Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2015/Community consultation/2015-03-07

Active discussions
Warning! Please be aware that new comments posted on this page may not be seen or tracked by Wikimedia Foundation staff. If you have new comments or thoughts and would like to share those with staff, please open a new section on the main consultation page. Thank you.

Austral blizzardEdit

Response by Austral blizzard

Austral blizzard's thoughts on question 1Edit

I think that new mobile oriented software development will increase the opportunities for those next billion users to contribute to each of WMF projects. Why? Because, most people nowadays use their mobiles to go online and perform a web search, for instance, or to communicate.

@Austral blizzard:
Agreed. That is our thinking, and one reason we are putting a big emphasis on mobile. Good point. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Austral blizzard's thoughts on question 2Edit

Wikimedia projects would have to look:

  • simple,
  • easy to navigate,
  • secure,
  • easy to contribute,
  • and fast.

Cheers, --Austral blizzard (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My view: you are absolutely right. I know we have had many conversations on these points in our initial discussions about strategy at WMF, and I have no doubt this will continue to be a key topic as we craft the strategy going forward. We need to attract readers and editors, as I see it personally. The user interface is a critical component of that goal. I really appreciate these comments, especially from a well-known Wikimedian. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by SHemmati10

SHemmati10's thoughts on question 1Edit

the most important trend that has emerged quite recently and is growing astonishingly fast, and indeed, they are the most serious readers in the world, are "the learners." maybe one day in the past Wiki was just a place to learn quick facts about some short things, but nowadays, people more and more come to Wiki to actually learn something. they read seriously, because they want to learn seriously. altogether, i think people are more and more looking toward Wiki as a virtual academy. this is a great chance, and cannot be taken lightly. it needs new strategies. as a first requirement, i think all related topics should be linked together in a chain, likely to shape something like the textbooks these serious people are actually reading out there. if Wiki is not more precise and right-to-the-point than those textbooks, these readers less rely on it and would prefer to go back to those thick, boring textbooks. how to manage this serious trend in the fruitful way needs its own strategies.

@SHemmati10: That is an interesting observation. Are you seeing this through wikibooks, or based on comments you're seeing on talk pages, or ...? I would love to know more about why you think this is happening - it could, as you say, be very important, and one that would be easy for us to overlook if we only look at our "normal" sources of information. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, thanks for weighing in! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@LuisV (WMF): thanks for the attention. when i was at college, studying physics, we had some trouble finding facts. i remember i tossed the university library for a couple of months in an unsuccessful effort to find out a very simple fact about Atomic structure, a very simple fact at the level of high school; it was back in 2003. in 2012, when i was pursuing my Ph.D., every time there was any question or discussion, i saw students, from the 1st year undergraduates to the Ph.D.s, heading straight to Wikipedia. it has a better potential than conventional books and libraries for the new generation of students and learners, and indeed, Wiki is the most up to the date source, updated to the last minute. much more reliable. (albeit, there may be vandalisms in Wiki, but the readers are aware of their topics. if there's any error or vandalism, it'll be corrected the first times an expert reads it. no problem.)
besides, i also have a bit of interest in martial arts. there were many facts about martial arts that the experts were discussing about, and most felt ashamed that almost all people are full of misinformation and are not aware of the facts. i managed to contribute in some of those discussions. but, every time we figured out a fact in those discussions, i published them in Wikipedia with a proper writing and referencing. after i edited a wiki page, a couple of months later i noticed that, after a short time, almost all people in the internet fully absorb those things i publish in Wikipedia. i bet even the wiki founders will be amazed at how deep it has penetrated into the minds of the humans of this century. something like this equation: information = Wiki. thanks. SHemmati10 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

SHemmati10's thoughts on question 2Edit

as you already mentioned, mobile users are the fastest growing trend. i also mentioned the learners, i mean the serious, long-term learners. these all need to read and learn on-the-go. they need precise, i.e., clear, fruitful, and minimal, texts to read. topics, both in the number and the volume, are growing fast. this needs a new definition of minimalism. if not well merged, interlinked, cleaned up, things grow out of control. users should be persuaded to merge related topics together if better, interlink related topics together, define the precedence chain of the topics, sort things to make meaningful learning chains from the very beginning to the far end of any subject. if a ring is missing in these linked topical chains, Wiki persuades users to fill the gap with their knowledge. both quick and learner readers need Wiki to have virtually everything about knowledge out there. Wiki is looked at to get both quick precise facts and in-depth coverage of topics, both readily available in one place.

This almost sounds like new tools are needed. Are there any existing tools or websites that are similar to what you have in mind? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
truth be told, no. the best source is still Wikipedia. however, even after a couple of decades, the web is still not used as an actual source of info, even by the most active society of scientists and engineers. this needs some actual strategies by Wiki. SHemmati10 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Look no further! :)


Response by Pcfjr9

Create An Annuity to Fund The Wiki Foundation's Expenses

Pcfjr9's thoughts on question 1Edit

Instead of soliciting for donations every quarter, approach some enlightened billionaires to create a trust fund whose principle is never touched, but large enough so that the interest funds Wiki operations.

The more money we get from a few, the more we will depend from them. It's better to depend on volunteers. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pcfjr9: @NaBUru38:
We are exploring creating an endowment and hope to have some more news on this later in the year. We will still primarily be reader funded, though. The idea with the endowment is to create a fund that gives us some security for the future, but it is unlikely that we would be able to build a big enough endowment to cover all of our costs with interest in the short-term. So, I agree with both of you! --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by AnotherDifferentName

AnotherDifferentName's thoughts on question 1Edit

Personalized media.

This is a good idea, and we're thinking about how can we let individual readers customize their own experience of Wikipedia in easier ways? What sort of information do they want to find, use, and follow? We've been experimenting with some of these ideas in the Wikipedia apps for iPhone and Android -- I encourage you to check them out! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

AnotherDifferentName's thoughts on question 2Edit

Go small, say more with less

This is a good idea. One of Wikimedia's volunteer software developers has been working on creating short article summaries using Wikidata. This probably has a long way to go before its a highly polished experience, but its a good start!

Mobile means just that, mobility. But how can I read a wiki-article while I’m moving? And even if not moving, how can I read it on my phone´s screen?

Good question. Have you tried using Wikipedia on mobile? The software team has been working hard to make the mobile web version of Wikipedia a great reader experience. And if you're the sort of person who likes apps, please check out our apps for iPhone and Android!

I enjoy learning and will always be grateful to Wikipedia for broadening my knowledge, but for as much as I like learning I don’t like reading, it bores me. I do it as a means but I also learn by watching videos. I can watch two hours’ worth of videos not realizing it´s been 2 hours, I can’t say the same about reading.

I would love to see a future in which Wikipedia is a rich, dynamic, multimedia environment, where you can explore text ideas further with video, images, and -- who knows, maybe even virtual reality. At the same time, text-only Wikipedia is very important for people in places with slow or expensive internet. Our challenge is making sure Wikipedia remains an essential tool for people around the world -- so things may evolve, but they will have to evolve in a way that serves all of humanity, in keeping with our vision.

Is there a way to turn wiki-articles into wiki-videos?

I’m not taking about expensive animations just a relaxing narrated video with a gamut of colors showing key concepts or extracts for better understanding what I’m listening too. I could watch that anywhere any time without a big screen or a Tibetan monk´s concentration to do so. I could just put headphones on and drift into a sea of knowledge.

I love the way you describe that. I think this is definitely possible, and we know some users do this on their own, for fun. One challenge is that Wikipedia articles are always changing, whereas video is pretty static -- once you've edited it, it's pretty fixed. At the same time, some people have done really creative things with videos! One of my favorites (mostly because it is funny) is The Things You Learn on Wikipedia, which uses a voiceover over an animation of amusing Wikipedia articles. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Manakshah1911

Manakshah1911's thoughts on question 1Edit

The use of wikipedia and similar sources will increase in tons and tons for educational purposes. People will also use internet for the basic medical ailments. People or the users in search of different cultures and stuff will increase and also for their reviews.

Manakshah1911's thoughts on question 2Edit

For projects, I think you should contact Governments or NGOs of the developing countries for the funds. The NGOs working for educational purposes can help you out.

