Grants talk:IEG/From large world to small communities

Finalize your proposal by September 30!

Hi Eranroz and Ravid ziv. Thank you for drafting this proposal!

• We're hosting one last IEG proposal help session in Google Hangouts this weekend, so please join us if you'd like to get some last-minute help or feedback as you finalize your submission.
• Once you're ready to submit it for review, please update its status (in your page's Probox markup) from DRAFT to PROPOSED, as the deadline is September 30th.
• If you have any questions at all, feel free to contact me (IEG committee member) or Siko (IEG program head), or just post a note on this talk page and we'll see it.

Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Phase 1 tools

Hi eranroz and Ravid ziv,

Thanks for submitting this proposal - connecting new editors to active Wikiprojects and other like-minded groups of editors seems like an admirable goal. In order to complete our eligibility checks on this proposal, I'm wondering how you would plan to pilot this using tools that you can build yourself (gadgets, scripts, and other things that don't require WMF engineering to code-review and deploy). How might you get the discovery system in front of new editors to test it initially?

I'm also paging Jonathan, because he's been interested in better systems for connecting users to Wikiprojects for some time now, and may have thoughts to offer you. Best wishes, Siko (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Siko (WMF), I just updated the project plan with some more details. The notification for new editors will be done using a bot to leave messages to new editors on their talk pages. thanks, eranroz (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming! Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there eranroz and Ravid ziv. I think this project proposal contains some good ideas, and I have some questions about implementation.

1. can you describe in greater detail how the notification service for indicating new articles in specific topics will work?

2. you say the solution is to "introduce editors and mainly newcomers to specific groups of editors with similar interests." But you say that these are not going to be existing WikiProjects, at least at first(?).

• Why do you not want to use WikiProjects?
• How will you create these groups, and how will you implement the "built-in social features" you refer to (gadgets? WMF Labs tools? bots?)
• It can be quite difficult to get invite bots and notification bots approved by the Bot Approval Group on English Wikipedia. These are often considered "spambots", unfortunately. If you are unable to get a bot approved on enwiki, do you have a backup plan for reaching out to newcomers?

3. can you describe in greater detail the machine learning techniques you will use to cluster new editors by topics?

4. It sounds like your project will require active and sustained community involvement in order to be successful. have you reached out to any existing WikiProjects (or the Teahouse) to get a sense of whether there are other editors out there who are interested in participating in your project? Cheers, Jtmorgan (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The main focus of the project is on association of editors with topics rather than articles (so notifications service for indicating new articles is the second important goal; which is part of making a friendly ecosystem around a topic). Such classification of editors would allow us to suggest them Wikiprojects to join and to enable other editors to follow them. For notifications of new articles we plan to go over new articles log and based on categories to associate them with topics and notify the relevant Wikiprojects with bot (in the relevant subpage for new articles of the wikiproject, as this is the most native way to do so - tool in labs is outside wiki and requires the user to visit it). New articles don't always have all the relevant categories (if any; especially in case of new editors), so the bot will use both articles categories and bag of words representation of the article for classification.
2. We do want to integrate it into Wikiprojects, but not at first step.
   • Integrating a non-mature system (e.g. with not high enough rate of TP/FP classification of editors to topics) may result in editors avoid using it (as happened for example in VisualEditor which was deployed too earlier for too many users; VE is quite good now but experience editors avoid it because of bad past experience).
   • At first, the bot will just drop reports to a user page. This method though simple would allow other editors to watch it with watchlist and give us feedback in site (tool in labs requires them to visit other site and get out of the wiki). Once it is mature, the bot will drop messages to user talk pages (for suggesting to join Wikiproject), and to Wikiproject subpage for new articles.
   • A bot that automatically post welcome message to any new user may be a really "spambot", which is annoying and I don't like such bot either. However, this bot will post message only for relevant users based on inference of enough edits and we plan to activate it only after we are sure it is mature enough. The backup plan is to change it from automatically to semi automatic messages:
     1. The bot post a list of relevant new users suggested to join a Wikiproject (for example to "User:EranBot/Wikiproject Medicine new editors?")
     2. A editor will go over the list (possibly with aiding tool of a gadget we create), and will select the relevant editors and post them a message.
3. We plan to go over the recent edits of new editors, and use bag of words model on the added lines (e.g. both new content to existing and new articles) to classify them to Wikiprojects. We will probably use SVM with binary classification of whether the edit is relevant to the topic or not. If we have enough edits (not only 1) with enough score we can associate a editor with topic.
4. Good point :) We haven't reached yet to existing Wikiproject/Teahouse, but will do it soon.

Thank you, eranroz (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility confirmed, round 2 2014

This Individual Engagement Grant proposal is under review!

We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for round 2 2014 review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.

The committee's formal review for round 2 2014 begins on 21 October 2014, and grants will be announced in December. See the schedule for more details.

Questions? Contact us.

Siko (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

There are already dozens software/tools/devs working on this on the English Wikipedia. Pick another wiki. --Nemo 09:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo,

• I'm not aware to a bot/tool that suggest new editors to join a Wikiproject and connects them with experienced editors who edit in same topics, which is the main focus of this project.
• Can you please link to those software/tools/devs so we will not do duplicate things? I see there are some bots that automatically find new articles based on topics (such as en:User:InceptionBot) and give alerts for Wikiprojects (en:User:AAlertBot) and User:SuggestBot that automatically suggest similar articles to editor. There is also mw:Task recommendations.
• We would like to have it also in hewiki, but hewiki isn't very large (there are not so many Wikiprojects). We don't speak other languages, but once it is implemented for both enwiki and hewiki it would be easy to adopt to other wikis. (BTW, the tool can be almost language agnostic, as we plan to use to train it automatic)

eranroz (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If WikiProjects do not work, why would another model community?

