Grants talk:IEG/The Wikipedia Adventure/Final

Approval of The Wikipedia Adventure final report

Hi Jake, Once again I have to congratulate you on a really interesting idea and its potential for supporting new editors to learn how to edit with confidence. I was impressed with the way you designed and modified the design of the game based on continuous feedback and the structured evaluation process you followed with both quantitative and qualitative elements (including the significant base involved: inviting 10,000 editors to play, and following three groups of 165 editors each). I'm particularly interested in the fact that with TWA, the average number of edits made by players was upto 3x the number of those made by non-players. While there was obviously a range of editors who played the game but didn't end up editing, it's impressive that players who also edited were upto 1.8x more likely to make 20+ edits.

I approve this detailed and useful final report. Congratulations!

I'm looking forward to the more detailed (and longer term) statistical analysis you'll be conducting on the TWA, and the insights being incorporated into our Learning Patterns Library.

As you're doing this, I'd be glad if you could respond to a few questions:

1. You made the point well that TWA is designed and best suited for newbie editors, not those who have already significant experience (in fact, you point out that the major negative feedback came from an editor with 100,000+ edits). How do you think TWA can scale more significantly to support a greater number of (new) editors? What are the constraints you might see in doing so (global reach and awareness, technical integration...)?
2. Related to this, how can we better support Global South editors through TWA? Did you see any appreciable difference in the way in which non-US/UK editors responded to the game (I know that the small number of GS editors may not be statistically significant, but any overall features would be interesting to note)? Again, what are the opportunities and challenges towards this?
3. Similarly, I was really interested in your insights that while the TWA surveys sadly mirrored our global stats on female contribution (with only 11% of respondents being women), all female respondents rated their satisfaction levels high. Given the ongoing debates on the gendered nature of gamification, what inputs did you have from female game designers as you were planning TWA? Also, what insights do you have on how TWA might better support the movement's gender gap challenge? Would integrating TWA with the Teahouse for instance, increase both the uptake of TWA and the use of the Teahouse by women? You may already have thought about this; I'd love to hear more. This may be another way to think about the reimagining mentorship issue (and you're right, we should definitely look at ways to return to Jackson's proposal).
4. Finally, what are your key hypotheses for the more detailed statistical analysis you are preparing to run through the next couple of months? It sounds like the major additional indicator will be _quality_, which is both critical and difficult to measure. Can you offer some preliminary thoughts on what you expect from this analysis (I won't hold you to them!)? :-)

Thanks for all your work on this grant, and your great insights as you built out the Wikipedia Adventure game. ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

About the unspent funds

Hi Ocaasi, Congrats on a great 6 months - this game has been a lot of fun and I can't wait to see how retention stats etc bear out for players in the longer term! Once Winifred has your receipts, we'll be able to mark this project completed :) Because you'll be continuing The Wikipedia Library for another 6 months, we will go ahead and deduct the $556.83 that you have remaining from this project from your upcoming grant disbursement for that other project. No need for you to send these funds back in a separate transaction. Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)