I agree with you, Manakshah1911. I think we could accomplish more (when the conditions are right) than working apart. I am especially interested in exploring more partnerships with NGOs on the ground. --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by's thoughts on question 1Edit

The education world is increasingly positive on students using Wikipedia for their studies. Formerly, with the nature of anyone being able to edit Wikipedia, this was forbidden. I think in the future Wikipedia will be relied upon by scientists in particular when they do not want to take the time to search the literature and read many long journal articles. With this increased reliance comes increased need for Wikipedia to be truthful and correct.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

For at least some Wikipedia articles, some sort of peer-review process could help make at least the scientific articles match truth.

We do have volunteer projects like WikiProject Medicine to work on the accuracy of certain types of articles.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 06:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

upvotes and downvotes on information accuracy, more upvotes and especially information source upvotes will allow users to minimally interact with the page and its producers to generate statistical and page relevant data in the comfort of anonymity and push a button to help apathy.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Learning environment - make discussion a major thing for typical users who have a question and want to ask fellow wikiers

Hi there! It sounds like you might be talking about something similar to the Article Feedback tool. If so, we experimented with it and it was never really a clear win for us. I generally like the idea, though. What do you think we could have done differently? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 07:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mes réflexions pour la question 1Edit

wikipedia deviendra la memoire collective? la refference en matiere de source d'information en dehors des systemes commerciaux et d'interrets prives / un ilot de liberte du savoir qui devra etre extremement vigilent a verrifier ses source et les corriger car du serrieux dependra la perennite de sa clientelle d'erudits et de perpetuels etudiants : ou bien wikipedia basculera vers la soupe dinformations dont la veracite n'est pas l'objet premier mais federera une population captee et se suffisant de manque de rigueur du savoir ambiant et qui menne a des avis sans fondement.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"wikipedia become the collective memory? in matters of the refference source of information outside commercial systems and private Interests / a knowledge island of freedom which must be extremely vigilant verrifier has its source and correct as of serrieux depend sustainability of its clientelle of scholars and perpetual student: either wikipedia will switch to the soup informaTION whose veracity is not the primary purpose but federate a captured population and sufficient to sloppy ambient knowledge and opinions which menne unfounded."
Il faut que notre stratégie doit encourager l'objectivité. Notre communauté prend le point de vue neutre au sérieux dans l'application de leurs politiques, mais en même temps nous avons besoin d'encourager les autres à contribuer de différentes parties du monde pour encourager que la connaissance est de nature mondiale et objective. Des études ont deja montré l'exactitude de Wikipedia (surtout pour les articles bien fréquentes), mais toute stratégie doit continuer à donner à nos rédacteurs bénévoles les moyens et les outils pour leur aider a continuer a contribuer au top niveau. Merci de votre temps et de votre recommendation. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mes réflexions pour la question 2Edit

la reponse a la deuxieme question est dans la premiere reponse. tout depend de la vigilence que nous mettrons a la rigueur du fond et la souplesse de la forme. si wikipedia s'en tient a ces deux principes (et ce ne sera pas facile). nul doute qu'il deviendra une refference contre l'oscurantisme, l'extremisme de tous bord, le despotisme le sophisme etc......

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"the answer to the second question is in the first response. everything depends on the vigilance that we will have the rigor of the background and flexibility of form. if wikipedia is sticking to these two principles (and it will not be easy). no doubt he will become a refference against the oscurantisme, extremism of all aboard, despotism sophistry etc ......"


Response by Suhrud.thakkar 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Suhrud.thakkar's thoughts on question 1Edit

Yes, There has been tremendous growth in mobile and post pc devices users. So basically it is very obvious need wikimedia projects should be focusing on.Apart from mobile devices wearables are also coming to market. They haven't got that huge success yet as it is not well marketed and features are very limited in such devices, So basically it will create huge impact in future as chip makers are already working on very tiny chips and some of them have started to hit markets also. The next biggest challenge would be how to arrange information in such fashion that on these smaller devices also one can read it or rather hear it. As when devices are so small people will tend to listen to computing devices rather than reading from small size screens.

so information being put up on wikipedia or any in any other wiki projects should be in such fashion that when some program is trying to understand it to summarize information and provide it to end user it can be done. XML gives meaning to data. Now if some new language or some enhancement can be developed in that area in such way that program can summarize the data then user would love to get results from that kind of source only.

The way google shows you snapshot of information and google now, siri , cortana are trying to read and tell user what is the answer for their queries. Same way wiki projects has lots and lots of information. There should be some way to deliver it verbally to end user.

Suhrud.thakkar's thoughts on question 2Edit

I'm writting answer for this question from India (Asia region) so yeah users are growing rapidly in this particular regions targeted by wikimedia. But for them it will be easy to adapt to wiki projects just like others sites. Major question is how efficiently, quickly and in summarized way you deliver correct information will matter. @Suhrud.thakkar: Thank you for your thoughts. I think it is worth noting that you have two separate approaches here: breaking down the data so that other programs can use it (for example, by structuring articles as XML) but also encouraging people to use our software directly (by adding voice to it). I think this is a recurring theme in the responses: it is hard to know if we should be a platform that other software uses, or a destination that people come to directly. Any thoughts on that? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 11:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

make an application on android phones and ios phones...

There is a Wikipedia app available on Google Play and iTunes.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 11:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

apps should be developed for each platform like android, ios, windows.creating lite versions of website is also important

There is a Wikipedia app available on Google Play and iTunes. There is also a mobile site.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

the articles specially that on wikipedia need to be reviewed wisely. introduction of some special sites for the children below age 16, liki wikiKIDS/wikiYOUNG/.

Response by 21:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now one of the most referenced sources of information. It is therefore essential that articles are edited by people with objectivity. Citations are not enough to prevent only one side of a story from being told or a story being suppressed. I was going to donate to Wikipedia until I read about Gamergate. A healthy thriving wikimedia should ensure objectivity from the top down through policies and processes to ensure important information is not suppressed by those who wield power over information.

We take these issues seriously at the Wikimedia Foundation, so I appreciate you bringing them up. There was quite a lot of misreporting about the case (some good coverage by Slate), so I hope you saw the post by my colleague Philippe Beaudette, our Director of Community Advocacy, with the Wikimedia Foundation's response. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we firmly believe that you cannot create the sum of all human knowledge without all voices -- in other words, Wikipedia needs to be a place where people of all different backgrounds and perspectives feel welcomed and respected. To that end, we offer grants and resources for outreach with editors across the globe, and support people that have been underrepresented in traditional encyclopedias, including women, people of color, people from the Global South, immigrant communities, and members of the LGBTQ community, whom we believe are essential partners in our mission.
I'm very happy to discuss this more, please let me know if you have any additional questions. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 07:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

I think with so many new users coming online, many being from less modern areas, a need for more video or "spoken" text be made available. This will help some of the new users that may come from areas in which education may not have been as easily attainable as other places, to understand what is being discussed and give useful input. If they cannot understand what is being discussed, they will not participate and also will be easily swayed by possible ill willed influences. It's very important to keep everyone involved and educated on all topics. This may help advance peace and cohesiveness throughout the world.

What a great suggestion. The thing I love (well, one of the many things!) about Wikipedia is the way people innovate with the knowledge that is available. There are a couple of different ways you currently can listen to Wikipedia, including Pediaphone, a website and app that lets you automatically generate MP3s and playlists from Wikipedia in about 12 languages. Wikipedia also has a list of Spoken Articles that lists the articles available as audio recordings. You can choose different languages from the list along the side.
Of course, the fact that all this exists doesn't mean it's easy to find for a new user, or a less-literate user. Perhaps there's a way that Wikipedia could improve the interface to make it easier to find this audio content, or more integrated into the articles themselves. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Add ads to the website.

  Oppose JackPotte (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  Oppose What?! Green547 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 12:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Поддержка RDF/ OWL формата представления знаний.

Machine translation; please improve: Support RDF / OWL knowledge representation format.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Семантический поисковый механизм на основе SPARQL.

Machine translation; please improve: Semantic search engine on the basis of SPARQL.

Response by 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

more inclusive of holistic treatments...and not just medical treatments..not everyone is totally brain washed that the only treatment for 'disease' is allopathic...expand into common holistic treatments options too's thoughts on question 2Edit

do not have an informed answer for this question...but keep up the good work! DO IT DO IT DO DITEdit

Response by 13:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Wikiepedia" is a lovely site.. and i defiently would advise them,,.

If you want to start a wikipedia mutltimedia project, i will defienty support.. fuck facebook, and all youtbe's advertising spams...

Response by 13:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

You can show all things with more colors???'s thoughts on question 2Edit

You can do more subjets for us to find more quick....


