Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Communications/Audience research

This page from the Wikimedia Foundation is kept for historical interest. Any plans, policies, projects, or strategies mentioned may be obsolete.

Audience research

Overview

• What we are doing
• Objectives
• Staying up to date

Team

Process

• Activities
• Timeline

Ways to participate

Research and notes

• Updates
• Findings

Frequently asked questions

Discussion

Feedback on Understanding of Audiences Map

Please leave feedback here for the "Understanding of Audiences Map". Feedback will be accepted through Friday, December 9th, 2016 before we create a second iteration.

• Influencers & supporters should go underneath in the Audience map since they can influence just about any point along the pipeline --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback, EGalvez (WMF). This was added in our second iteration MKramer (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why just Wikipedia? How does this map differ to Mediawiki as a standalone product? They have a VERY different audience from the projects. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Also curious about this, and I'd also love to know more about the Builders. Is this a map specifically about en.wiki or does the governance described here also apply for other language wikis? AGomez (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I would assume it applies to all, and that it is simply impractical to give all the logos (File:Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg - most uptodate version). We could use just the Wikimedia logo (File:Wikimedia_logo_text_RGB.svg), or stick with just Wikipedia (and add a footnote asserting it represents all Wikimedia projects), or perhaps create a denser (overlapping?) variant of the logo family image. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
      • It applies to all language versions of Wikipedia, but not the other projects under the umbrella. We should make this more clear. We needed to start somewhere, and we picked Wikipedia based on total pages, content pages, and audience size. But we can think of this map as a model that could be useful for any number of projects and/or audiences. If we pick a different project - let's say, Wiktionary - do all of these roles hold true? Are there additional roles? Are there roles missing? I would be very interested in testing this model against other projects, to see where there are gaps or if it's a model that can work for all projects. (And if not, I'd be really curious about the differences, because it may mean we have to change the way the map looks or functions. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Bureaucrats should enter as "influencers" - they have a lot of oversight and I believe work directly with WMF to implement policies -- I would check with SuSa to double check. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the term you're thinking of is "functionaries" (with stewards as the primary example), however I don't think they fit the definition of Influencer used in the diagram. I believe we should replace "bureaucrats" with "functionaries", and leave it where it is currently located; They're a part of the internal volunteer community that build (& maintain) the projects. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Quiddity (WMF). I meant to say "infrastructure stewards". I think some of those users have quite a bit of oversight on the projects and should be recognized as such. Hooray for words we can use to talk about things :) --EGalvez (WMF) (talk)

• Thanks for this feedback, User:Quiddity (WMF) and EGalvez (WMF). We saw "bureaucrats" as a term that encompassed other roles on the site, but I don't think that's correct based on your feedback. I will recommend changing "bureaucrats" to the term "functionaries." Question for you: Does the terms functionary include bureaucrats, or do you see them fitting in somewhere else? I want to make sure people who volunteer and have oversight are represented in the correct way.

