distribution strategies that preserve provenance and do not intermediate Wikimedia projects as sources (see some of my thoughts on this topic from a recent presentation). In my opinion this is the biggest, least studied and riskiest challenge the movement should be focusing on today. While editing trends or content quality are well within the control of Wikimedia's actors (editors, chapters, wikiproject participants, WMF), reach and traffic are not. The whole media industry is looking at content distribution as the biggest potential threat and opportunity that may change the internet as we know it (I encourage you to read the excellent Content Wars by John Herrman, and this post in particular. I'd be happy to talk to anyone who's excited or worried about these issues.--Dario (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dario (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Definitely a combination of 3 and 5, we should actively encourage syndication/distribution but also make it graceful and design it in such a way to be aligned with Wikimedia's mission. With over half of our visits (i.e. sessions with an identifiable referrer) originating from Google properties and an unspecified but arguably extremely large number of visitors consuming Wikimedia contents outside of Wikimedia properties (which I estimate to be at least one order of magnitude larger than Wikimedia's traffic / unique visitors figures), any gain or loss caused by syndication is likely to overshadow any gain obtained via other strategies.

Traffic is a means, not an end edit

Response by Adamw

As @NaBUru38, @SSneg and others have pointed out, traffic is just an indicator of a particular type of success. It has become the industry standard because most of the internet is powered by advertising and sales revenue, which are roughly proportional to traffic. It's not even clear that our metric should be to reach *more* people, and it especially isn't clear that driving more traffic to our site will improve anything about our reach. For example, a single internet terminal in a school might look like a small amount of traffic, and only one "unique", but would reach many more people than a large quantity of traffic from a single cell phone. Adamw (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Khorn (WMF) edit

Response by Khorn (WMF) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Khorn (WMF)'s response to the critical question edit

First of all: I'm not sure how numbers 1, 2, and 6 are not all necessary steps toward the same end. In fact, 2 seems to be a prerequisite of a (1+6) combo, and I'm not sure why we'd sign up to do 6 unless we knew it served 1, via 2.

To rephrase for human beings, the following seems reasonable to me: First, we understand how and why our users come to us, and why they stay or leave. Then, with that understanding, we adapt our products to serve the needs of actual human beings that are currently being underserved. If an identifiable segment of humans would respond best to improved mobile apps (and/or the other platforms), it seems to me that the need would shake out here.

Secondly: 3 and 5 seem to me, to have largely the same relationship. I would like to also note, that I suspect if any individual or group is going to take the time to build something fancy that reuses our content, they probably don't want to cause the wikipedia community ecosystem to fold: They would lose all their own work. I'd like to see us try to give content reusers incentives to send people back to us in constructive ways. Maybe mention in the API documentation that there are ways they could be good citizens by sending back potential editors, or adding a donation button to their projects.

Khorn (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

As stated above: 2 & (1+6).

Guillaume (WMF) / guillom edit

Response by Guillaume (WMF) / guillom 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guillaume (WMF)'s response to the critical question edit

The question "How do we get more traffic?" naturally breaks down into two more specific questions:

  • Why do people come to our sites, and how can we encourage that behavior?
  • Why do people not come to our sites, and how can we encourage them to come?

We have done some initial research about reader motivation, and there is also more coming soon. This kind of research is critical in order to address the current and future needs of our users. This is to say that Approach 1 (improvement to meet the needs) is doomed unless it is continually informed by Approach 2 (research of those needs).

The other issue (Why do people not come to our sites) can itself be broken down into possible causes:

  • People aren't coming because they don't know about our sites (Awareness issue).
    • A corollary: People aren't coming because they don't think about coming to our sites (also an Awareness issue).
  • People aren't coming because they don't need to come to our sites (Pipeline issue).
  • People aren't coming because they don't want to come to our sites (Trust/Brand issue).
  • People are coming but not staying on our sites (Bounce/Retention issue).

Those call for different solutions. For example, Approach Four addresses the Awareness issue; Approach Three addresses the Pipeline issue; Approach One addresses the Bounce/Retention and Trust/Brand issues. In order to prioritize the approaches, we must see where those approaches are coming from, and the issue(s) they intend to solve.

We also need to think about the user funnel. For example, if we choose to dedicate a lot of resources to raising awareness, for example in emerging communities (Approach Four), that will all be for naught if those users then Bounce.

Other issues, like the Pipeline issue, may not actually be a problem at all (from a reader perspective). Our mission is to disseminate knowledge; if readers find that knowledge elsewhere (whether it originally came from our sites or not), we fulfilled our mission. Of course, it means we're losing potential contributors, but that's a different issue.

Guillaume (WMF)'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Based on the analysis above, I currently believe the following priorities make the most sense:

  1. Approach Two (Research the current and future needs of our users) is the first step. We can't do any meaningful improvement unless we know which levers to pull to achieve what effect.
  2. Approach One (Improve the UX) is the logical step that follows. There's a lot that can go under that umbrella, but the main goal is to address the Bounce/Retention issue.
  3. Approach Seven: Address the Awareness and Pipeline issues by making it trivial to accidentally land on Wikimedia sites. Basically, the goal is to become more present on the social web by piggy-backing on other social services and networks. In practice, this could mean providing tools to quote a Wikipedia paragraph on Facebook, or embed a text+image from a specific article in your personal blog, or share a curriculum composed of bits of Wikipedia articles on Khan Academy, etc. (This may be a variation of Approach Five, I'm not sure.) We could spend millions in awareness campaigns in specific countries, and not be as successful in raising awareness as if we had just let people trivially reuse, link to, and embed our content.

I also have many more thoughts about brand, awareness, etc. (notably, consolidating our projects, an old dream of mine) but I won't go into that right now.

Epìdosis edit

Response by Epìdosis 23:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Epìdosis's response to the critical question edit

I think our projects should adapt themselves in their shape (surely deploying new content formats) to what users want to find, but at the same time they should maintain their original essence, because this is what made and still makes our huge success.

Epìdosis's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I certainly approve all the six approaches. The ones I prefer are (in this order) 2, 1 and 6.