Response by Rocker91541 13:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rocker91541's thoughts on question 1Edit

with the way technology is these days i find it somewhat unfortunate that companies are "cramming" all these "apps" into what was once simply a "cell phone". yes they still are cell phones but the fact that instead of physically going to a friends house, some would rather sit on their ass and use their fingers 24/7. obviously these phones are a lot more advanced and make life easier but c'mon...if ur gonna talk shit to someone say it to their face respectfully instead of using a screen to hide ur sorry ass. the only trend im seeing is people getting even more lazy and way too dependent on technology. i see more people looking down every minute more now then when i was in high school. for the next billion users...its a good thing to have but they'll take after the previous billion or figure something else out. its quite obvious "social media" has taken over but i despise it all...only making technology based/manufactured companies even more ridiculously wealthy cause a lot of people get talked into things they dont even need or cause they want the "next big thing". take me back to the 90's/olden days plz!!!!

Rocker91541's thoughts on question 2Edit

  1. promotion of more physical activity...
  2. do we really honestly need an "app' for EVERYTHING?!
  3. i thought going to the gym was for working out?
  4. get off ur lazy ass and walk to ur buddies place or drive
  5. do we really need 10 different ways to watch t.v./movies?
  6. im actually surprised they still even make newspapers/magazines

to be continued...

Response by 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

My first calculator was a slide rule. Education has changed. Now-a-days students can look up any answer a teacher could want before sh/e got to the question mark ... ? Or, I can look up the car fax standing in front of a vehicle sales person. Or, I can compare sentences in Wiki pages :^)

Point is "read, remember, regurgitate" is history. Now students need an interface to the information we need when we need to know it. I see a logarithmic future. If I know how big it is I can find it in Google Earth. Knowing the place name (i.e. Cyberspace), I can find the person, place or thing in Wikipedia.

Response by 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

by being more active on the updates that will make your sites last for the next 1000 years ok :3

Response by 14:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

post more educative stuff, mostly on technology.

Response by 14:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

The next billion users will assuredly be comprised of mostly mobile users. Great care must be taken to the articles which the new billion people will be using. Based on some of the locations described, I would guess that all the main collegiate subjects of engineering, electronics, design, etc. would be the main information these people would be trying to attain. Because of the variety of nationalities, the context of the translated material in articles must be completely intact for Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project to be easily and quickly readable for the end user. I could see the Wikimedia project needing good translators to make sure the context is not lost in translation. It would also be pretty neat to have a translator on standby if a person was confused about a certain topic, however that wouldn't necessarily be conceivable if funds are scarce.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

I personally have enjoyed the many articles here on Wikipedia and have learned quite alot. I might even dare to say that I have learned more than a college education could afford me just by reading and learning here on Wikipedia.

My advice for the project would to just keep on doing what you are doing, if that makes any sense. The site layout is easily understandable and usable. If I were to focus on anything, it would be to bulletproof the project so to speak, and look to seeking assets to assure operation for many more years.

Wikipedia is quickly becoming the foremost knowledge source for many inventors and smart young people out there, and I could quickly see it becoming an alternative to college education in the next decade. That would be something I would look into developing if I were you guys.

If you want any more feedback, my email is <redacted>

Response by 14:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

The wikimedia project would look much like wikipedia does now. Everything would be linked together and accessible. One thing would be that if there is a chart, that the chart would condense on the mobile screen so that the entire thing is visible.

JJ's Thoughts


Response by 2601:7:8C00:5E9:D513:821A:313F:C799 14:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2601:7:8C00:5E9:D513:821A:313F:C799's thoughts on question 1Edit

I think you guys would do great!

2601:7:8C00:5E9:D513:821A:313F:C799's thoughts on question 2Edit

I think you guys will do just fine but as a matter of factly I am not so sure of it. But I think that new discoveries will be made this year and you'll get the information. And so the people will need it for research and your guy's website will be used a lot more often. Just a thought.

JJ :-)

Response by 14:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Don't do like blizzard and try and change everything, like they did from Diablo 2 to Diablo 3. Wiki works fine and doesn't need to be changed. As long as the information is of value and credible people will keep supporting and using wiki. - Warmingnator

Response by 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Gedanken zu Frage 1Edit

Ein großer Trend dem viele nachgehen sind z.B. das Streamen und filmen von Spielen.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"A big trend are the many pursue e.g. streaming and filming of games." Gedanken zu Frage 2Edit

Um vielleicht noch erfolgreicher zu werden, würde ich versuchen: 1-Die Homepage neu zu Gestalten Sie komm sehr einfach rüber, was auch gut für Benutzer ist, aber es sieht ein wenig "billig" aus. Kräftige Farben würden die Bereiche besser abgrenzen und sofern vorhanden mehr Bilder zu den gesuchten Themen.

MfG, Tim Eissing

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Perhaps to be even more successful, I would try:
1 The figures for new home
They come very easy over what is good for users, but it looks a little "cheap" from. Bold colors would delimit the areas better and if any more photos on the subject sought.
Tim Eissing"

Response by 15:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

üniversitelerdeki yetkili hocalarımızın yardımıyla gerek konu olarak gerekse çeviri olarak yardım alınırsa daha iyi olacağına inanıyoruz

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"If you need the help of our qualified instructors as a subject in universities Get help as well as believe it will be better translation"

Response by 15:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Gedanken zu Frage 1Edit

ich habe mich heute erstmals mit "wikimedia" befasst, oder anders gesagt aufmerksam geworden ! ich habe einen hilferuf abschicken wollen und müssen da ich durch andere deutsche institutionen keine hilfe erhalten habe! es ist für eine selbstverständlichkeit auch da zu helfen, wo man hilfe erhalten hat!!da ich hier in chile zur zeit nur noch meinen computer habe, um mit der welt kontakt zu haben(mein handy ist defekt) wäre ich sehr erleichtert hilfe zu erhalten! die frage die noch zu beantworten ist; lautet ;es ist schön das hilfsorganisationen und ähnliches gibt und auch im grösseren rahmen gegen soll, so lange alles ehrenhaft, schonungsvoll und anständig abläuft und von statten geht!! ich bedanke mich von herzen das diese möglichkeit gibt,sich zu äußern und anzuvertrauen in dankbarkeit reiner simon

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I have today the first time with "wikimedia", or in other words become attentive! I send a cry for help because I want to and have obtained by other German institutions no help! is to help a matter of course, even where they received help !! I in chile time only here my computer have to have contact with the world (my phone is broken) I was very relieved to get help ! the question is to be answered; is, it is beautiful and aid organizations are similar and in the more general framework to want, as long as everything goes honorable, hard-hitting full and decent and of goes !! I thank you from the heart that gives this possibility to express themselves and to trust in gratitude pure simon"

Response by 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

There's a trend toward videos: when internet users are looking for information, they tend to look for some video content.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

It would be great to include a project somewhat similar to that of the Kahn Academy into Wikimedia. What I am suggesting is to give the users the opportunity to add a short video explaining a given topic to the Wikipedia page on that topic. Of course there should be a standard format for the videos, and maybe a software or -better- a web app which allows users to produce and edit video just by writing, selecting images and maybe recording some audio.

Response by 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Gedanken zu Frage 1Edit

Ein Trend, zusätzlich zur neuen Milliarde & zur Mobilität, der immer stärker wahr genommen wird, ist meiner Meinung nach, die sinkende Verlässlichkeit der Informationen und das damit verbundene Abdriften der Glaubwürdigkeit & Objektivität des ganzen Internet, leider auch von Wikipedia. Nicht zuletzt wegen Affären wie NSA und Co. wird von vielen Verschwörungstheoretikern sowieso alles in Frage gestellt, was gerade nicht in den Plan paßt. Hinzu kommt, das Bekanntwerden von Firmenverhalten wie Google, die eine riesige Datenspeicherung darstellen, und aufgrund dieser gezielt Informationen den Usern zur Verfügung stellen.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"A trend that in addition to the new billion and mobility, which is taken increasingly true,
In my opinion, the decreasing reliability of the information and the drift associated
the credibility and objectivity of the entire Internet, sadly, Wikipedia.
Not least because of affairs as NSA and Co. is considered by many conspiracy theorists everything anyway
questioned what just does not fit into the plan.
In addition, the disclosure of corporate behavior such as Google, which represent a huge data storage,
and provide the basis of this information the targeted users are available." Gedanken zu Frage 2Edit

Wegen obigem Punkt sieht also die "gesunde" und erfolgreiche Wikipedia-Seite gefühlsmäßig so aus, wie anna dazumal ein schwerer BrockhausBand, der frei von jeder Datenspeicherung & allen zugänglich ist. Es geht schlicht ums Vertrauen, das für mein Gefühl stark ins Wanken kommen wird, und wo Wikipedia eine große Herausforderung ins Haus steht.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Because of the above point so does the "healthy" and successful Wikipedia page emotionally look like anna those days
a heavy Brockhaus band that is free from any data storage and accessible to all.
It's simply killed trust that will come to my mind greatly shaken, and where a Wikipedia
major challenge is coming up."