After many years the WikiProject model is not mature and mostly does not work. Most users do not use or understand WikiProjects and even many regular Wikipedia contributors never consult the communities at WikiProjects. The most successful WikiProjects which exist have very few users, perhaps 30 consistent ones in any given month.

When you seek to create new communities of editors, do you anticipate that you will be able to pool more than 30 people who will participate in a month? If you have a model for doing that, I would be amazed that you were able to surpass the success of WikiProjects. If you anticipate attracting fewer users than this, then I would expect that your project will border on not having enough users participate in these new communities.

Is there no way that you can adapt this project to drive users to the existing WikiProjects? WikiProjects are struggling just to keep community bases as it is, and need an advertising system. Your project sounds like the kind of advertising system which WikiProjects need. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• @ Blue Rasberry , I think many Wikiprojects did work in many cases but for limited time (until members of the Wikiproject loose their interest). while others are very successful with enough users that actively participate and contribute to those Wikiprojects. A consistent "new blood" of contributors and new ideas can drive new interest in existing Wikiprojects and even revive the less active ones (though in the perspective of a new user, it is better to suggest them "larger" and active Wikiprojects in which they can find reviewers).
• There is difference between bringing new 30 users (see also: en:Special:Contribs/newbies) to Wikiprojects and between having them participating in Wikiprojects for the long-run. I think 30 new users to participate in Wikiproejcts each month is practical goal, but having them participate in Wikiprojects for the long run is really a matter of their, and the community, interest in the Wikiproject. Wikiprojects with less activity may be less attractive (though it may be enough to have 3-5 "core" contributors to Wikiproject to have it very active).
• Existing WikiProjects communities have already large user base and infrastructure (quality categories, importance categories, article alerts etc), so we want to incorporate it into Wikiprojects. But for the very first stages, we want to keep it in separate pages (see #Phase 1 tools, my answer to Q2 of Jtmorgan).

eranroz (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Aggregated feedback from the committee for From large world to small communities

Scoring criteria (see the rubric for background)	Score 1=weak alignment 10=strong alignment
(A) Impact potential Does it fit with Wikimedia's strategic priorities? Does it have potential for online impact? Can it be sustained, scaled, or adapted elsewhere after the grant ends?	7.0
(B) Innovation and learning Does it take an Innovative approach to solving a key problem? Is the potential impact greater than the risks? Can we measure success?	4.9
(C) Ability to execute Can the scope be accomplished in 6 months? How realistic/efficient is the budget? Do the participants have the necessary skills/experience?	3.6
(D) Community engagement Does it have a specific target community and plan to engage it often? Does it have community support? Does it support diversity?	3.0
Comments from the committee: Like the idea to connect new editors with others. It seems useful to take better care of people who have found their way into the projects and help them to settle in. In principle, developing a mechanism for connecting new editors with others sharing their interests is a high-impact project that aligns with the Wikimedia priorities. Even if there are similar approaches existing, this one seems to have its own and original twist. Excellent idea in general, but we would like to see a proposal including a lot more details on how the project would be put into practice. To be able to properly review this proposal, we would require a more detailed breakdown of both the budget and the technicalities behind the system that the proposers plan to create. Missing any sign of community notification or endorsements. Would like to see support from en-wp users that feel this would be a useful addition to their project. Would like to see a seasoned community-communicator join the team. The previous IEG and Gerrit commits of these proposers suggest a good (if not excellent) level of familiarity and ability with technical contributions. Less clear about the level of technical ability that the proposers have with regards to being able to achieve the production of this new system, or what exactly the new system will entail. Concerns about dependency on the development of Flow. Some risk of notifications annoying or driving people away rather than motivating them. Unclear how many editors out there are willing to show newbies around based on templated alerts. The proposed measures of success may not be useful to measure impact of this particular project. Many other factors will contribute to what has been proposed as measures here. It is unclear whether the listed items (particularly WikiProject activity) can effectively be measured using currently available methods. Suggest using metrics that are closer to the project itself, such as number of notifications delivered and actions that can be linked directly to such notifications, such as talk page activity.

Thank you for submitting this proposal. The committee is now deliberating based on these scoring results, and WMF is proceeding with its due-diligence. You are welcome to continue making updates to your proposal pages during this period. Funding decisions will be announced by early December. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Round 2 2014 Decision

This project has not been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant at this time.

We love that you took the chance to creatively improve the Wikimedia movement. The committee has reviewed this proposal and not recommended it for funding, but we hope you'll continue to engage in the program. Please drop by the IdeaLab to share and refine future ideas!

Comments regarding this decision:
There are some good general ideas here that we’d love to see you develop further in future, with more details and community engagement.

Next steps:

1. Review the feedback provided on your proposal and to ask for any clarifications you need using this talk page.
2. Visit the IdeaLab to continue developing this idea and share any new ideas you may have.
3. To reapply with this project in the future, please make updates based on the feedback provided in this round before resubmitting it for review in a new round.
4. Check the schedule for the next open call to submit proposals - we look forward to helping you apply for a grant in a future round.

Questions? Contact us.