Sicherlich edit

Response by Sicherlich 01:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC) removed my answers. See here. I don't have the feeling of good intentions of WMF ...Sicherlich Post 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ArielGlenn edit

Response by ArielGlenn 01:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ArielGlenn's response to the critical question edit

Note that while I am a WMF staffer, I am not writing this in that role but as a once active and now mostly lurking volunteer.

I think the question is based on a false premise, that traffic moving away from the WMF-maintained sites and spreading out across the Internet is detrimental. Rather, sharing, reuse and remixing are a crucial part of our mission. We do not have the means to provide our content in all forms that the public might want, nor with all the features they might find useful. Nor should we take on that burden; rather, we should encourage third parties to explore reuse in creative ways, so that we can focus on what we do well, i.e. providing an editing platform and a primary source of content to be shared.

Having said that, I understand the concern about retaining or attracting new contributors. That is indeed at the core of our mission. Let's figure out how to do that without linking it to the number of readers that visit the site. How can we make editing even easier technically than it is today? How can we make it socially easier and more attractive? How can we make it easier for someone to get over the psychological barrier of the first edit? How can we encourage third party reusers of our content to solicit editors on our behalf? Are we only interested in the flagship project, Wikipedia in the major languages? If the barrier to editor entry is too high on those sites because the "easy" content has already been written, should we be attracting editors to the sister projects in order to further our mission of gathering knowledge?

I know many of these questions have been discussed in the past, both by the community and among WMF staff. Let's refresh those discussions and build on them.

Also, let's figure out why "Wikipedia" gives me a spelling error in Firefox! WTF folks, 15 years later you'd think someone would have added it to the dictionary.

ArielGlenn's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Unrelated to the question, I support all promotion of reuse, and so I support the development and improvement of APIs that would make content access by third parties easier (approach 5). Related to this, I support the development or improvement of ways to access our content in bulk (e.g. content downloads) for reuse. Coincidentally, I maintain the dumps...

ArielGlenn's postscript edit

A question: are we aggressively running banners for this strategy discussion? If not, we should be. This is a great opportunity to get suggestions from less-involved editors but also from readers, let's make it happen!

Jane023 edit

Response by Jane023 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jane023's response to the critical question edit

...1,4, and six

Jane023's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...set up a template for a local meetup and encourage wikipedians to meet up in real life. The teaser can be an edit-a-thon or a combined tour of a facility of some kind, or a demonstration of some clever task that can be applied to an editor's activity somehow. More local meetups help bring people in. We see this again and again in NL, but the travel distances in other countries are much greater.

Jo-Jo Eumerus edit

Response by Jo-Jo Eumerus 08:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jo-Jo Eumerus's response to the critical question edit

I do think that a loss of traffic is a consequence of the expansion of the importance of the Internet; nowadays there are a number of online websites and features (Google's "knowledge graph", for example) that compete with Wikimedia projects for traffic and users. Many of these are indirectly dependent on Wikimedia projects in some way; not necessarily by straight-up copying of text but by using our projects as sources. I do think this is not necessarily a bad thing, the spread of information being after all a main scope of the projects. One way to keep readers here is by continuously improving on existing material.

As for improving this trend, one thing I would like to see is better ways to cooperate between projects (interproject) - sometimes nowadays it feels like each project, 'pedia or 'tionary are independent bubbles that do not work with each other. Commons and Wikidata are some of the exceptions, but having more things being shared may improve the quality of out works; some of the projects worked on by the Community Wishlist Survey (if I remember the name correctly) such as global user talk pages and watchlists are already on the way.

A second aspect which is being mentioned by some of the other responders to this request is that working on Wikimedia projects needs to be something to be proud of, to have some appreciation. Part of the reasons I started editing enwiki is because it has some mechanisms to feature and present the work done by its editors, for example the en:Wikipedia:Good articles process. In this sense it is also important that external reusers of our material to properly attribute the origin site at least, so that a person who spend perhaps a significant amount of their time at writing an article can know their work had some effect. This may justify having a more stringent enforcement of our copyright terms, since they aren't really all that restrictive. Also, I still have the feeling that working on our projects is widely considered to be a thing of a selected group and not for the public at large, although I can't say I have a good solution to this.

Jo-Jo Eumerus's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

1 and 2. My impression is that the reasons why people edit Wikimedia projects or stick around are not particularly well known or exploited by developers. With regards to project 5, if "reusing" means "copying" I feel this isn't really the most common method by which Wikimedia content is reused - and even when it is, it is frequently in violation of copyright license terms by not providing attribution or inappropriately tightening the licensing. Also, internationalizing is something that can be improved - while reliable machine translation between most or even many languages here is still a thing of the future, having more information especially in smaller or more secluded (--> languages whose speakers aren't usually familiar with a major language) languages - the issues mentioned with translation tools by others and particular problems such as e.g WereSpielChequers's points about keyboards are things that need to be worked on.

Aubrey edit

Response by Aubrey 10:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aubrey's response to the critical question edit

I really don't know about Wikipedia. But I can say that Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wiktionary are ripe of low-hanging fruits: dedicated teams could develop better interfaces for the projects, making them much more easily readable for users, and much more easy to contribute to.

Aubrey's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  1. N°1.
  2. N°6.
  3. N°2. edit

Response by 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply's response to the critical question edit

Instead of badgering users of wikipedia for money create: Revenue Projects that provide sites where people and companies and other organizations can, for a fee, list themselves and their data that's protected. People or entities can review the data and if anyone is putting up incorrect, self-serving data submit corrections and their sources which a third party, non-wiki group can evaluate and either correct the page or submit the correction data to the "page owner" to update. To avoid crushing established online business you could raise funds to buy out the those businesses and incorporate their pages into your projects.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Instead of badgering users of wikipedia for money create: wiki biz list wiki whos who Wiki (other proprietary lists) in which people, companies, and whatever groups I haven't thought of are charged a small fee to list themselves and their information. Not a facebook or LinkedIn but a list where the user certifies the information is true and is fact focused not social content focused. edit

Response by 16:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply's response to the critical question edit

Be available on the most popular technologies.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches 1, 5, & 6 address the needs.