Response by 15:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

bence doğaya destek olarak devam etmelisin kar amacı gütmüyoruz diyorsunuz gütmeye başlayın dünyayı kurtarın. Sitenize gelecek olursak bence herşey yeterince iyi bundan daha iyisi olamaz.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I think you should continue to support not-for-profit nature begin to pursue you say to save the world. I think everything will come to your site if we can not get any better than good enough."


Response by 2A02:FE0:C110:2881:5C7B:D3BC:26FE:495 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very nice if the user could search for any topic, such as "rabbits" and then get a list of all articles that include that key word. Just seeing a few lines of the aritcles underneath eachother would be of great help to students who research any larger topic, and in case you want to know something about one specific type of, let's say, rabbit, but you don't know the name of it. Then you could just quickly scan many articles at once!

Response by 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'ın 1. soru hakkındaki düşünceleriEdit

My Favourite Site ! The Fan Club The WikiMedia Studio You Well Done ! My Pine House's Group Admin ! The Fan Club İs Pine House's My Turkish User. Pine House's Turkish Name İs Çam Evleri.


Response by Bass-Kuroi 15:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Bass-Kuroi's thoughts on question 1Edit

This must appear as inconsequential, but a paradigm change is going on. Some intellectuals must be working on this, but I read it from Alessandro Baricco's I Barbari. What it has to do with Wikimedia, is that Aencyclopedia are part of the dying paradigm, Wikimedia has a chance of survival due to its own amphibious nature. The utility and survival of Wikimedia will depend on its capacity of change and adaptation to the new paradigm.

Bass-Kuroi's thoughts on question 2Edit

First of all, different languages wikimedia projects must tend to be more uniform. For example: I see a lot of quality differences between es.wikipedia and en.wikipedia in a wide range of topics. This quality level difference must be narrowed, in order to provide everyone with the best content, and language barriers avoided.

Second, mobile technology gives a lot of freedom but at the same time it ha a screen limitation. In order to bring the best service to the reader, summaries must be sharper and more concise, like abstract in academic papers.

Response by 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Improve the User Interface, like the design of your website. It sucks. So basic


Response by 2601:6:6880:2C4:B83A:1C23:2AE9:8718 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2601:6:6880:2C4:B83A:1C23:2AE9:8718's thoughts on question 1Edit

First off, let me congratulation Wikipedia for initiating this discussion. At this time, only one concern comes to mind about future trends. As the number of users grows, and as the volume of information on Wikipedia increases, it will become more difficult to review, edit and verify the data presented. I already notice subject matter entered into Wikipedia with thinly veiled agendas behind them by, I presume, related stakeholders. How can we keep the explosion of new information accurate and unbiased without an equal rise in the number of volunteer editors?

Response by 15:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Avoid grammatical errors and

Mobile version should be improved and it should present a article in some attractive manner.


The answer to both questions is allow us, the users of this site to support this site

Response by 2601:B:5880:DB4:F8B1:D738:293:6709 16:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2601:B:5880:DB4:F8B1:D738:293:6709's thoughts on question 1Edit

How may we support this site? Let us contribute anonymously. I previously wanted to support this site. But, upon reading the fine print I discovered my information would be distributed to foreign countries that would not have the same privacy protections we have here in the U.S.. If we value our privacy, let us support you and maintain our privacy.

I agree that privacy is critical. We already take relatively little information from users - for example we don't ask editors for names, addresses, dates of birth, etc. We don't sell user data. We allow anonymous users to edit (identified by IP address). We have taken a strong stance against government surveillance as well. But I agree that our strategy needs to keep privacy front and forward. Thanks for your thoughts and well-grounded advice. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Several new options on a wiki page, like Thick word and colours.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

A good community too everyone.

Response by 16:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Trends are irrelevant unless widely useful or profitable. Wikipedia shouldn't be a proving ground for trends. Keep it simple, avoid costs and wasted dev time. Stay as is.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Follow PBS models with fundraising and donations. Enact annual subscriptions if necessary.

Miguel Villegas Lamberti: respuesta a la encuestaEdit

Response by Miguel Villegas Lamberti 16:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Las ideas de Miguel Villegas Lamberti acerca de la pregunta 1Edit

Según mi opinión, la gente está buscando mucha más información en internet a través de dispositivos, sobre todo con móviles y tablets, por lo cual las ediciones deben ser totalmente responsive. En cuanto a los editores, es más cómodo hacerlo a través de ordenadores con teclado y luego comprobar que haya quedado bien para dispositivos.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"In my opinion, people are looking for much more information on the Internet through devices, especially mobile phones and 'tablets, so edits should be fully responsive . As for publishers, it is more comfortable through computers with keyboard and then check that has been well for devices."

Las ideas de Miguel Villegas Lamberti acerca de la pregunta 2Edit

Los proyectos de Wikimedia seguirían prósperos y exitosos si se mantuviere su neutralidad pero en algunos temas la información está sesgada por grupos con algún tipo de interés, ya sea personal, laboral, económico y/o político. Ya que aquí se edita voluntariamente, habría que detectar editores pagados por algún interesado en mantener una información a su conveniencia. Para mantener la neutralidad, habría que permitir fuentes diversas con distintas tendencias, manteniendo en el cuerpo principal del artículo la más universalmente aceptada y en forma de nota la de menor trascendencia o con supuesto error.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Wikimedia projects continue prosperous and successful if neutrality is sustained but in some areas the information is biased by groups with an interest, whether personal, occupational, economic and / or political. Because here you edit voluntarily should be paid by detecting editors interested in keeping some information at your convenience. To maintain neutrality, should be allowed different sources with different trends, keeping in the main body of the article and the most universally accepted as the lowest note transcendence or alleged error."

Response by 16:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Social internet. You need to enable people to post wikipedia articles on social media (Facebook, g+ etc), learn from the comments and analyze the data in there.


Response by VasilijB 18:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

VasilijB's thoughts on question 1Edit

В создании новых статей и других материалов во всех разделах Викитеки, а также в проверке уже написанных статей, будет активнее использоваться искусственный интеллект.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"In the creation of new articles and other materials in all sections Wikisource, as well as to test the already written articles, will be actively used artificial intelligence."

Response by 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tipo a gente vai continuar Humilde alcançando mais e mais até chegar ao top 10 dos websites mais visitados^^

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Type we will continue Humble reaching more and more until you reach the top 10 of the most visited websites ^^"

Buggi BuggiEdit

Response by Buggi Buggi 18:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Buggi Buggi's thoughts on question 2Edit

A critical analysis of current affairs/issues (recent happenings) from various fields - Environment, Ecology, International Affairs, Art & Culture, Science and Technology, Disasters, Economy, Weather Phenomenon (Typhoon, Cyclones etc which have large impact on human beings) would be beneficial for many students, scholars, teachers.

Està muy bien però hay muchos fayos en el futuro puede ser mejor y que la gente sea mas civilicçada escriviendo en la wikipedia. seamos raçonables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! y no cabrones ni tontos !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Si podeis hacerlo ánimos!!!! Ànimoss!!!!!!!!!!!!!! La gente puede saber más .


(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Is fine but there are many fayos in the future can be better and that people are more civilicçada escriviendo in wikipedia.
we are raçonables !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! and no silly buggers and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can do encouragement !!!!
Ànimoss !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People can learn more.
Yours Truly"

Response by 18:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

raising incoherence. people will try 2 give answers in various situations, not only when they're coherent & lucid's thoughts on question 2Edit

somethng 4 conflicts of interests 2b automatically taken into account

Response by 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

As we can see in the recent times, people have started using internet as a medium for propagating fundamentalist ideas. Soon people will start using wiki as a platform for spreading such ideas and also for distorting facts and realities. So to keep the integrity of the data that is published me need a social audit like what we do in Linux Kernal development project, so that the data that we obtain from wiki is reliable and authentic. This will not restrict the content being added as we can separate the authentic links and non authentic links by some sort of "Verification Stamp".

