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 have no doubt that the commercial partners who benefit from wikipedia could send them our way pretty trivially. What the editing communities want / need is new minimally-competent editors, and crafting them from complete newbies (typically called on-boarding) is very costly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onboarding for an overview of the complexities. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> 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 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. So far these tools have been primarily targeted at an existing >> (and relatively small) population of core contributors and the only attempt >> at expanding this to a much broader contributor base (WikiGrok) were too >> premature. I do expect we will see more and more of lightweight distributed >> curation in the next 5-10 years. In my opinion Wikidata is ready to >> experiment with a much larger number of single-purpose contributory >> interfaces (around missing images, translations, label evaluation, >> referencing etc) >> >> *Ubiquitous outreach, supported by dedicated technology*. >> I called out in my Wikimania 2014 talk >> <http://www.slideshare.net/dartar/wikimania-2014-the-missing-wikipedia-ads> >> the fact that the single, most effective initiative ever run to attract new >> contributors has been WLM (I am intentionally not including initiatives >> like WP in the classroom as they target a pre-defined population such as >> students, but they are probably the most advanced example in this >> category). Creating tools such as recommender systems and todo lists >> *tailored >> to the interests of particular, intrinsically motivated contributors* as >> well as the analytics dashboards <http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/> to >> measure the relative impact and best design of these programs, is the most >> promising venue to expand the Wikimedia contributor population. >> >> My 2 cents. How making the edit button 10x larger is not a solution to >> this problem is a topic I'll reserve to a separate thread. >> >> Thanks for starting this thread. >> >> Dario >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:32 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> 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 many ways, but the amount of stuff to fix is still enormous. >>>> >>>> What we don't have is an easy way for new people to start eliminating >>>> items from the backlogs. The Wikidata games are a nice step in the right >>>> direction, but their appeal to new participants is non-existent. >>>> >>> >>> there is a backlog? after 15 years contributing you tell that on the >>> research mailing list :) i used wikidata games for a couple of minutes and >>> great pleasure when i see the link flying by in an email. but i am never >>> able to find that link again in my life. maybe that is the problem? rename >>> the "donate" link to "contribute" and then have "money" and "time" which >>> links to code and content. just my 2c ... >>> >>> rupert >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dario Taraborelli *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation >> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter >> <http://twitter.com/readermeter> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