Amgine edit

Response by Amgine 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Amgine's response to the critical question edit

Stop being the Wikipedia Foundation and focus support on less-developed projects, projects with scope for more people to build and feel 'ownership'/'accomplishment' of free knowledge content.

Audience interest and participation is greatest when the average member of it may usefully contribute. en.Wikipedia, appropriately, has developed beyond that point. Other projects, such as Wikisource, have huge room for audience participation, while others, such as Wikibooks, now have greater efficiency of impact (one successful textbook project affects a larger number of students, etc.)

Amgine's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches 5, 3, and 2 may have some effect, in order of likelihood imo. But if your goal is to increase traffic (as opposed to actually making knowledge available to the largest possible audience) then engage in marketing in your largest markets. I would suggest something like blocking all IPs related to [some hot-button thing - e.g. all high schools, because "parents don't want their students plagiarizing Wikipedia articles as homework"]. This is sure to create drama and news coverage and therefore traffic. You may want to map out your artificial scandal creation; there are firms which can help you do this.

Spinster edit

Response by Spinster 19:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Spinster's response to the critical question edit

Do we know well enough what causes the decline in traffic? I have a hunch that Google's Knowledge Graph might have a lot to do with it. People already might find the info they need there.

We depend so much on Google. Either we have to work with them closely (yes, I'm following the board controversy a bit...) or we have to hope for / push for / ... a viable impactful alternative 'ethical' search engine that becomes more popular than Google. Yeah right ;-p

Redesign Wikipedia. It looks like something that got beamed to us from the 18th Century.

Different users have different information requirements/needs at different times. Sometimes you want to check a small fact. Sometimes you want to read a summary about a topic. Sometimes you want to find an image for your presentation. Sometimes you'd like to know what kind of bird you're looking at. We have the free information to answer to all these needs, but we think (I'm exaggerating a bit) that a Wikipedia article is THE thing we need to offer the world. I think we have so much to win if we think of innovative and diverse ways to serve our free knowledge, especially if we dare think outside the 'boxes' of our projects.

Images are incredibly popular and important on the web. Let's not forget that. Wikimedia Commons is, IMO, our most underestimated project and our most promising 'gold nugget'. Imagine a world in which Wikimedia Commons would be an innovative, 21st-century media repository with structured metadata and an awesome interface, where people can easily find any free media they need and receive clear information and simple tools with which to correctly re-use and attribute it.

Spinster's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

My top 3 of the existing suggestions would be (1 is best)

  1. Approach one, adapt user experience to needs
  2. Approach two, understand needs of our users
  3. Improve the API - and probably even innovate with it. Make sure people can use it as easily as possible, that it works as smoothly and reliably as possible, and that it brings together the most valuable info possible. What's Google's Knowledge Graph API doing? How many people are watching and using that? We must be better.

In addition I would say, maybe more importantly: define a common strategy and guidelines according to which our community will work together with parties like Google and other major web players on whom our traffic depends.

Let's keep doing remarkable and new things, like Wikidata, and make sure they're as awesome as possible, so that the world keeps noticing us.

Finell edit

Response by Finell 01:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Finell's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Finell's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I favor approaches one and two. In fact, I do not see how anyone can implement one without using two—that is, "adapting user experience to their needs" requires research into users' needs.

Sebastian Wallroth edit

Response by Sebastian Wallroth 14:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von Sebastian Wallroth auf die Hauptfrage edit

Eins. Denn es nutzt nichts, Benutzer von anderen Seiten zu uns zu ziehen, wenn sie auf unseren Seiten ein schlechteres Benutzungserlebnnis haben; wenn sie Funktionen vermissen und die Inhalte nicht in der Form vorliegen, die die Benutzer bevorzugen.

One. It's useless to pull users from other sites to us, if they find a worse use experience here; if they miss functions and if they don't find content in a format, they like most.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sebastian Wallroth edit

Zwei. Man muss seine Benutzer kennen, um auf ihre Bedürfnisse eingehen zu können. Die Interessen von Autoren und Benutzern können weit auseinander liegen.

Drei. Wenn man Drittanbieter mit einfach zu nutzenden APIs an sich bindet, werden sie nicht nach Alternativen suchen und mittel- und langfristig uns als Inhaltenanbieter bevorzugen und unterstützen. Sie werden sogar selber helfen, die API-Doku zu verbessern. Sie werden ihren Benutzern stolz zeigen, woher die Inhalte stammen, weil der Name Wikipedia für Qualität bürgt. Sie werden Benutzer auf unsere Seiten leiten, um neue Inhalte zu produzieren, wenn ihnen der Nutzen klar wird.

Two. You've got to know your users to entertain his needs. The interests of authors and users could be far apart.
Three. If you connect third party suppliers with easy-to-use APIs, they won't look for alternatives, and in the short and medium time range will prefer and support us as content providers. They would even help themself to get the APIs better documented. They would show their users with pride where the content comes from, because the name Wikipedia is trusted for its quality. They will lead users to our sites, to generate new content, once the value is clear to them.

Fil211 edit

Response by Fil211 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fil211 — ответ на насущные вопросы edit

Самым главным видится снижение порога вхождения, то есть специализированных знаний продвинутого компьютерного пользователя, а также максимальная демократизация доступных тематик. Лучше написать все обо всем чем кое-что о кое-чем--Fil211 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The most important is seen lowering the threshold of entry, that is the specialized knowledge of advanced computer user, as well as the democratization of the maximum available themes. It is better to write everything about everything than something about something

Fil211 — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея) edit

Самыми лучшими являются 1 и 2 подходы. Нужно привлечь новых участников и облегчить жизнь тем кто уже является частью семьи--Fil211 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The best are 1 and 2 approaches. It is necessary to attract new members and make life easier for those who are already part of the family

Marcok edit

Response by Marcok 09:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Marcok's response to the critical question edit

  • Approach 6, expecially in Africa.

Marcok's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  • Approach 1
  • Approach 4, not only in 2 nations but in the whole Africa.

Chris troutman edit

Response by Chris troutman 12:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chris troutman's response to the critical question edit

It is popularly believed that the number one reason for the dropoff in page visits is Google's knowledge graph. Wikipedia already knows this because Google bought its consent for same. If Wikipedia really just wants to burden visitors with misleading requests for donations then I'd prefer that Wikipedia simply advertise on other websites.