Response by 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

a) Wikipedia is one of the most important achievements of our epoch. Although not all people of the world are currently able to use the immense knowledge of it, they at least have the chance to and may be can use it in future. And knowledge is the thing that could make our world better.

b) Beside mobile users, there will remain a substancial amount of PC-Users. Do never forget them.

d) Wikipedia should be available offline, so please realize a Wikipedia-DVD that also could be transferred to every device used today (offline usage). May be with reduced picture resolution.

c) Wikipedia should be readable on every device existing today - knowledge transfer should be the main goal of it, and it should reach everyone possible.

d) Optical appearance is not that urgent. Keep it small, fast, and easy to use.

Response by 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

This is probably quite an unnecessary project that you've taken up. Wikipedia just needs to go on doing whatever it is doing, more research on stubs, unearthing more esoteric topics, and keep on providing information for free - thats it, the usual suggestions. The one aspect that I feel really good about is that Wikipedia has not yet been affected with the chatty disease and is still pure textbook literature. Hope it'll be the same even for the "next billion users".

Response by 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

görsellik çok önemliii

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"very visual önemliii"


Response by 2A02:2168:2183:C00:55DE:566F:6F20:E3BF 19:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

я считаю,что википедия должна иметь больше ссылок на дополнительные источники информации к статьям,дабы читаемый получил всецелую картину описываемого в статье.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"I believe that Wikipedia should have more links to additional sources of information on articles in order to read received wholehearted picture described in the article."

Response by 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) رأيك بالسؤال الأولEdit

مشاركه‌ الفیس بوك بمعلومات الموقع ویكویومیدیا

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Post Facebook site with information and یkoیomیdیa" رأيك بالسؤال الثانيEdit

معلومات الموقع جیده‌ ولكن غیر كافیه‌ اقترح تجدید المعلومات و ثم دمج او استعانة باخر البحوث والدراسات حول المواضيع المنشورة في هذا الموقع حسين عمر سليمان ماجستير في الاعلام وعلم النفس الرياضي

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"Site good information but insufficient suggested refresher and then merge or use of the last research and studies on the subjects published on this site
Hussein Omar Suleiman
Master of media and sports psychology"

Response by 19:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Being a small contributor to wikipedia, I believe that if 90 percent of the world will go mobile. wikipedia should be prepared for their writers to provide all the necessary tools with simple User Interface on mobile. The mobile panel for writing an article on wikipedia should have all the necessary tools on primary window, so the user/wikipedia writer can easily do editing etc. The rest of the tools and be switched to click on new Tab. It will be good if writers can have free writing application provided on application stores for different mobile platform, the app can have detailed UI so it will be easier for writer to work on it.

Response by 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

a mobile website, mobile devices do not thrive on websites made for a pc, with a mobile website it's much better's thoughts on question 2Edit

i am one of the next billion even though i use a computer i think it's fine the way it is

Response by 19:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

I think there is going to be a shift in advertising on the internet. Currently there is a lot of money being thrown around without proper analysis of return on the advertising investments. That analysis will increase, resulting in funds for some sites drying up to some degree.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

A successful Wikimedia project will have a strong financial model. Wikipedia and other non-profit offerings are going to face increased funding challenges as donor money dries up. People are going to get burned out from constant internet begging. (I know I am already). Significant endowments will be required for operating funds in order to survive. The "We will not allow advertising" philosophy is noble, but may lead you to non-existence, which does nobody any good. Perhaps an industry consortium could be persuaded to provide funding or facilities, as opposed to (and presumably preferable to) individual company sponsorships. No easy answers when it comes to financing large server farm operation, unless you happen to have a multi-billionaire buddy who is willing to part with a couple of those Bs to help you out.

Response by 19:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

It looks very helpful for knowledge and education purposes .


Response by GeoJohnSe 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

GeoJohnSe's thoughts on question 1Edit

More learning oriented - I think the site could develop semi-automated slideshows (headers could be suggested slides and text and similar could probably be suggested and thereafter edited by the edior) and I also think that the site would benefit from quiz-functions where the active reador can test his/her skills by a simple test.

GeoJohnSe's thoughts on question 2Edit

More gamy, quizzy - I think it would be great fun if there where more knowledge games in apps that originated from Wikipedia


Response by 2602:306:330C:92D0:FCB3:46BE:5EA:9172 20:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:330C:92D0:FCB3:46BE:5EA:9172's thoughts on question 2Edit

Before i say anything i would like to thank the makers of wikipedia.It saves me so much time,I now don't have to go to the library every time i need information.Although I do think there are a few ways you could improve this site.I understand that it is hard when you are writting not to express you're personal opinion,but it is quite obvious that your writters believe in the theory of Evolution. I think this site would be more friendly to viewers if you did not present the theory of Evolution as fact.But rather as the theory it is. Thank you

Response by 20:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

instant access to accurate, impartial, unbiased, non-partisan information in various languages's thoughts on question 2Edit

instant access to accurate, impartial, unbiased, non-partisan information

Response by 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

links and quality's thoughts on question 2Edit

photos and geodata


Response by Putusernamehere123 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Putusernamehere123 sitt svar på spørsmål 1Edit


Putusernamehere123 sitt svar på spørsmål 2Edit


Martin E. WalderEdit

Response by Martin E. Walder 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Martin E. Walder's thoughts on question 1Edit

I am not sure, if mobile is THE next trend. In Japan for example, mobile deceives were common since years, mostly for consumption, while in offices larger and more screens become common and at home integrated systems (TV, play stations, ...). In such home systems, but as well in more and more business applications you find a trend to integrate other content in a specific offering, e.g. an information dashboard or an infotainment application. Therefore, I expect, that content of Wikipedia will be accessed more and more with other systems than an ordinary browser or by directly to On the one hand, this generate more access to the contend, but makes it harder to ensure to track the traffic and to promote the different projects. We should consider, how to ensure the label "Wikipedia".

Martin E. Walder's thoughts on question 2Edit

Based on my thoughts to question 1, I think the generic look and feel becomes less relevant in the future, as the content is integrated in various applications, frameworks and portals. I will become more important to make sure, that a reader understands the source of this content and even more important, to still help people to get access to the contribute community. Today, if someone wants to participate, she/he can directly start working on the page, she/he reads something. In the future, the content is embedded and this person has to be guided to a contribution portal. The contribution can be still very similar than today, as it is in my view a fairytale, that it is difficult to write. But the integration into the community should change by using other channels to attract people.

Response by 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

This billion extra users will be most likely a mobile device user too, with a profile in a social network. I think you should use Social Networks passively, finding a way to go into public discussions or qualified pages, than filter keywords and links and get a list o possible sources for updates and add details to existing contents.

Response by 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

i think,we also need to organize content like knowledge graph.or we need to organize subjects like tree of life for mobile user.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

i think we need to put video link as well. word by word in hypertexting so we can watch video in youtube,about particular word.'s ThoughtsEdit

Response by 20:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Thriving and healthy Wikimedia projects should have a quick info box at the side - e.g. if it is a person have date of birth - so basic information is easy to access.

Response by 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

Well if it's a trend to use your finger (or nowdays even mind, specially if you are physically disabled), then I can see it, but I would not see it a new trend on any way. The thing is that if you are making website for everyone in the world, you need to make it work with any controlling device, finger or 9-button WoW mouse. At least nowdays you can ask pretty much anything from browser with some mindfull coding, so you can of course make the site behave differently depending any attributes that you can ask from clients browser.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

If things won't go full 3D in www, I would just focus that wiki works with all different resolutions and with all different controlling devices like mouse, keyboard, pen and finger. Pretty simple stuff until the actual implementation, which can be done in millions of different ways. This is important, I'm quite sure that PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, because there is billions and billions of different combinations of things to want, and people already know only a fraction of these things. This is why I would like to see computers deciding as much of these "how it should look" problems. Computer of course cannot give any artistical output, but it can tell you which buttons or features should be most visible since people use them most and so on. It will neither tell you about how much people use different non-existing features, that people would use if they would exist of course, but with computer and math, you can at least give a try to new features and see how people like them. I guess you allready do some monitoring, but I think I still made a quite big point (people don't know what they want) that should not be missed. I'm sorry that I can't give any ultimate answer to get know what people want, but that is quite extreme goal anyway.

Good luck. You are doing extremely imporant work!

