Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Summary July 10 to 16

Translate this page

This is a short summary overview of the Source pages on Meta from 10th to 16th July of Cycle 3 discussion. Shortcuts used here rely on the established language and project code and languages are grouped alphabetically. For example, the Arabic language Wikipedia is Ar. To provide a rough sense of activities on the projects and platforms the Source pages summarize, the full summary by community text indicates how many source statements were available and therefore taken into account at the time of writing. (3s), for example, means 3 statements were available on the referenced source page at the time the summary was drafted.

Week 1 Challenge: How do our communities and content stay relevant in a changing world?

Key insights

The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of all people who want to learn.

Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.

Contributors on Arabic Wikipedia (5s) discussed that the encyclopedia model should not be changed (§Ar1.1) while we should try to serve more people by improving the mobile app (§Ar1.3), by using Artificial Intelligence (§Ar1.4) and by promoting Wikipedia in low-awareness regions. (§Ar1.5)

On Bengali Wikipedia (12s), the community discussed that we are here to build an encyclopedia and we should not change our current model. (§Bn1.1) (§Bn1.3) We can remain relevant if we focus on quality of the content (§Bn1.10), outreach to spread awareness (§Bn1.6) and promoting our projects in social media. (§Bn1.9)

On Dutch Wikipedia (1s) it was discussed that Wikipedia does not need adapt to the needs of the young people. (§Nl1.1)

English Wikipedians (8s) discussed that we should focus on teaching with Wikipedia, (§En1.16) improving mobile interface, (§En1.19) active use of social media, (§En1.20) making navigation easier, (§En1.18) creating accurate information and delivering it to various audiences. (§En1.17)

On French Wikipedia discussion they suggested to reforming the lead section of articles,(§Fr1.11) (§Fr1.12) building widgets (§Fr1.16) for providing the quick answer. Participants also talked about trends that can change quickly (§Fr1.16) and increasing Wikimedia reach by using social networks. (§Fr1.17)

On Hebrew Wikipedia (5s) some people had concerns about the problem itself (§He1.3) while it was discussed that we should focus on adapting to other populations and (§He1.1) integrating with social networks. (§He1.2)

On Italian Wikipedia (10s), they talked about article rating system (§It1.11) and social media like chat in Wikipedia (§It1.18). Spending resource on social media got mixed comments. (§It1.12) (§It1.16)

Polish Wikipedia (3s) said that there are topics which are hard to describe shortly and briefly, therefore it cannot be cut into smaller pieces (§Pl1.13) and suggested that Wikipedia is good in providing deeper knowledge and does not need to support all educational needs of everyone. (§Pl1.15)

Members of Swedish Wikipedia (20s) community said that our work is to write an encyclopedia (§Sv1.4) (§Sv1.8) and we should focus on quality (§Sv1.1) and facts (§Sv1.2) while some adjustments can be done. (§Sv1.3) They also talked about creating a new project. (§Sv1.19)

Urdu community (7s) said that we should move beyond encyclopedia (§Ur1.15) and start new project (§Ur1.14) focused on audio-visual knowledge. (§Ur1.11)

Week 2 Challenge: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways?

Key insights

Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.

The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.

On Bengali Wikipedia (4s), the community raised concerns on the credibility (§Bn1.14), reliability (§Bn1.16) and trustworthiness (§Bn1.13) of the project which will arise if we include oral knowledge. (§Bn1.1)

Some English Wikipedians (13s) discussed that we should focus on creating reliable knowledge on Wikipedia (§En1.21) while there can be a different project for oral traditions (§En1.25) and grants should be provided to document oral knowledge. (§En1.34) Some other contributors said that we don't need to capture the sum of all human knowledge (§En1.28) and also that the outcome of this consultation has already been predetermined. (§En1.27)

On French Wikipedia discussion they urged that oral tradition is actually something very important to deal with. (§Fr1.30) One participant said that the bias exists, but it is that of the sources and not that of Wikipedia. (§Fr1.30) Most of the participants are in favor of using the current model and if necessary then we should create a new project.(§Fr1.37) (§Fr1.42) (§Fr1.46)

German Wikipedians (6s) said that there should be a new project for primary sources. (§De1.22) While one contributor talked about oral citations (§De1.23) while another contributor said that this will violate many of our policies. (§De1.24)

During Hindi Wikipedia WhatsApp discussion (9s), a user mentioned Wikilore and said that there should be new project (§Hi1.8) where readers/writers can verify the oral knowledge (§Hi1.9) where a rating system can be introduced to know how many people trust a source. (§Hi1.10) We should keep a check on paid editors (§Hi1.12) and trolls (§Hi1.11) and that the majority does not decide everything. (§Hi1.13) While in Hindi community one-on-one discussions (8s) community members talked about documentation of oral cultures in text (§Hi2.15) and audio-visual formats. (§Hi2.17) They also talked about hiring reviewers (§Hi2.20) and starting a new project. (§Hi2.19)

On Italian Wikipedia (11s), participants suggested about oral citation is that before they can be used on Wikipedia oral sources need be recorded/written down somewhere else so that they become verifiable. (§It1.25) The important thing here is to make sure they are both reliable. (§It1.25)

Meta-Wiki (10s) participants suggested to use WMF grants to support oral knowledge and then using the text as a source. (§Meta1.31) Though participants also suggested that if WMF want's to use oral sources, that must be in a new project, not in a Wikipedia (§Meta1.35) and talked about partnerships. (§Meta1.36) Some also said that this kind of interview should go to projects other than Wikipedia. (§Meta1.37)

Polish Wikipedia (8s) those who raised concern about this argued that we need the quality, not the amount. (§Pl1.19) The other party said that the issue is if the author and/or place of publication is trustworthy (§Pl1.21).

On Spanish Wikipedia (3s) it was discussed that we should include other sources (§Es1.3) such as oral histories. (§Es1.5) Problems within the community were also pointed out. (§Es1.4) While on the Spanish speaking community Telegram chat (8s), the community stressed on using oral (§Es2.17) and audio sources. (§Es2.18) They also talked about digitization of sources (§Es2.23) and using our sister projects for adding new sources. (§Es2.23)

Urdu community (1s) member said that oral cultures and oral knowledge should be documented by making documentaries. (§Ur1.18)

On Vietnamese Wikipedia (3s) it was discussed that our interface should be improved, (§Vi1.3) and AI should be used to improve user experience. (§Vi1.5) We should also think about balanced writing and frequent fact-checking. (§Vi1.5)

On Wikidata discussion (2s) community talked about increasing the range of our sources, (§D1.4) and not insisting on having sources in the project language. (§D1.5)