Chris troutman's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach Six is the most critical as many new visitors to Wikipedia are skipping desktops and laptops entirely and surf the web via mobile devices exclusively. Wikipedia needs to improve the app in order to retain these visitors, not to mention enabling current editors to do more editing from mobile. Approach two is important as continuing to survey site visitors would help us understand how well we're meeting their needs. Approach three is a joke. Beyond how Google is stealing our hard work, numerous other sites are mirroring our content without the legally-required acknowledgement that Wikipedia is the source. WMF would do well to start suing those websites hosting our content and running banner ads.

Tearow edit

Response by Tearow 15:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Réponse de Tearow à la question critique edit

Approche 1

Top 2-3 de Tearow (ou partagez vos idées) edit

Approche 2 Approche 5

Mr. Zabej edit

Response by Mr. Zabej

  • Approach One
  • Approach Four

--Mr. Zabej (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ziko edit

Response by Ziko 17:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ziko's response to the critical question edit

In discussions about 'collaborative content production' and the 'digital commons', traditionally the problem of 'free riders' was raised. Wikipedians often ignore this problem, as Wikipedia is the number one reference work anyway, and as ideologically 'free riding' is part of the open content concept.

Re-using Wikipedia content (in clones, in third party apps or other ways) can indeed be a problem. Readers feel less attached to Wikipedia as a brand of quality and as a useful website if they can consume the content elsewhere in a way that suits more to their needs (e.g., with a nice user interface).

The negative consequences:

  • Readers learn less about Wikipedia, its backgrounds and its principles
  • Therefore, readers are less likely to contribute and donate
  • and readers will relate less to Wikipedia the website, e.g. bloggers will link less to Wikipedia the website. As a consequence, the Wikipedia pages will be less prominent in Google results.

These are problems that appeared on the horizon long time ago. But we Wikipedians don't feel them as problems, because we have not much contact with readers. Also, we seem to be more interested in content (in the topics) than in readers. And up to now, the donations came in, and Wikipedia is still the first or second website in most Google searches. But this can dramatically change within a very short time, so that it can be too late to change something.

Another ideological problem is the idea that every reader should be a contributor. Most readers don't want to contriute, and if you should contribute the same as we do is our only message to them, we don't have much to say or offer. We should learn to appreciate people who are different from the 'ideal Wikipedian' and treat them and their needs appropriately.

Therefore it is urgent to gain more insight in

  • what readers expect from Wikipedia, both from the content and the website as such
  • how to build a better relationship with the readers
  • how to make readers come directly to Wikipedia instead of Googling

One suggestion: different kind of people should have different user interfaces. Wikipedia should offer

  • an interface for readers who are not logged-in, attractive and useful for those who want to be no more than casual readers
  • an interface for readers who wish to be more involved and have more functionalities. We should encourage those readers to register, to give them reasons to do so. As registered readers, they should see an interface with useful features such as special bookmarks and news about the Wikimedia movement, e.g. meetings for the general public in the vicinity. The goal is to create a sense of belonging and pride for our 'power readers'.
  • an interface for new and casual contributors, people who just want to correct a typ in an article but not get invovled with meta work, categories or tables. As a consequence, those new and casual contributors cannot create new articles, upload images or do other things that need more experience.
  • an interface for experienced contributors - which would be more or less what we have now.

The idea is to bind readers to our website, give them suitable benefits, and allow them to 'grow into Wikipedia' in distinct steps.

Ziko's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach Two as basis to learn more about the readers. Approach Three would be complemantary. The goal is then, Approach One, to bind readers to the website Wikipedia.

I wouldn't go for Approach Four because we need more general insight and repair Wikipedia in general first. But possibly one could experiment with a new interface system in one peticular Wikipedia language version, from the 'global south' or not. Approach Five seems to be counterproductive. Approach Six can be implemented later after we know more about attracting and keeping readers.

Sujalajus edit

Response by Sujalajus 22:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von Sujalajus auf die Hauptfrage edit

Approach one

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Sujalajus edit

Approach four

Balajijagadesh edit

Response by Balajijagadesh 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Balajijagadesh's response to the critical question edit

  • Making the editing of the content possible in wikipedia mobile app itself. Many small mistakes (such as spelling mistake, formatting) can be corrected in mobile itself easily.
  • An app to upload pictures to commons directly from mobile
  • The Wiktionary app is no longer supported in google playstore. There are many apps for dictionary based on wiktionary content. But many are filled with advertisements and malwares. The wiktionary app for all the languages similar to wikipedia also to be developed.
Hi @Balajijagadesh:. It is possible to edit content (in wikitext-mode) in the mobile apps, by clicking on the "pencil" icon.
I believe the old Commons Mobile Apps have recently been forked and are now maintained by volunteer developers, see commons:Commons:Mobile app for links.
Thanks for the feedback about the old (mostly volunteer-developed) Wiktionary app.
Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Balajijagadesh's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

Z653z edit

Response by Z653z 11:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Réponse de Z653z à la question critique edit

Approche 2

Top 2-3 de Z653z (ou partagez vos idées) edit

...répondez ici...


Güzel bir site sizi beğeniyorum...

Geolina163 edit

Response by Geolina163 11:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von Geolina163 auf die Hauptfrage edit


Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Geolina163 edit

...hier schreiben...

Gereon K. edit

Response by Gereon K. 11:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Gereon K.'s response to the critical question edit

If it is true that less and lesse people visit Wikimedia projects it is essential to find out why this is the case. My first thought is the infobox that Google shows in each search. When you have the brief digest of a Wikipedia article already on Google most people might feel that there is no need to visit Wikipedia, because they have all qick information they require straight away. Now google is a commercial platform with unknown (for most people) intent. We have to rethink this angle.

Gereon K.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Most important in my humble opinion: Approach three.

AlexChirkin edit

Response by AlexChirkin 11:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

AlexChirkin — ответ на насущные вопросы edit

...пишите здесь…

AlexChirkin — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея) edit

Считаю, что из предложенных подходов первый и второй полезными.