Response by 21:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

The next billion people to gain use of the internet will likely be uneducated about what information they can trust or not. These are skills that many people using the internet at this time have developed and still struggle with. The information and disinformation on the internet is difficult to navigate, especially for people who are struggling with just being able to use this technology. They also may not understand the implications behind posting information on the internet. This will likely lead to fear of privacy settings and hackers, especially when privacy settings can be difficult to find and manipulate for those who do not understand them.'s thoughts on question 2Edit

The upcoming users of the internet will likely need some guidance through navigating the internet's vast amounts of information and deciding what is a valid source or not. For this reason, it would be very helpful for there to be a wikimedia project to provide a simple, educational tool for unfamiliar users in order for them to familiarize themselves with the nature of online information. This could involve a series of videos, wikihow instructions, or even a whole new domain dedicated to educating new and existing internet users. These tools could also include information on privacy settings and basic background information on how the internet works. A tool such as this would help the new users to feel more comfortable after all of the confusing messages they have been given about the safety and validity of information on the internet.

Response by 22:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Well to start first of all dont add any complicated things

Response by 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

more search friendly


Response by Chaosking7 22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Chaosking7's thoughts on question 1Edit

The new trend is going to be people leaving their "little boxes" and being able to peek inside the lives of others. Just think about Instagram in Northern Africa, we are going to be able to see new thruths (man, i hope i'm not sounding weird). WE CAN SHARE JESUS' LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chaosking7's thoughts on question 2Edit

I think we should present new internet users with wikia. Show them that they have the power to create and make their own ideas. The news on the internet should shift from being about celebrity lives and negativity to something else. I'm not saying we should shield them from reality but news needs to shift and people should feel like internet artists.

Response by 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I hope it will grow. It is an excellent site. Maybe you may have some editors in each language (native) so if someone like who is not a professional writer helps in translation, someone can edit that. Then some of us will dare to do so. My best wishes.

Response by 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

I find the notion that any number of additional users - whether it's one or one billion - who don't know shit about a given topic can be presumed to be able to write and edit articles about that topic that accurately reflect the state of knowledge in the given field to be utterly preposterous. The reason Encyclopædia Britannica's 11th edition was so great is because they didn't just yank any yahoo off the street to write an article. Deranged Internet users are today's yahoos off the street - and they're the ones responsible for far too much pseudo-information on Wikipedia.

Response by 22:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

I think you need to find some way to make your content citable(well, you can probably put the original resource near where it goes in the paragraph)

Mariana Valencia Rojas (Colombia).

1. Las tendencias principales que se pueden identificar además de la del móvil, sería más publicidad, anuncios publicitarios vía Internet. Más documentos con más información, y tal vez publicación de libros (con material ecológico) sobre los diferentes temas que han hecho, teniendo en cuenta sus relaciones, que al final del libro tenga un glosario los cuáles sean los enlaces que se hacen presentes en medio de la redacción de los textos. Y que toda la nueva tecnología que se esté desarrollando se tenga en cuenta, que se hagan las aplicaciones de Wikipedia en cualquier tipo de dispositivo. Aliarse con alguna otra aplicación para que den sus anuncios, para hacersen más visibles.

2. Los proyectos de Wikipedia serían prósperos y exitosos, porque millones de estudiantes necesitan de esta información para tareas, trabajos, y personajes que les intereses estudiar siempre querrán leer sobre todo lo que publiquen ustedes. Así que se puede considerar que en ventas también sería un éxito, por el incremento de usuarios.

(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"1. The major trends that can also be identified besides mobile, would be more advertising, advertising on the Internet. More documents with more information, and perhaps book publishing (with organic material) on the various issues they have done, considering its relations, which at the end of the book has a glossary which the links are present in the middle are the drafting of texts. And all the new technology that is being developed will note that Wikipedia applications made in any type of device. Ally with some other application to give their announcements to make them more visible.
2. The projects of Wikipedia will be prosperous and successful, because millions of students need this information for tasks, jobs, and characters that interests them to study always want to read about everything that you publish. So you can consider that sales would also be a success, increasing users."
Mariana, gracias por tu contribución, y perdoname por mi español malo. No vamos a tener anuncios, pero es posible que podemos aliarnos con otra applicaciones para hacer nuestros artículos más visibles. ¿Crees que debemos vender copias impresas en papel o algo diferente?


Response by Philsawa 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Philsawa's thoughts on question 1Edit

video becomes a background to videogames

Philsawa's thoughts on question 2Edit

editable via game?

Response by 23:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ilk önce sitenin herkese yararli olmasi lazim herkes istedigi bilgiyi bulmasi lazim buda geniş kapsamli bilgiye ve bunu yapacak çalişanlar ve disiplinle oluşabilecek şeyler yeteri kadar bilgi var ise zaten siteye girin bi kişi ikinci kez virdaha girmek isticektir buda size olan güveni orataya koyacaktir.


(Machine translation, please help improve...)
"first to be publicly beneficial site to find lazim anyone want information lazim prune large comprehensive knowledge and who tries to do it, and there are things enough information that may occur discipline is already is hiring enter virdah entered bi people second site pruning will put you in OraTau confidence."

Response by's thoughts on question 1Edit

The need for information, especially quickly, has grown. Comment by

we can chase people way much easier then 15 years ago.
how can we show people what is right? what is wrong?
i want to be nail, but i want to help, not hurting! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max-w311-Mak (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2015's thoughts on question 2Edit

Having a quick info kind of box, without simple facts, but rather a paragraph (e.g. a summary of Hitler's life in a paragraph), like those found on Google but in slightly more detail.

I imagine how much holywarship may arise around summaries. Simple facts are probably the way to go. It would be nice to receive short responses for quick questions (probably extract them out of larger articles), but that's difficult technologically… - 20:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The ones in Google are usually direct copies of the first few sentences of our articles ;) But I agree that this is a particular form of knowledge that is worth paying attention to - the mobile form means that people will be getting more and more summaries. Wikidata also addresses this problem, in a way that we now use in our mobile apps to reasonable success. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes Luis Villa (WMF). I think the lead paragraphs (the bit above the table of contents) is meant to be doing more or less this. I would be against trying to do the same in some other way but I think there is a good case for looking at new ways we can use these leads/summaries. Filceolaire (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't want to create redundant information - we already do too much of that :) But we could, for example, make editors more aware of how tools will see the lead paragraphs so that they get edited more tightly. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Nocowardsoulismine

Nocowardsoulismine's thoughts on question 2Edit

If anyone truly can edit Wikipedia, why don't they? There are very few people who edit Wikipedia, compared to those who read it. I believe we need to promote a more welcoming environment, to encourage new editors and content contributors. Here is what I propose:

  1. Make editing easier. Every day, technology becomes more intuitive and user-friendly. Most people don't bother to use software that is prohibitively difficult. Failure to keep up with technology trends will result in Wikipedia being left behind. It is popular opinion that editing is done by "techies" and "nerds". The popular opinion should ideally be that Wikipedia is edited by anyone with knowledge to share. Simplifying and streamlining the editing process will go far in making that happen.
  2. Simplify the Manual of Style. I am not suggesting a compromise in previously established consensus. I am proposing that we make the Manual of Style easier to understand. In addition, we need to make it more easily searchable so that new content creators can quickly find relevant information. Judging by the amount of edits that get deleted or mercilessly edited/tagged to comply with project standards, it's clear that most people don't read it. Truthfully, the MoS is a daunting read. Imagine how daunting it must be for someone for whose native language isn't English.
  3. Give voice to less outspoken editors. Discussion pages tend to be dominated by the most outspoken and even aggressive editors. As it stands, anyone participating in a discussion needs to be prepared to be bombarded with criticism, which is usually not presented in a constructive manner. A "+1", "like", or even "-1" function on talk/discussion pages could give voice to less assertive editors and help to gauge whether discussions and their outcomes are truly representative of consensus, or if they are simply a contest of who can shout the loudest.
  4. Establish a way for readers to easily communicate with editors. Since the great majority of people who read Wikipedia don't make edits, we need to find a way to give the readers a voice. Our success is determined by the opinion of our audience. Readers need to have a role in shaping the direction the projects take. Perhaps, we could have a simple rating tool located at the bottom of each article that asks basic questions about the content. We could also create a user experience survey as other websites are increasingly doing. At the moment, we don't know whether editors are pointing the projects in a direction that the readers want.
@Nocowardsoulismine: Thanks for this detailed feedback. A few thoughts:
  1. I agree that easier editing needs to be a top strategic priority. (This should probably include things that don't look like traditional editing, like wikigrok.)
  2. Is there a role for the WMF in simplifying the MOS? (I admit my instinct is "no" but I could be persuaded :)
  3. (and #4): If I can take a step back, it seems like the common threads here are "more diverse ways to contribute" and "more open/friendly culture". Is that how you'd characterize the high-level goals? (I think both proposals are interesting, and we've made several stabs in the direction of the second one, but for purposes of this discussion it'd be more interesting to discuss and hear about the high-level/big picture thoughts that are driving your suggestions.)
Thanks again for your time/energy/input. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@LuisV (WMF): The main idea that underlies my proposals is that you can provide software tools for us, which will tackle the challenges that Wikipedia has been facing. The foundation has expressed interest in countering the systemic and gender bias that exists within the project, without much success. New editing tools and improved software will, in my opinion, act as a disruptive technology. It will shake the culture of Wikipedia to its core by giving voice to the underrepresented populations we've been targeting, further democratizing Wikipedia as a whole. Public relations and advocacy can only do so much, when the limited software we're offered only reinforces the current biased system.
The solution is to do what works. Blogger, Wordpress, and the various forum and social media sites have established a precedent of providing easy-to-use information sharing tools which users aren't willing to sacrifice. Creating and editing a page in wiki should be as friendly and welcoming as commenting on the Internet in general. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Nocowardsoulismine: have you tried Visual Editor? Do you think that is a good start, or would you do more or do it in a different direction? And any suggestions on how we might evaluate such things? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by

