Wikimedia Polska/Gap and Risk analysis
 | This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
Gap analysis and risk analysis for the Polish community of Wikimedians - as a foundation of the existence and activities of the Wikimedia Polska Association. Version 1.0 - May 2018.
Foreword
[edit]Creator community is incredible: these people created the top encyclopediae in their languages - they wrote them, they manage them and they keep updating them. Yet, there are limits of what you can ask the online volunteers in the modern world - they are humans who have jobs, schools, families, and other responsibilities; they also have their needs and feelings. Thus, an institutional muscle supporting the volunteers was established.
Following [possibly compehensive] analysis presents: particular dimensions, identified gaps inherent for the modern online activity, connected risks, and possible solutions to the problems found.
The next step is: establishing priorities, matching metrics, monitoring if the gaps are filled in an anticipated matter, repeat!
| # | Dimension | Gap | Risk | Solution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Online-activity
Creators edit in their free time, using own resources. |
Limited set of positive stimuli.
Lack of traditional positive feedback: (monetary, career building, interpersonal contacts...) |
Burn-out of existing volunteers
Difficulty with gaining and keeping new ones |
Appreciation
Acts of recognition, online e.g. Wikiwyzwanie, off-line e.g. Winter meet-up, annual WMPL conference |
| A2 | Distributed organization
Leadership is distributed. pl wikis created their own rules, customs, hierarchies etc. |
Management is outsourced to the volunteers.
Coordination requires effort of the whole community, especially of self-emerging leaders. |
Online debates sometimes visibly more difficult
and heated than offline. Democratic/meritocratic process can get stalled. High tension can build up, leading to burn-outs, lost volunteers, splits etc. |
Assistance with coordination
Meet-ups, workshops and conferences when needed Additional venues of internal communication |
| A3 | Community Health
Lack of direct personal contacts may lead to elevated tensions among the users. |
Lack of face to face contact.
Lowered empathy in Internet |
Lowered quality of participation (arguments, impaired
communication) and lowered productivity leading to burn-outs, lost time, quality and volunteers themselves. Possibility of making to the media. |
Searching for Human Side
Meet-ups, workshops and conferences when needed (people who met show a better understanding of each other, they also have a new venue to discuss and (re)solve issues). Appreciation and other good stimuli e.g. Wikimarathons |
| B1 | Overlapping generations
New generations enter wikiprojects and need to onboard, oldcomers remain or leave |
WM base on free time: we keep high retention but
the volunteers move on with their lives. WM UX and values are increasingly different than modern Internet standards. WM became increasingly complex and bureaucratic |
Being a voice of one, slowly decaying Internet generation
(heavy users starting in late '90s, beginning of 200x). Inability to attract new people, lost connection with readers and partners, impaired relevance, lack of quality due to low editor base and outdated tools, missed opportunities |
Blending new communities into old crowds
Promoting and teaching Wikimedia in new demographies (new generations of students, hobbysts, scholars...) Promoting a better environment to keep the volunteers Initiatives to keep old and newcomers together |
| B2 | Values
Wikis have been found on particular principles, including: openness, free licences and equity |
Contemporary Internet and IT revolve around different
values: privacy monetization, propretriary software, disregard for copyright or highly tight "IP protection", decreasing quality and a care about truth etc. |
Newcomers not attracted to Wikiprojects
Difficulties to onboard Tensions, competing projects |
Negotiating values?
Values, needs and users deserve a good representation Promoting wikivalues outside Showing other trends and demographies inside (conferences, blogs, trainings, outreach) |
| B3 | Remaining relevant - UX
MediaWiki websites are more and more behind a regular Internet experience. |
UX Gaps: in terms of writing, handling multimedia,
discussion, database search, advanced tools... |
Loss of volunteer time (potential volunteers, burden on
existing ones). Frustration. We can't have nice things |
More solutions needed
Passing the problem upstream (community wishlists, WMF, partners etc.) Upkeep of WMPL Toolserver Trainings, handouts etc. |
| B4 | Remaining relevant - personal reward
Over 1.25 mil articles on pl.wiki |
Victims of own success? Low-hanging fruits collected:
articles created, quality standards increasing, entry threshold gets steeper and steeper. |
Personal satisfaction stemming from the
participation may decrease, necessary efforts may increase with time leading to a shrinking volunteer base. |
Keeping the Wikimedia rewarding
Novel forms of participation New personal goals. Appreciation. Easining participation Communication of the importance of contribution. E.g. photo contests (WLM, Wikiwakacje) wp contests like Wikiwyzwanie, Zabawa edycyjna, |
| B5 | Remaining relevant III
New editors less willing to join the association |
Early editors found a need to "unionize" and create
the association. Later members may not feel this need. Vast majority of the active WMPL members are experienced Wikimedians (which is good in terms of retention but a majority of new e.g. Wikipedians do not respond to invitations. |
WMPL increasingly detached from the volunteer base:
not representing their POV and not answering their needs. Volunteers not using help and opportunities available. Missing global contacts and context. |
Reach out to Wikimedians
Internal communication (e.g. newsletter) Meeting and listening to various communities (e.g. Źródłosłów for Wiktionarians and Wikisourcers) scholarships for WM events like Wikimania |
| C1 | Quality gaps
Quality standards evolve and propagate slowly, unevenly |
Many articles still do not include proper citations,
writing or a quality check, or remained stubs. Multimedia quality highly uneven. Major topics may not meet needs of e.g. pupils. |
Substandard UX
Reputational risk, esp. in mass media, social media Loss of readers/users, volunteers, partners, donors |
Encourage targeted growth??