Также считаю, что будет крайне полезно улучшить объём и качество представленной информации - так как это именно то, зачем люди обращаются. Конкретно, в английской викитеке работали над автоматической закачкой документов их Word (не знаю, чем закончилось). А теперь поставьте себя, опытного участника (хоть попробуйте), на место какого-нибудь самоотверженного научного сотрудника, решившего пожертвовать авторскими гонорарами, и предоставить свои труды в общественное достояние с помощью викитеки. Да он раньше в психушку попадёт, прежде чем закачает, отредактирует, вычитает (о понятности для новичков рекомендаций по загрузке документов мы пока говорить не будем). И что в итоге? Новых документов - много не будет (гарантирую как человек, редко загружающий статьи, и потому каждый раз читающий рекомендации по загрузке...), и как это в перспективе скажется на актуальности и полезности содержания викитеки - догадаться нетрудно.

AlexChirkin (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Machine translation; please help improve.
I believe that the proposed first and second approach are useful.
I also think that it would be extremely useful to improve the volume and quality of proposed information - because that's exactly what people seek. Specifically, the English Wikisource worked on the automatic uploading of Word documents (I do not know the outcome). Now put yourself, an experienced party (just try), in the place of a selfless scientific collaborator who has decided to donate royalties, and provide his works into the public domain via Wikisource. Yes, he would rather fall into a mental breakdown than upload, edit, make deductions (to say nothing here of the understandability of advice to beginners on loading documents). And the result? There won't be many new articles (I guarantee this as a man rarely loading articles, because [or and thus] every time reading recommendations loading...), and how this in the long term will affect the relevance and usefulness of the content of Wikisource is not hard to guess.

Cyelif edit

Response by Cyelif 11:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cyelif kullanıcısının kritik soruya yanıtı edit

...buraya yazınız ...

Cyelif kullanıcısının seçtiği 2-3 (veya kendi fikinizi yazın) edit

... 2-3-5 sonraki konu alanı (Topluluklar)

Hans50 edit

Response by Hans50 12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von Hans50 auf die Hauptfrage edit

...Ansatz 1...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Hans50 edit

...Ansatz 3...

First Light edit

Response by First Light 12:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

First Light's response to the critical question edit

If the goal of Wikimedia content is to share knowledge freely with the world, then does it really matter whether people get that knowledge at a Wikimedia website or elsewhere?

First Light's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches 3 and 6 edit

Response by 12:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply's response to the critical question edit

Approach four's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής edit

Response by Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's response to the critical question edit

Approach four

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Fund and run Wikimedia schools such as the one in Athens, for recruiting more people.

DJSupreme23 edit

Response by DJSupreme23 13:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

DJSupreme23's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

DJSupreme23's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…


  1. 3 - Best. Get WP more visible.


  1. 1 - it will be a serious detriment if the W-platform starts changing its UI constantly. Language etc. needs are already well covered.


  1. 2 - already well known.
  1. 4 - will come on its own with the general WP awareness in public.
  1. 5 and 6 are the same, and they are already there or in the pipe, so why mention them?

Yngvadottir edit

Response by Yngvadottir 13:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yngvadottir's response to the critical question edit

Yngvadottir's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Choice 1: Approach three. The championing of infoboxes and other metadata-emitting widgets on pages has led directly to potential readers bypassing WMF sites, has discouraged creation of clear and nuanced content, and has contributed to the template overload that makes pages harder to load; the privileging of Wikidata has also lured traffic away from user-facing WMF sites and presents a serious challenge to preservation of accuracy.
Choice 2: Approach six. Globally, mobile access is on the ascendant; WMF's mobile app is very poor, in particular for editing, and openness to editing increases user engagement, counters systemic bias, and is a core part of our mission.
Choice 3: Approach seven. Terminate all special agreements with Google and other specific reusers. More generally, radically prune the WMF, whose strategizing has been nothing but harmful to the mission. Our strength lies in voluntary collaboration; the imposition of a class of paid strategizers has devalued this and is giving the movement a deserved reputation for feather-bedding and for killing the golden goose. Example: Approach four is condescending and more of the same cluelessness that produced the education program to have Indian students edit just because they were Indians, rather than because they deserve to edit just like anyone else. We are still dealing with the bad edits from the resultant unguided special course programs.

Rehman edit

Response by Rehman 13:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rehman's response to the critical question edit

(1). Most people, like my own brother, believes the site is so matured now, that they there is nothing they can help with in their basic wiki knowledge. We need to get the word out, on how exactly people can help in the various places on our site (not just on how to write articles). (2). We need to push things like Wikipedia Zero to the next level. Free access to the site not just by mobile connections, but also for desktop users; evenually also for the full version of the site. (3). Get a share/email button (not just for Facebook). Make non-Wikimedians more comfortable. Like button? (4). Please, improve on the chat groups (IRC). wikipedia-en and sometimes wikimedia-commons is always severely clogged with the same bunch of folks talking about every nonsense they please. It needs to be monitored. (5). Get the existing infrastructure/environment improved so that experienced people don't leave. Fix the RFA. Improve transwiki features like importing files. How about an on-site chat feature? Online-or-offline feature? Give simple tokens of appreciation to the hard working folks (pens, notebooks, postcards) - not based on edit count. There are many more ways if you look deeper...

Rehman's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  • Approach One
  • Approach Three
  • Approach Six
  • Also, see my points above, mainly (1) and (2).

DCDuring edit

Response by DCDuring 13:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

DCDuring's response to the critical question edit

  • Act more like a responsible business.

DCDuring's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

  • Approach 2 - the anti-business, lunatic-fringe privacy culture is destructive.
  • Approach 3
  • Approach 7: A, Getting those who reuse project content to pay a multiple of cost for something, eg, customization.
    B, Requiring a linkback in such content.

Kertraon edit

Response by Kertraon 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Réponse de Kertraon à la question critique edit

  • Généraliser des résumés plus systématiquement accessibles à tous, par un vocabulaire simple, et une apparence plus attractive avec plusieurs illustrations donnant accès à des contenus de différents niveaux sur des supports (média) variés. Sur chaque page, reléguer plus bas le menu latéral verbeux, ou le rendre plus attractif par des illustrations ou icônes pour chaque item ou ensemble de choix. Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Machine translation; please help improve
More generalized summaries systematically accessible to all, with a simple vocabulary, and a more attractive appearance with several illustrations giving access to different levels of content on media (media) varied. On each page, relegate the verbose side menu lower down, or make it more attractive by illustrations or icons for each item or set of choices.