women on wikipedia's thoughts on question 1Edit

I predict that it will continue to be the case that approximately half the people on the planet are women.

Indeed :) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

And so a thriving wiki community would welcome them, and not function as a platform for misogyny, and not discipline and exclude women and their friends who attempt to make the wikipedia world a more balanced community.

I came to this page after looking at what is supposed to be the wikipedia entry for the British composer Judith Weir, in which it has pleased someone to cobble together negative reviews of her work. My quick sampling of other composers' pages suggests that this is not the normal form that a composer's entry takes. I speculate that it's just the cost of being a prominent woman. Of course this is a democratic space and I could just edit it myself couldn't I? Not after everything I've been reading about wikipedia's gender problems.

I can't speak to the Weir article in particular, but certainly there is a general problem in gender balance on the project. We're looking to launch new initiatives in this area. I agree that addressing healthy communities generally (and the gender gap in particular) needs to be a key part of our overall strategy; any suggestions on how we could best do that are of course welcome. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Since I've already been reverted for suggesting a sexual harassment policy should be developed, if I make that suggestion here I will be accused of forum shopping and being passive aggressive. Apparently, even if you personally welcome my suggestion that we should have a sexual harassment policy, me having the nerve to mention it again on this page gives my 90% male wiki-colleagues grounds to demand I be ejected from the premises. The plan seems to be that I am supposed to recruit more women editors, but just not tell them what will happen if they ever have someone on the site disagree with them. I'm quite active at in-person events. At several of them I've been cautioned that I should "avoid posting" at the Gender Gap Task Force because it is under discretionary sanctions and I am "likely to be banned." Also, when I tried to get an editor to back down recently in regards to a graphic description of how they wish a female editor would commit suicide by hanging, there was some sexually explicit language in response. I am thinking you might need to issue us women editors the cyber-equivalent of a large dog (or a buddy with several tours of duty in Afghanistan) to accompany us when it is time to deal with ANI or other users' talk pages. --Djembayz (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Long story, but without getting into the details, suffice to say that I think that all sucks. Let's work together on building the large dog, and/or making the large dog less necessary. Your thoughts/suggestions would be welcome when we open the Inspire campaign. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by SSZ

How to attract more good "experts" to WP...

SSZ's thoughts on question 1Edit

ANSWER: Associate with a good university such as MIT, Cambridge or Stanford and start distributing Honoris Causa PhD for those whose who have over 5,000 documented manual edits AND have made unique/quality/verified contribution to any academic topic over the years (e.g. economics, physics, medicine, etc.) This was the typical response I gave to someone at Oxford University online who had seen my edits on Wikipedia and asked me HOW Oxford could help attract more good editors to WP. You will need to identify and document their work but this can be done easily in many cases. At the time I said that as half joke but I realize this might actually have worked. I predict you will see an influx of "experts" just for that chance. SSZ (talk)

This is a great idea! Which university do you think would be the most likely to do it? --Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lgruwell-WMF :) and thanks for your question. IMHO you should ask top-rated Universities around the world and not be confined to the US alone. This should become a global phenomenon.
I think many good Universities have a big incentive to become involved in such project. Namely, recognition and exposure to a global audience. The first Universities to become "accredited" by Wikipedia will have publicity beyond imagination for this UNIQUE program which exact contours and conditions need yet to be defined. Please don't hesitate to ask me further questions on my talk page (on the English Wikipedia) if you need any further help. IMHO, after the first 15 PhDs have been attributed, this info will spread like *WILDFIRE* through the Internet and the international media and act as a *magnet* for potential good WP editors.
Separately from the above, I have proposed an IDEA on this forum which should be reviewed further by your experts in Computer Science and possibly be PATENTED (for revenues to WMF). SSZ (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Fischer (WMDE)Edit

Response by Barbara Fischer (WMDE)

Barbara Fischer (WMDE)'s thoughts on question 1Edit

In the near future it will become a common expectation to be able to receive any kind of information in a personalized small sized format. One way to achieve this, are apps. Therefore I believe that people will not read Wikipedia it self but use apps that build on the information that is achieved through Wikidata out of Wikipedia. This will reduce the numbers of readers and possible funders of Wikipedia and thus the importance of the whole project. Instead of reading a long Wikipedia article on my smartphone as user I will prefer an application that simply answers any question that occurs me in any situation. The question is how will we insure that the information is still as up to date and commonly recognized as it is now in Wikipedia, when funding and participation is decreasing? In my point of view we will have to be the head of the evolution, making sure that people acknowledge that Wikimedia is the source and to strengthen Wikidata by transforming Wikidata as much to the central linking structure in the semantic web that is increasing constantly by more and more accessible digitized matters as Wikipedia is today the central port to knowledge.--Barbara Fischer (WMDE) (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Barbara Fischer (WMDE): I think we all agree apps and Wikidata are going to be key :) And yes, that will be challenging for the movement, since we depend on users who become editors. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to improve acknowledgement of the source? Legal? Or other forms of persuasion? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Fischer (WMDE)'s thoughts on question 2Edit

Thus I believe that we need to transform Wikipedia on two levels. Both make it itself more accessible for machines, so it could be used more easy as source for apps of any kind. And make it more easy to read Wikipedia on mobile devices. Balancing the needs of the reader - who probably in most occasions wants a brief answer to his / her question - with the urge of the contributor. We have to respect more now than ever, the motives of the contributors why they prefer to spend their time on creating articles, films, pictures a.s.o and share them instead of raising peas or racing cars. The contributors I know love their topic which is why the do write long elaborate articles about it. Could be that these articles are to bulky for the reader, but it is than our task as paid staff to find a way that honors the labor of the contributors and delivers the products that our funders support us for.--Barbara Fischer (WMDE) (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the apps are actually pretty good already at making it easy to read on mobile devices, though obviously there is more to be done there, like the recent integration of wikidata for brief descriptions, and potential partnerships with other services. I do wonder how (if at all) to create experimentation around "new" data (like better short descriptions, better "introductions for non-experts" in some areas, etc.) It's very hard to get those sorts of things started within the existing projects, but obviously they would be most successful if they started there. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Inkowik

Inkowik's thoughts on question 1Edit

  • New editor engagement and reader service should not be the only prior goals. It is important to keep our experienced editors and help them with their daily work. If you act like in 2014 with the VisualEditor, MultimediaViewer and superprotect issues, you miss this third point, which is the most important in my opinion, since new editors need experienced editors to show them how Wikipedia works and readers need editors to generate and maintain the content they read.