Support initiatives like WP:PopArt and WP:PANDA. Support bug hunts like WP:BATUTA. Reach out to partners; provide good PR. Provide detailed quality gaps analyses? |
| C2 | Content gaps
Grassroot encyclopedia lacks an editorial board. Volunteers "scratch their itch" |
Topics are covered "unevenly"/in a different manner
than in a traditional encyclopedia: function of coolness, availability, current rules, community and some luck => biases Needs of readers are an afterthought. At best. |
Wikiprojects don't meet significant needs of their users.
Stagnant/Declining readership. Limited relevance. |
Targeted outreach and content acquisition
(edit-a-thons, messaging, contests, partnerships) E.g. Wikipedia też jest kobietą (Wikipedia Is A Woman Too), WMCEE Spring, GLAM editathons), language gaps, geo gaps e.g. with Wikiexpeditions pl.wikipedians provided their list of core articles but ToDo: readers' needs survey would be nice to have |
| C3 | Volunteer gaps
Not only only very few people edit, some demographies (women, elders...) are even scarcer than others. |
As in many other WM and Internet hobby projects,
participants are predominantly male, with a rather middle class background, usually in the age of 2x - 4x. [deeper research would be useful] |
Many potential editors may be lost
Additional systemic bias and gaps in the content may be introduced. Partnerships or reinventing ourselves less probable |
Targeted outreach and content acquisition
(edit-a-thons, messaging, contests, partnerships) Also: Art + Feminism, gender gap outreach events in Warsaw, university projects, age gap... Drawback: students etc. tend to have low retention, work with hobbysts might be more longlasting |
| D1 | Content acquisition - org burden
Physical content acquisition is burdersome. It requires more work with a strong offline element, often extra costs (e.g. travel, entrance, insurance, equipment), planning.. |
Wiki projects outsource the costs to the volunteers | Content and quality gaps due to a major effort required | Easing the burden
Help with financial, organisational etc. costs e.g. Wikiexpeditions format, microgrants programme |
| D2 | Content acquisition - institutions
Quality content from the institutions usually requires permissions and co-operation (e.g. even if you want take pictures in a museum and its allowed, the regular lighting etc. makes the quality highly impaired). |
Volunteer time seldom available in particular cities, in office hours.
Institutions require a stability and a legal entity to partner. The seek opportunities: publicity, reach, expertise, funds... |
Important content permanently missing from Wikimedia
Low credibility, impaired quality and readership |
Dedicated partnerships person(s)
Able to run several partnerships, leverage on it (utilizing expertise, staff, content, venues, connections, credibility etc. of our partners) as well as provide proper service to the partners and co-operate/co-ordinate the volunteers GLAM conference in Poland, GLAM events, eg |
| D3 | Content acquisition - process
Content needs to be integrated and used: assessed, uploaded, described, verified, linked etc. |
Media files are just a beginning.
Proper evaluation, description, upload and usage are highly time consuming. The process is a big burden for both the volunteers and the partners (like GLAMs). |
Important content permanently missing from Wikimedia
Inability to use and show the media and data from both individual and institutional collections |
Content acquisition assistance
Matchmaking volunteers and partners. Co-ordination and assistance. Tech solutions, e.g. supporting PattyPan |
| E1 | External world - lack of understanding
Wikimedia rationale and modus operandi remain moderately understood by mass media, users, and institutions |
Media Education is limited in Poland, and principles of
Wikimedia are seldom present. General Public not fully aware of free licenses or models of content creation we use and promote. |
Missing out volunteers and partnerships.
Bad PR. |
Public Relations
Reactive: spokesman actions (by a spokesman or a volunteer sent) Proactive messaging, e.g. WMPL Blog |
| E2 | External world - lack of trust
Lack of understanding, quality gaps and missteps should lead to suspicions and some bad press |
Wikimedia are novel, esp. for institutions (GLAM, Academia)
and overzealous more traditional media. People we need tend to mistrust things they do not understand. |
Missing partnerships and users, content not uploaded,
not verified, and not used. Loss of relevance. |
Public Relations
Also outreach actions, conferences, partnerships |