Top 2-3 de Kertraon (ou partagez vos idées) edit

  • Approche 6: Améliorer l'application mobile Wikipédia pour en augmenter l'utilisation.
  • Approche 1: Accroître la fréquence d'utilisation et le nombre d'utilisateur en adaptant l'expérience utilisateur aux besoins (cela peut se traduire par des formats de contenu additionnels, rendre davantage de contenu Wikimedia plus facile à trouver, augmenter la couverture linguistique, etc.).

Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Иван Абатуров edit

Response by Иван Абатуров 13:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Иван Абатуров Проводить политические акции против узаконенных злоупотреблений с авторскими правами edit

Чтобы стать более востребованной Викимедия должна публиковать свежие материалы. Однако сделать это мешает дикая ситуация с гиперзащитой авторских прав. По сути Викимедия не может опубликовать ни одного произведения младше 70 лет. Потому читатель идет на пиратский сайт, чтобы посмотреть там эти произведения. Таким образом чрезмерная защита авторских прав тормозит развитие прогресса. Надо Викимедии заняться борьбой за сокращения срок защиты авторских прав. Например, раз в год проводить информационные акции, собирать подписи к правительствам и международным организациям за сокращения срока защиты авторских прав на фото и видео хотя бы до 10 лет после смерти автора, но не более 40 лет с момента создания. Даже международные конвенции иногда отменяют. 13:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation; please help improve
Ivan Abaturov - conduct political action against the institutionalized abuse of copyright
To become more marketable Wikimedia should publish fresh material. However, to do this creates a wild situation with hyper-defended copyrights. In fact, Wikimedia can not publish a single work less than 70 years old. Thus the reader goes to a pirate site to see these works there. Thus, excessive copyright protection inhibits the advance of progress. Wikimedia needs to wage a struggle for the reduction of the term of copyright protection. For example, once a year carrying out information campaigns to collect signatures to governments and international organizations for the reduction of the term of protection of copyright in photos and video at least until 10 years after the author's death, but no more than 40 years since creation. Even international conventions are sometimes overturned.
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that the excessive term of copyright is problematic. When feasible we do try to participate in efforts to reduce copyright barriers, but unfortunately that is not easily done unless a policy proposal is underway. That said, we do have budget and people on the legal team that focus on policy issues, including excessive copyright hurdles. Excellent suggestion. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Anarchyboy edit

Response by Anarchyboy 13:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Anarchyboy's response to the critical question edit

I'm perhaps optimistic here - I think reduced wikimedia site traffic suggests that re-used content is being hosted somewhere helpful, and there is less need to abandon the hosting site for the source. I have encountered content from wikipedia in much more useful places of late. For the most part, I've also known (of course, I may not know the opposite) that the information/picture/whathaveyou came from wikipedia, and could have gone on, should it have been useful.

Anarchyboy's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I like response 3, exploring how to encourage users of external content to seek out wikimedia source sites. Wikipedia specifically, and the mediawiki sites generally, are good resources to have at hand, once you know they're there - modifying user experience I'm generally dubious about, if it's focused on the mythical new user. Something as unintrusive as making a template for external content use that incorporates the URL, or even a clickable link, to get to the source, maybe?

Response 6 might be a good idea. I do know people use their phones for things they would have previously used a computer to do. I am something of a primitive when it comes to the small-screen interface, but do not have any trouble navigating wikipedia from there. More sophisticated users might have more thoughts. Worth asking, anyway.

JoeHebda edit

Response by JoeHebda 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

JoeHebda's response to the critical question edit

Focus on outreach to Education: specifically university, college, medical, scientific, etc. websites to include links to wikipedia. Contact and provide publishers with a one-page Summary of Wikipedia for them to include in their content: books, their website, their downloadable, tablets, readers, etc.

JoeHebda's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach six: Improve Wikipedia mobile apps to increase use.

Approach seven: Monthly (or more frequent) news releases and/or press conferences to all the major news media outlets. Include statistics (which they love tracking numbers), What's happening at Wikipedia, and perhaps a summary of The Signpost.

(jubi-net) edit

Response by (jubi-net) 14:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von (jubi-net) auf die Hauptfrage edit

...hier schreiben...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von (jubi-net) edit

"öffentliche Meinung(en)" erfassen und darstellen

gather and portray "public opinion"

Devopam edit

Response by Devopam 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Devopam's response to the critical question edit

We need to understand how world is changing in terms of usage of information. This is a transformation process and in my opinion , Wiki hasn't really been keen on exploring and reinventing.

Devopam's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach three is my best bet.

Wereldburger758 edit

Response by Wereldburger758 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wereldburger758's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Wereldburger758's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

If you want to reach people, then people must know that you are there. And I mean not just the Wikipedia itself. But also the community. The investor Branson knows this: if you want attention, you go loud.

But the most important thing the Wikimedia Foundation can do it to make working on the Wiki's worthwhile. My work on Wikipedia articles and Wikimedia Commons images is at best ignored in the labor market as having no relevance or frowned upon. IT HAS NO VALUE. I know that it requires a lot of skills to work on the Wikipedia's to do things well, but, again, this is not recognized anywhere. Once that changes you will have a MASSIVE surge in contributors. For an example how this can be done: go to the site where people can follow computer courses. Once you have completed a course, you can put a banner (a certificate) on your LinkedIn page to demonstrate that you have done a course with

This is only one way the work can be recognized. There must be others.

Ynanchu alp bilge edit

Response by Ynanchu alp bilge 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ynanchu alp bilge — ответ на насущные вопросы edit

наиболее оптимальным считаю подход первый и подход третий.

Machine translation; please help improve
I think the most optimal approach are the first and third.

