Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

That looks very interesting! Happy to already see Wikidata in the list which, I think, lends itself well to small contributions. I'd be happy to exchange about easier contribution possibilities there. I also CCed Lydia, Wikidata's Project Manager. Jan 2016-08-30 20:21 GMT+02:00 Dario

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Forwarding a wikitech-l note from Moushira (cc'ed) and the WMF reading team, relevant to the discussion on microcontributions. Hello Everyone, I am writing to share with you an effort from the Android team to start identifying themes of products

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Hoi Bob, Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It has its own problems and it could do better as well. The point of a marketing approach is not only in reaching more editors. Having people help with more content for instance with micro tasks is achievable. The point must be that the work done makes

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

I agree with pretty much all that Bob says here, except one important point: This is probably correct for Wikipedia in English, and maybe a few other very big languages. A rarely remembered fact: most people don't know English. In other languages there's much work to do in writing articles on

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

I've been active with Wikipedia since 2006. My impression (which corresponds with data) is that 2008 was the year with the highest number of editors on English Wikipedia. While it may sound good on paper, in some ways it was a mess because of the frequency of vandalism. Nowadays I know there are

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Ah if it's just semantics that's fine, as long as someone is actually researching that part of it. :-) In my area (which is actually games research), 'gamification' usually means something more specific, although the definition keeps shifting admittedly. But more often the trend of adopting

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

That really depends on how you define 'gamification'. To me, the gamification is not the leaderboards, but exactly the elements you mention - the splitting of the whole into simple microtasks plus giving out those microtasks to users for a large part at random. In fact, I usually play the

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Dario Taraborelli writes: > *Gamified interfaces for microcontributions à la Wikidata game*. > (per GerardM) there's absolutely no doubt this model is effective at > creating a large volume of high-quality edits, and value to the project and > communities. I agree

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Hoi, I respectfully disagree. There are two issues here. The most important one is that marketing may have multiple objectives and gaining more people as editors is not restricted to any of our projects. Secondly it is not restricted to editors it also applies to readers. It should be glaringly

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

I get where you're coming from, but a great way to inspire the projects to improve their onboarding processes would be an endless influx of newbie editors. *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House email • facebook •

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

I completely disagree with this criticism of the WMF. It seems to me that the main barriers to getting gamification happening in relation to en.wiki are cultural / organisational issues not marketing ones. If the editing communities genuinely wanted huge influxes of complete newbie editors, I

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Dario Taraborelli, 27/08/2016 22:49: How making the edit button 10x larger is not a solution to this problem is a topic I'll reserve to a separate thread. You might want to include screenshots of the popups which are currently run to point people to the edit button. Nemo

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Hoi, You are absolutely right. Both approaches have promise. It is however a marketing job, not a research job to realise their potential. Marketing is where the WMF sucks. Thanks, GerardM On 27 August 2016 at 22:49, Dario Taraborelli wrote: > Nice,

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

I had a famous game designer talk about this at Wikimania 2014: http://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/wikipedia-is-a-game/ *Edward Saperia* Founder Newspeak House email • facebook • twitter

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Nice, thought-provoking post, Pine. Here's my take on two ways to attract a population of good-faith contributors 1 or 2 orders of magnitude larger than the current one, based on what I've seen over the last couple of years: *Gamified interfaces for microcontributions à la Wikidata game*. (per

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: > The English Wikipedia alone has hundreds of thousands of items to fix - > missing references, misspellings, etc. The problems are nicely sorted at >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

The English Wikipedia alone has hundreds of thousands of items to fix - missing references, misspellings, etc. The problems are nicely sorted at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog . There are millions of other things to fix in other projects. So quality is getting higher in

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Pine W, 27/08/2016 09:13: What would we need in order to stimulate and nourish this kind of growth? https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Make_Wikimedia_projects_scale Nemo ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

We already have hundreds of millions of users. A large proportion of people who use the internet will use Wikipedia in a given month, they use it by reading bits of it. Finding out what the barriers are for the thousands of millions who don't use Wikipdia would be useful. No doubt there are some

[Wiki-research-l] Thinking big: scaling up Wikimedia's contributor population by two orders of magnitude

Thinking big here: popular internationalized computer games can have 10+ million unit sales. Some of the most popular online games have millions of monthly active users. I'm wondering if the research community, including Design Research, can envision a way for Wikimedia to scale up from 80,000