Inkowik's thoughts on question 2Edit

  • support the community with maintaining the articles. Many projects grew faster and faster but there are no additional resources to keep the knowledge up to date. If one previously very active editor leaves the project, others have to keep the topics op to date (for example athlete results). Help them with this extra work by providing a reliable (!!) wmflabs environment, extra maintenance tools, a reasonable centralization of data (properly referenced Wikidata statements), ...
  • VisualEditor is on a good way now. Please don't make the same mistakes like during the last rollout of an pre-alpha version of VE. Don't disturb experienced users in their workflow, especially not with beta tests. They don't want to be forced to leave feedback on meta or phabricator pages. Let the users decide wheter to test a new way or keep the old one. Let the users decide wheter to use MultimediaViewer or not. Let the users decide wheter to use VisualEditor or not. There should be no privileged option.
  • Support multimedia, but in an encyclopedic way. We don't need nice full-pagesize header images for articles. This is only a gimmick which will not work on most articles because there is no suitable material to show. Focus on encyclopedic images, infographics, maps, charts etc instead. Give editors a change to simply create and edit high-quality charts beyond the spooky timeline extension. Give editors tools to simply create and edit location maps. Encourage organizations to release their pictures under a free license. Provide a powerful MultimediaViewer and Commons which provides metadata for simple reuse.
  • Don't act like a greedy organization which collects more and more donations while pretending to have just enough money to run the servers. You muck around the donators with that.

--IW 20:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Inkowik: for thoughtful suggestions. We are thinking through very carefully about VE roll-out. I cannot promise no mistakes, but we are being very careful, communicating a lot and ensuring that we don't even tough experienced editor workflows until we are ready for those. Separating audiences and their needs is key. A discussion is also under way around Labs. Finally on the fundraising -- as we want to increase support for our current editors that will push pressure of fundraising, but we are trying to be mindful of the impact of banners and are studying how they are affecting the site and brand. LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Chetkp 05:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Chetkp's thoughts on question 1Edit

With the advancement of Technology and need of the hour with changing trends, internet-enabled smartphones and other mobile devices have move rapidly down the cost curve. Internet is the only source of information that quickly provides information on fingertips. Apart from smartphones, all the electronic gadgets that are used for sharing information in the form of Text, Images and other embedded objects in Wiki should be optimized for its readability and complete support for Wiki Projects. Sharing-Button if gets enabled for Wiki projects will make it easy for users to share wiki as a source of information like other applications share button. @Chetkp: I agree that we need to work hard on mobile. We're already working on a sharing button for Android and I expect we'll do more soon. Strategically, any suggestions on how we catch the "next" wave after mobile? :) —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Chetkp's thoughts on question 2Edit

Wiki can provide e-mail like services to the outside users to share information and make this project a success. This would mean that sharing of information will become easy and a primary source of information as it has always been but with the complete ease.

Chetkp, could you elaborate on why you think email-like services would be useful? I agree we need to help editors communicate more, but I am interested in what you think we should be doing in more detail. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Chetkp: (Re-ping, because the one above was added incorrectly ;-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Xoristzatziki 05:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Xoristzatziki's thoughts on question 1Edit

Cell phone is not free. User has to pay in order to use and get access to Internet (and so to our free multilingual, educational content). So talking about how to provide an efficient way in accessing the wimedia projects to "rich" people is a little bit too early. Providing just raw information about the accessing of wikimedia pages without the knowledge if these pages are accessed just for impressing interlocutors (in a face to face conversation or in an on line conversation as in social media) or for writing a paid article (ex. by journalists) is not clearly understood by me. Our (or just mine) goal is to create a "space" for people that do not have the luxury to get paid information.

We do have projects like Wikipedia Zero that are designed to provide free access to Wikipedia in many countries.--GByrd (WMF) (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Xoristzatziki: (Re-ping, because the one above was added incorrectly ;-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Xoristzatziki's thoughts on question 2Edit

There exist two distinct goals:

  1. Add content.
  2. Provide efficient ways to get the exact wanted content (and not the tons of garbage that search machines currently provide).

So major enchantments should be:

  • Providing easier way to add multimedia content: sounds, photographic and video documents (see "why" in Tapping into the knowledge of indigenous communities)
  • Providing tools to users in order to enchange their search in our projects (not tools that enchange the results). Ex. search tool that will return articles from specific "portals" (articles related to that portal) instead of the general search.
    • Portals in wikipedia (or a new "search" project named "wikisearch") should be able to contect to a related article, in other wikiprojects, in an easy but clear way. Example "Portal:Classical civilisation" should be contected (by the users editing that portal) in a simple way to related articles in Wikisource or Wikibooks in order to return results from these project too.


Response by CarolinesaysII 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

CarolinesaysII's thoughts on question 1Edit

Mobile + Next Billion users + pressure to enter the social warfare could question its legitimacy

I see two mega trends emerge Trend one : information getting dangerously social - Mobile and billions of people : attention is the new currency, the information is more and more in danger of losing its context. As a result, there will be a huge pressure on Wikipedia to become a social app, morphing into a paid/earned media, at the risk of its credibility. Wikipedia is beyond brand.

Trend two : Video rules - Entering the Mooc arena -Video will be the King format and future generations alphabet-. Same remark.

CarolinesaysII's thoughts on question 2Edit

I understand healthy Wikimedia projects as uncompromised*, I think the opening project could lie in global curation : we see a document of interest, we can like, we can share, and we should be able to wiki it THE HUMBLE WAY and for the common good : as a reference, a footnote. Then comes the discussions : what level of algorythm and what management of moderation to create the most relevant update ? Then the project could also adress the way the constant flow of updates appears on the page, and how it is archived, which by the way is a burning topic .

  • pardon my english, I am french and wikipedia is a daily lookup gesture of mine
We are doing some experiments with this to allow people to collect articles of interest, @CarolinesaysII: Merci! LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Cfb362 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cfb362's thoughts on question 2Edit

Some people want to help, and they care about things, but they don't care enough to put in a large amount of effort. Many love the philosophy behind the Wikimedia Foundation but wouldn't work to improve articles. Create ways that the mildly-engaged, moderately apathetic public can help. EyeWire comes to mind, a project in which users color in neurons to aid our understanding of the human brain (the public does menial work for scientists). How can the public contribute in a way that does not require much effort?

We are seeing a number of comments along these lines. I think you are right. An improved user experience - which means a more simple but inter-related one - will attract more editors and more readers, IMHO. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. GeoffBrigham (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cfb362: (Re-ping, because the one above was added incorrectly ;-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Response by Andrii302 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrii302's thoughts on question 1Edit

More media files. Create your youtube channel with intervievs and intresting experiments which people from all the world will send you.

We have a Wikimedia YouTube channel -- please subscribe! We share videos there that are interesting about members of the community, or about Wikipedia.
Many people use Yoube in creative ways to share things about Wikipedia. This YouTube user created a project called The Things You Learn on Wikipedia to do voiceovers and animations of Wikipedia articles. They're pretty funny. Perhaps it's worth working with YouTube users to curate their videos into a user-created channel -- what do you think? Katherine (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Andrii302: (Re-ping, because the one above was added incorrectly ;-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrii302's thoughts on question 2Edit

I thing it will be good idea to cooperate with other science communities and TV channels like discovery science National Geographic and some famous scientists to improve some publications and create new categories like "Todays interviev with...". In addition i thing that a lot of people will like idea to add rubric with last news from world of science, nature, art. P.S. Sorry for some grammar mistakes which i probably made.

Antonius sitanggangEdit

Response by Antonius sitanggang 10:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Antonius sitanggang's thoughts on question 1Edit

Saat ini kata / istilah begitu banyak berkembang sesuai dengan semakin berkembangnya pengetahuan manusia akan bahasa-bahasa asing selain bahasanya sendiri. hal ini tentunya mendorong bertambahnya jumlah perbendaharaan istilah. namun di satu sisi ada orang lain yang tidak tahu / mengerti tentang pengertian dan asal-usul dari istilah tersebut. Mereka yang tidak tahu pasti memiliki keingintahuan akan pengertian sitilah-istilah yang baru tersebut.

Machine translation; please improve: Currently the word / term so much developed in accordance with the development of human knowledge will be foreign languages other than their own language. it is certainly pushing the increasing number of vocabulary terms. but on the one hand there are others who do not know / understand about the meaning and origin of the term. Those who do not know for sure has a sense of curiosity about sitilah-term new.

Antonius sitanggang's thoughts on question 2Edit

Proyek yang saya sarankan adalah proyek pelengkapan asal usul kata / istilah serta pengertian dari istilah / kata baru tersebut. terima kasih

Machine translation; please improve: Project which I would suggest is the origin of the word-completion project / term and a definition of the term / new word. thank you
We are looking into doing some of this, @Antonius sitanggang: terima kasih LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Strategy/Wikimedia Foundation/2015/Community consultation/2015-03-07" page.