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick edit

Response by Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick 14:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Réponse de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick à la question critique edit

Simple, il faut que les articles de Wikipédia soient plus attrayants et donc plus complets que ce que l'on peut trouver par ailleurs, ça suppose donc qu'il faut travailler un maximum sur les articles. Comme le nombre de contributeurs ne va pas augmenter, il faut que ces contributeurs aient moins de travail à faire, et donc passer massivement par Wikidata avec des modèles communs aux différentes versions linguistiques : quand on entre une donnée sur une version linguistique de Wikipédia, elle n'est pas immédiatement et facilement réutilisable par les autres versions linguistiques, alors que si cette donnée est entrée sur Wikidata, elle est potentiellement réutilisable par toutes les autres versions linguistiques, à condition que celles-ci aient leurs modèles adaptés. De cette manière, on a moins de réutilisation externe du contenu (qui n'est d'ailleurs plus possible sans autorisation lorsqu'un tiers a violé la licence) mais plus de lecteurs, qui pour une infime partie d'entre eux seront peut-être un jour de gros contributeurs.

Voilà le sens de mon message : augmenter le nombre des lecteurs et leur régularité par un contenu de meilleure qualité et plus complet/mis à jour obtenu par une collaboration des contributeurs peu importe leur langue maternelle, ce qui permet aux contributeurs-rédacteurs d'employer la majeure partie de leurs temps à rédiger/traduire au lieu de passer leur temps sur la mise en forme des données.

Machine translation; please help improve
Simple, it is necessary that Wikipedia articles are more attractive and thus more comprehensive than what can be found otherwise, it presupposes that we must work up on items. As the number of contributors will not increase, it is necessary that these contributors have less work to do, and therefore transferred massively by Wikidata with common models for different language versions: when you enter a given in a language version of Wikipedia it is not immediately and easily reusable by other language versions, so that if this data is entered on Wikidata, it is potentially reusable by all the other language versions, provided that they have adapted their models. In this way there is less external content reuse (which is also possible when a third party without authorization violated the license) but more readers, which for a small part of them may be one day be big contributors.
This is the meaning of my message: increase the number of players and their regularity by a better and more complete content / updated obtained through collaboration contributors regardless of their native language, which allows contributors to employ editors most of their time writing / translating instead of spending their time on data formatting.

Top 2-3 de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (ou partagez vos idées) edit

  • Approche 2 : effectivement, savoir ce que les lecteurs cherchent est intéressant pour savoir sur quoi on doit travailler.
  • Approche 6 : la majorité des recherches se font sur un téléphone portable, le format doit être optimisé. Et comme nous nous devons toujours d'avoir une longueur d'avance, il faudrait développer une recherche vocale : OK Wikipédia ! .....[nom de l'article].....
  • Approche 7 : ça rejoint ce que je dis un peu plus haut, ça ne sert à rien de faire le même travail chacun dans sa langue, c'est une énorme perte de temps. Je suggère donc de passer massivement à Wikidata et que des spécialistes en Lua soient recrutés pour mettre au point des modèles communs aux différentes langues. À l'avenir, certains contributeurs se répartiront le travail et c'est ça qui nous permettra de nous développer.
Machine translation; please help improve
* Approach 2: actually, to know what readers are looking for is interesting to know what we have to work.
* Approach 6: the majority of searches are made on a mobile phone, the format must be optimized. And as we always have to have a head start, we should develop a voice search: OK Wikipedia! ..... [item name] .....
* Approach 7: it goes back to what I said a little earlier, it is useless to make everyone the same work in their language, it's a huge waste of time. I suggest to spend massively Wikidata and specialists in Lua are recruited to develop common models to different languages. In the future, some contributors will split the job and that is what will allow us to grow.

BRPever edit

Response by BRPever 14:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

BRPever's response to the critical question edit

...Specially mobile aaps are just for reading wikipedia project and editing them. The app should be made for all the wikimedia projects and it should be easily available with the system of uploading image and easy edit with improved gadget in it. Gadget like twinkle should be made available in mobile aaps.

BRPever's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...User should be made aware creation of templates, modules, links and process of writing in wikimedia projects. They should be supported by community members and encouraged to participate in project.

Miniapolis edit

Response by Miniapolis 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Miniapolis's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Miniapolis's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approaches one, two and three.

Davidbena edit

Response by Davidbena 15:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Davidbena's response to the critical question edit

...To improve "Reach" and to enhance public awareness about Wikimedia projects there should be created easy-to-use redirect links to Wikimedia projects in related Wikipedia articles.

Davidbena's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

TeriEmbrey edit

Response by TeriEmbrey 15:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

TeriEmbrey's response to the critical question edit

I wonder how much the question of declining reach is related to people's perceptions of Wikipedia and what kind of answers can be found within it. I would like to see more attention paid to answering that question.

TeriEmbrey's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

I think the approaches "Understand how Wikimedia content is reused on external platforms and explore how to encourage users of such content to go to Wikimedia projects." and "Enable others to reuse our content and build their own products by improving and documenting our APIs (application programming interfaces)" should be key to how Wikipedia moves forward in 2016. Additionally, I would encourage the Foundation to add dedicated staff members and other resources to support Libraries and other GLAM institutions in partnering with Wikipedia/Wikimedia initiatives.

ONUnicorn edit

Response by ONUnicorn 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ONUnicorn's response to the critical question edit

Perhaps in addition to/instead of donation drives asking for financial donations, there should be drives to attract new editors based on the donation drives. Banners that say things like, "Wikipedia is written and maintained by people like you. Click here to start editing." The Click here could link to (on Wikipedia) either tutorials for new users, or categories like those of articles needing basic copyediting. Likewise on commons the banner could say "Commons organizes photographs and art work contributed by people like you. Click here to upload your work." And so forth for the various projects. That would go a long way to encourage casual readers to become contributors.

As far as getting people to visit the project to begin with, quality of content is key. We need to make sure that we have higher quality content than our competitors. This includes our competitors who reuse our content. Keeping the sites free of annoying ads and malware is one important way the foundation does that. Another key is to encourage new contributors to join, and existing contributors to stay.