• In the "Distributors" section, I think you are missing something like "Access facilitators" -- librarians or other kinds of people, who actively enable the "Users" to read and engage with the material more complexly (and as influencing the deep learners in particular, but also others). Also in that group could be folks like the social media sharers: the folks who actively comment on and draw attention to our content. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• • +1 to fitting Librarians/Teachers in there somewhere, and naming them Access facilitators. I think the 'social media sharers' would essentially fit under the existing 'bloggers' (I like the oldschool terminology! [i used Blogger when it first came out]), so perhaps that group should just be renamed. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• • • Agreed. Added as a recommendation. Thanks for the feedback! MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• there was a middle school teacher at wikimania 2015, who sat in on the education panels. teachers tend to see wikimedia as digital humanities - so they would be stewards, and information seekers. there is some GLAM overlap - i.e. GLAM is a type of editor. you might want to have an "open knowledge" philosophy dimension.98.163.68.171 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the editor space you are missing a vital part of the ecoystem: content maintainers: the folks who do anti-vandalism work, fix commas, debate policies, make sure its categorized properly etc. I would split the "Active text contributors" into two groups: content text contributors, and this second group: the bulk of our editor "core" is in this second group, while active text contribution is a more healthy mix of new, medium and deep experience folks. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • • • You're right! Thanks for the feedback, and I will add this as a recommendation. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm interested in why Kiwix readers and other types of consumers are separated. Is it that they're Offline consumers? Does that include people through the Kiwix app as well as others reusing the software? This one doesn't fit for me because I'm not sure why it's separated. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I've added this as a recommendation. Completely agree. Going to suggest 'Offline readers' as a way to encompass anyone accessing offline. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• DannyH (WMF) pointed out that in this diagram, it looks like there's no way to "use" Wikipedia except through "distributors," but people can come directly to the site. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • +1, there should be yellow arrows coming out of the Wikipedia globe and going directly to the "Use" section. Maybe just top-align the "Distribute" section, to give space for the new arrows. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching that! Will update!!! MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Swap the order of 1&2 in group C ('trolls' are a subset and minority of 'vandals'). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I've added this as a recommendation. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Where would other Free Software/Free Culture orgs (ones that neither fund us or receive funding from us) fit into this diagram? I'm thinking of examples like Internet Archive, Mozilla, EFF? Are they "global influencers"? And is the Wikipedia Education Foundation accounted for here? Are they an "affiliate", perhaps? Thanks, Jtmorgan (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this might be another bucket in the Influence section actually: something in the range of "Movement institutional allies" with groups like "implicit allies" who are working on similar policy spaces, "parntered orgs" -- folks like Google and IA who provide movement support without deep contribution, and "contributing orgs" folks who actively fund, edit, or develop the projects (thinking folks like Genewiki or regular funders, with mission focused support). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Audience Stakeholder Framework

Please leave feedback here for the Audience Stakeholder Framework. Feedback will be accepted through Friday, December 9th, 2016 before we create a second iteration.

• This diagram is super useful to see. Thanks for putting it like this. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Why are infrastructure stewards so low in the "institutional/individual" scale? --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Can you explain how this diagram shows "which ones might lead to additional audience growth."? Which ones are intended to be the top audiences to focus on? --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Piggybacking on that, it'd be really interesting to see some examples of how these different diagrams might be used to highlight audiences. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• I guess this is true for both diagrams, but there's no representation of the fact that individuals may belong in more than 1 audience and it's more striking in this one to me. I guess because the circles here are meant to represent size of group, it becomes more apparent. AGomez (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with that. Technically "program leaders" are in all the audiences and not really stand alone. --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, everyone in the sections "Volunteers", "Financiers", and "Infrastructure Stewards" are also deep in the Consume/Use side of the diagram! (Editors are always amongst the most active readers). That's just an inherent limitation of both bucketing and 2-dimensional maps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• One more thought - I'm wondering about more dimensions of these bubbles. I feel like there should be others we would want to explore (not sure which, but I'm sure there are plenty!) --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Staff shouldn't be larger than affilaites - affiliates have their own members and donors. So they should be larger :) --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Depends on the measure. If we go by paid-staff-members, I would guess the WMF is larger than affiliates combined. (?) I agree the image does need a "items are not to scale" disclaimer, though! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this one is really tricky, and you're right there are many people who would appear in multiple places. There are other ways to group these - we thought of the ones listed here, and I'm sure there are more....We were thinking of these in terms of the action the category is most likely to take, realizing that there's likelihood that people might appear in multiple buckets under different categories. If you have any thoughts for how to convey that people might appear in multiple buckets, please let me know! It's important to indicate that. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Other feedback that's not specifically about a draft framework

If you have any other feedback, please place it here!

• Sorry for so many questions! I have just one more. We often use the word "community" to describe people do help us toward our mission. I am wondering how might this research change how we use that term? One guess is that everything to on the "contribute" side of the framework could be the "Wikimedia communities". --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Weekly updates?

"Stay up to date" states that there are weekly updates on the mailing list which is not the case. Do you plan to remove this item, or better update it if there are other places where to follow activity? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)