Wikimedia Polska/Gap and Risk analysis

Gap analysis and risk analysis for the Polish community of Wikimedians - as a foundation of the existence and activities of the Wikimedia Polska Association. Version 1.0 - May 2018.

Foreword

Creator community is incredible: these people created the top encyclopediae in their languages - they wrote them, they manage them and they keep updating them. Yet, there are limits of what you can ask the online volunteers in the modern world - they are humans who have jobs, schools, families, and other responsibilities; they also have their needs and feelings. Thus, an institutional muscle supporting the volunteers was established.

Following [possibly compehensive] analysis presents: particular dimensions, identified gaps inherent for the modern online activity, connected risks, and possible solutions to the problems found.

The next step is: establishing priorities, matching metrics, monitoring if the gaps are filled in an anticipated matter, repeat!

Gaps, risks and solutions

#	Dimension	Gap	Risk	Solution
A1	Online-activity Creators edit in their free time, using own resources.	Limited set of positive stimuli. Lack of traditional positive feedback: (monetary, career building, interpersonal contacts...)	Burn-out of existing volunteers Difficulty with gaining and keeping new ones	Appreciation Acts of recognition, facilitating social part (online and offline) and games/competitions online e.g. Wikiwyzwanie, off-line e.g. Winter meet-up, annual WMPL conference
A2	Distributed organization Leadership is distributed. pl wikis created their own rules, customs, hierarchies etc.	Management is outsourced to the volunteers. Coordination requires effort of the whole community, especially of self-emerging leaders.	Online debates sometimes visibly more difficult and heated than offline. Democratic/meritocratic process can get stalled. High tension can build up, leading to burn-outs, lost volunteers, splits etc.	Assistance with coordination Meet-ups, workshops and conferences when needed Additional venues of internal communication
A3	Community Health Lack of direct personal contacts may lead to elevated tensions among the users.	Lack of face to face contact. Online disinhibition effect Lowered empathy in Internet	Lowered quality of participation (arguments, impaired communication) and lowered productivity leading to burn-outs, lost time, quality and volunteers themselves. Possibility of making to the media.	Searching for Human Side Meet-ups, workshops and conferences when needed (people who met show a better understanding of each other, they also have a new venue to discuss and (re)solve issues). Appreciation and other good stimuli e.g. Wikimarathons
B1	Overlapping generations New generations enter wikiprojects and need to onboard, oldcomers remain or leave	WM base on free time: we keep high retention but the volunteers move on with their lives. WM UX and values are increasingly different than modern Internet standards. WM became increasingly complex and bureaucratic	Being a voice of one, slowly decaying Internet generation (heavy users starting in late '90s, beginning of 200x). Inability to attract new people, lost connection with readers and partners, impaired relevance, lack of quality due to low editor base and outdated tools, missed opportunities	Blending new communities into old crowds Promoting and teaching Wikimedia in new demographies (new generations of students, hobbysts, scholars...) Promoting a better environment to keep the volunteers Initiatives to keep old and newcomers together
B2	Values Wikis have been found on particular principles, including: openness, free licences and equity	Contemporary Internet and IT revolve around different values: privacy monetization, propretriary software, disregard for copyright or highly tight "IP protection", decreasing quality and a care about truth etc.	Newcomers not attracted to Wikiprojects Difficulties to onboard Tensions, competing projects	Negotiating values? Values, needs and users deserve a good representation Promoting wikivalues outside Showing other trends and demographies inside (conferences, blogs, trainings, outreach)
B3	Remaining relevant - UX MediaWiki websites are more and more behind a regular Internet experience.	UX Gaps: in terms of writing, handling multimedia, discussion, database search, advanced tools...	Loss of volunteer time (potential volunteers, burden on existing ones). Frustration. We can't have nice things	More solutions needed Passing the problem upstream (community wishlists, WMF, partners etc.) Upkeep of WMPL Toolserver Trainings, handouts etc.
B4	Remaining relevant - personal reward Over 1.25 mil articles on pl.wiki	Victims of own success? Low-hanging fruits collected: articles created, quality standards increasing, entry threshold gets steeper and steeper.	Personal satisfaction stemming from the participation may decrease, necessary efforts may increase with time leading to a shrinking volunteer base.	Keeping the Wikimedia rewarding Novel forms of participation New personal goals. Appreciation. Easining participation Communication of the importance of contribution. E.g. photo contests (WLM, Wikiwakacje) wp contests like Wikiwyzwanie, Zabawa edycyjna,
B5	Remaining relevant III New editors less willing to join the association	Early editors found a need to "unionize" and create the association. Later members may not feel this need. Vast majority of the active WMPL members are experienced Wikimedians (which is good in terms of retention but a majority of new e.g. Wikipedians do not respond to invitations.	WMPL increasingly detached from the volunteer base: not representing their POV and not answering their needs. Volunteers not using help and opportunities available. Missing global contacts and context.	Reach out to Wikimedians Internal communication (e.g. newsletter) Meeting and listening to various communities (e.g. Źródłosłów for Wiktionarians and Wikisourcers) scholarships for WM events like Wikimania
C1	Quality gaps Quality standards evolve and propagate slowly, unevenly	Many articles still do not include proper citations, writing or a quality check, or remained stubs. Multimedia quality highly uneven. Major topics may not meet needs of e.g. pupils.	Substandard UX Reputational risk, esp. in mass media, social media Loss of readers/users, volunteers, partners, donors	Encourage targeted growth?? Support initiatives like WP:PopArt and WP:PANDA. Support bug hunts like WP:BATUTA. Reach out to partners; provide good PR. Provide detailed quality gaps analyses?
C2	Content gaps Grassroot encyclopedia lacks an editorial board. Volunteers "scratch their itch"	Topics are covered "unevenly"/in a different manner than in a traditional encyclopedia: function of coolness, availability, current rules, community and some luck => biases Needs of readers are an afterthought. At best.	Wikiprojects don't meet significant needs of their users. Stagnant/Declining readership. Limited relevance.	Targeted outreach and content acquisition (edit-a-thons, messaging, contests, partnerships) E.g. Wikipedia też jest kobietą (Wikipedia Is A Woman Too), WMCEE Spring, GLAM editathons), language gaps, geo gaps e.g. with Wikiexpeditions pl.wikipedians provided their list of core articles but ToDo: readers' needs survey would be nice to have
C3	Volunteer gaps Not only only very few people edit, some demographies (women, elders...) are even scarcer than others.	As in many other WM and Internet hobby projects, participants are predominantly male, with a rather middle class background, usually in the age of 2x - 4x. [deeper research would be useful]	Many potential editors may be lost Additional systemic bias and gaps in the content may be introduced. Partnerships or reinventing ourselves less probable	Targeted outreach and content acquisition (edit-a-thons, messaging, contests, partnerships) Also: Art + Feminism, gender gap outreach events in Warsaw, university projects, age gap... Drawback: students etc. tend to have low retention, work with hobbysts might be more longlasting
D1	Content acquisition - org burden Physical content acquisition is burdersome. It requires more work with a strong offline element, often extra costs (e.g. travel, entrance, insurance, equipment), planning..	Wiki projects outsource the costs to the volunteers	Content and quality gaps due to a major effort required	Easing the burden Help with financial, organisational etc. costs e.g. Wikiexpeditions format, microgrants programme
D2	Content acquisition - institutions Quality content from the institutions usually requires permissions and co-operation (e.g. even if you want take pictures in a museum and its allowed, the regular lighting etc. makes the quality highly impaired).	Volunteer time seldom available in particular cities, in office hours. Institutions require a stability and a legal entity to partner. The seek opportunities: publicity, reach, expertise, funds...	Important content permanently missing from Wikimedia Low credibility, impaired quality and readership	Dedicated partnerships person(s) Able to run several partnerships, leverage on it (utilizing expertise, staff, content, venues, connections, credibility etc. of our partners) as well as provide proper service to the partners and co-operate/co-ordinate the volunteers GLAM conference in Poland, GLAM events, eg
D3	Content acquisition - process Content needs to be integrated and used: assessed, uploaded, described, verified, linked etc.	Media files are just a beginning. Proper evaluation, description, upload and usage are highly time consuming. The process is a big burden for both the volunteers and the partners (like GLAMs).	Important content permanently missing from Wikimedia Inability to use and show the media and data from both individual and institutional collections	Content acquisition assistance Matchmaking volunteers and partners. Co-ordination and assistance. Tech solutions, e.g. supporting PattyPan
E1	External world - lack of understanding Wikimedia rationale and modus operandi remain moderately understood by mass media, users, and institutions	Media Education is limited in Poland, and principles of Wikimedia are seldom present. General Public not fully aware of free licenses or models of content creation we use and promote.	Missing out volunteers and partnerships. Bad PR.	Public Relations Reactive: spokesman actions (by a spokesman or a volunteer sent) Proactive messaging, e.g. WMPL Blog
E2	External world - lack of trust Lack of understanding, quality gaps and missteps should lead to suspicions and some bad press	Wikimedia are novel, esp. for institutions (GLAM, Academia) and overzealous more traditional media. People we need tend to mistrust things they do not understand.	Missing partnerships and users, content not uploaded, not verified, and not used. Loss of relevance.	Public Relations Also outreach actions, conferences, partnerships