Thanks for your comments. One interesting note: We run a survey on the Thank You page that our donor's see after they make a donation. We ask them if they would like to receive information about becoming a Wikipedia editor. Every year, about 40,000 donors say they would and give us their email address. We have given the list to the editing team and I believe they plan to run some experiments around this. I think you instinct on this is right. I know we have a lot of donors who want to become editors . . . the same may be true of readers in general. --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

ONUnicorn's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach two and six.

Johnbwaterhole edit

Response by Johnbwaterhole 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Johnbwaterhole's response to the critical question edit

Add kiosks in many cities and towns throughout the world

Johnbwaterhole's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

Pgallert edit

Response by Pgallert 15:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pgallert's response to the critical question edit

Further improve the content of our projects. We have more than a 'seed acceptance'; good content will make sure people continue to visit us, and know about our aims.

Pgallert's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach 2 is good because this question remains largely unanswered. Approach 4 is good because even the 'born Wikimedian' might need a bit of help. There are still people out there that do not know what Wikipedia is, and they are predominantly in the global South

FNDE edit

Response by FNDE 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Antwort von FNDE auf die Hauptfrage edit

2, 3, 6

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von FNDE edit

Tretyak edit

Response by Tretyak 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tretyak — ответ на насущные вопросы edit

Tretyak — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея) edit

Подход пятый

Machine translation; please help improve
The fifth approach.

Bilorv edit

Response by Bilorv 16:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bilorv's response to the critical question edit

The question is leading because it assumes that increased traffic to projects is inherently better. As an editor, I personally don't care whether what I've written is read on, a Google Knowledge box or an external mirror. More traffic directly to WMF sites does not benefit me. However, some of these approaches do sound beneficial to the project...

Bilorv's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...approach six (6) seems like it would make the site more user friendly on mobile; personally, I'd focus on mobile web view rather than mobile apps, but either seems like an important target. ...approach one (1), if I read it correctly, is about improving the site's interface; I have heard many comments that the sites look outdated and unergonomic. I can personally find my way around it but its colour schemes and layouts could perhaps do with an overhaul.

PalaciosBertolot edit

Response by PalaciosBertolot 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Respuesta de PalaciosBertolot a la pregunta crítica edit

La mejor forma de alentar el tráfico y a su vez continuar apoyando la reutilización externa gratuita es logrando que los buscadores conocidos y de uso mas común (como google por ejemplo) priorice en sus listas de busqueda a los artículos en wikipedia.

Machine translation; please help improve
The best way to encourage traffic and in turn continue to support the free external reuse is obtaining search-engines' known and most commonly used (like google for example) to prioritize their search results with articles in Wikipedia.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de PalaciosBertolot (o comparte tu propia idea) edit

Las mejores opciones son: 03 y 06. Otra opción podría ser lograr consolidar los artículos dispersos, por ejemplo hay muy buenos e interesantes artículos que tratan cada uno temas muy similares o interrelacionados. Por ejemplo si necesitas informarte sobre barcos mercantiles, en ese artículo no habla de los barcos mercantiles que navegan en rios o lagos del mundo, y si buscar transporte fluvial, solo habla de lo relacionado a experiencias en el misisipi de EEUU. Esto para un usuario que necesita encontrar información completa al respecto le dispersará la atención y puede que la paciencia. Consolidar los tres artículos respetando la autoría de sus creadores sería genial. Un revisor acreditado por los administradores o colaboradores podría hacer este trabajo.

Machine translation; please help improve
The best choices are: 03 and 06.
Another option would be to consolidate the scattered items, for example there are very good and interesting articles dealing with each very similar or interrelated issues. For example if you need to inform on merchant ships in that article does not speak of commercial vessels in rivers or lakes in the world, and if you find water transport, only talks about things related to experiences in the US Mississippi. This for a user who needs to find complete information about him can disperse attention and patience. Consolidate the three articles respecting the authorship of their creators would be great. An accredited by administrators or collaborators reviewer could do this job.

Vejlefjord edit

Response by Vejlefjord 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vejlefjord's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Vejlefjord's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here… #2, #7 delete all material or artcles lacking citations

Alarichall edit

Response by Alarichall 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alarichall's response to the critical question edit


Alarichall's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Kiarifigueroa27 edit

Response by Kiarifigueroa27 16:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kiarifigueroa27's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Kiarifigueroa27's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

The people have to write important things that they know

Alphama edit

Response by Alphama 16:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alphama's response to the critical question edit

Wikipedia should be introduced more in universities and schools. We should think about granting a kind of documents (certificate) for students who made edits at Wikipedia. And with this, they can earn more points in their subjects. Alphama (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alphama's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

Approach 1, 2: In my observations, the number of new members is down gradually. New comers hardly find the warm welcome from the old Wikipedians who sometimes don't have time and even pleasure to explain how to write the Wikipedia content. We should have a training tour (course) for new members before they are ready to make their first edits. This training tour could be an online lab to teach new members step by step. We can show this tour as a series of videos. Wikipedia YouTube [2] did not have any videos which guide new comers how to edit Wikipedia like this video [3].

Dmitry Dzhagarov edit

Response by Dmitry Dzhagarov 17:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dmitry Dzhagarov — ответ на насущные вопросы edit

...пишите здесь…1,2,3.

Dmitry Dzhagarov — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея) edit

...пишите здесь…Подход первый, Подход второй, Подход третий. Собственная идея: Откройте "Платную Википедию для фанатов", где каждый фанат сможет за определенную плату (donate) выражать свой восторг от своего кумира на всеобщее (бесплатное) обозрение. Собранные таким образом деньги направьте на улучшение контента Википедии редакторами серьезных научных журналов. Это повысит авторитет Википедии как источника новой научной информации.

Machine translation; please help improve
the first approach, the second approach, the third approach. Own idea: Open the "Paid for fans of Wikipedia," where every fan can, for a fee (donate) to express his delight in his idol to the public (free) review. The collected money thus aim at improving the content of Wikipedia editors of major journals. This will improve the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of new scientific information.

Mustafa desamangalam edit

Response by Mustafa desamangalam 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mustafa desamangalam's response to the critical question edit

...write here…

Mustafa desamangalam's top 2-3 (or share your own idea) edit

...write here…

i believe that wikie edit

Response by 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply