User talk:MPinchuk (WMF) (usurped)

Feedback on the mobile site?

Hello there! I've just been using the mobile site; it's very good, but I have a request about it. Your userpage says you are no longer involved with the mobile site; perhaps you could point me to someone who is? (Or should I just file a bug?) Thanks! Ignatzmice•talk 12:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My 2¢ on your current project: I am opposed to the idea of Flow. But oh well.

You should probably just file a bug as it will then be in the system and tracked. The new PM for mobile is Keenan Wang but I don't think he has much of a presence on enwiki.

Regarding your thoughts on Flow: it's best to have actionable or constructive feedback. "I oppose this" doesn't provide either.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ignatz The mobile team is very responsive to bugs, so that's usually the best way to go. You can also email the mobile mailing list, mobile-l

lists.wikimedia.org. Lastly, there's IRC: #wikimedia-mobile ^connect. Hope that helps! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations behind editing Wikipedia

Maryana, I'm highly interested in retaking your research on why people edit Wikipedia. I think it was a great first step but the sample size is way too small to consider the findings significant. I strongly believe that we need to find out several things:

What compels someone to make their first edit?
What compels someone to make their subsequent first edits?
What compels people to remain editing Wikipedia?
What compels people to donate to Wikipedia?

This research needs to be done on a larger sample size. Considering that the WMF is a 501(c)(3) and that it has enough funds, perhaps we can pursue a federal grant to achieve this in conjunction with San Francisco State University? (as WMF is located in San Francisco) Federal grants are listed on grants.gov and there are several that can be pursued by WMF—such as those sponsored by the Department of Education (since Wikipedia educates people), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (since Wikipedia behaves like a library), the National Endowment for the Humanities, and so on.

We can bring in User:Ocaasi (another researcher), User:Anne Delong (a librarian), and anyone else interested on this matter.

The reason for this is that we need to find out first, without any single doubt, what compels people to then build the proper programs to foster such motivations. This first step is key for everything else. Right now we are just shooting without really knowing where we should aim at. We call this market research on the corporate world, which is something that, INEXPLICABLY, the WMF is not doing.

This idea is sparked by the phenomenon of User:Anne Delong which has and is defying our judgement on why people remain active. Her background is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Reviewing the Anne Delong phenomena.

Please let me know if you are interested in moving this forward.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the Wikimedia Foundation itself has grants. They choose new recipients every six months. I am on the committee, although I haven't done much yet. I am finding this whole thing embarrassing, and I wish that you would refer to me in a "neutral, encyclopedic tone"! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnoneemoos, while I do think more studies on new editor motivations would be valuable, it's important to be aware of survivor bias. Any qualitative study of new users who've gone on to become successful Wikipedians is going to be limited in what it can tell us about how to turn people who aren't, for whatever reason, "naturally" inclined to edit into productive contributors with various help and outreach programs. The Wikimedia Foundation is also not the best-equipped institution for the job. We aren't a research think-tank or a neutral, unbiased team of academic researchers – we're a tiny nonprofit that runs a very popular website ;) I'd suggest pitching this to the folks at Individual Engagement Grants and/or reaching out to Wikipedia researchers (there are many of them!) and getting them excited about the idea of running this kind of study.

Also, agreed with Anne that your tone comes off as a tad bit problematic. In particular, it strikes me as strange that you find it so "phenomenal" that a woman librarian would become a Wikipedian; we have several of them... Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are of course all phenomenal; just perhaps not as unusual as the OP suggests ;) Anyway, User:Ahnoneemoos, you might take a look at the research index on meta that Maryana linked if you are interested in research on Wikimedia projects. There's a very large independent research community, not all housed at the WMF, and there are lots of people who are interested in motivation. It's not quite as simple as simple 'market research' because our community is so complex, and there are many, many variables for what affects anyone's individual experience, but I agree with you that there are many important questions to be investigated. We're not going to get easy answers, though :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yeah, that's what market research is exactly.. any organization involving humans is complex by nature, wether it is Wikipedia or something else. Don't place Wikipedia so high. =P —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the study would not be focused on "users who have become successful". The study would focus on what motivates people to contribute to Wikipedia, wether they are considered successful or not. Did you read the four points I listed above? None of them mention successful editors. Regarding WMF, no, I disagree, WMF is the perfect institution to do this as (1) it has a surplus, (2) it provides grants specifically for this, (3) it is in WMF's best interests to research this, and (4) it is full of people that understand Wikipedia. Notice too that the research would be done in conjunction with San Francisco State University. This is what we call principal investigators (PIs) while WMF will simply provide the human capital for subject matter experts on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can point me to who manages research on WMF? It seems you are unfamiliar with how research is conducted at the academic level with non-profits. Regarding Anne, I don't find it phenomenal that a librarian became a Wikipedian. I find it phenomenal that someone who did not receive any support from one whole week and that was highly frustrated with Wikipedia because of that was capable of becoming a highly successful editor after WP:WER and WP:TEAHOUSE intervened. Do you see the value of the "Anne phenomenon" now? It is not about Anne, it is about the initiatives that we have built and the results these have and can yield. The "Anne phenomenon" is a marketing term geared towards the layperson, our donators. Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how you have reacted to this as someone who is paid to be a Product Manager and paid to drive a product forward. Thanks for your reply anyway, I won't be contacting you further. Good luck in your future endeavors. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What makes you more likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
"What makes you less likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011

"The motivations of highly active Wikipedians", Wikimania 2012 talk

Interesting discussion. I think we're not totally clueless about motivation. Thanks for the link to the wikimania 2012 talk! --Atlasowa (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that kind of research is that it is based on a survey and the questions, and its answers, are preconceived. Henry Ford once said that if he would have asked people what they wanted they would have asked for a better horse. He invented a car instead. We need to do the same on Wikipedia. We can't be constrained to pre-conceived notions. We need to let our editors speak freely and then interpret that in a way that help us build a better product. It's kinda similar to what Steve Jobs did. He listened to everyday people, and didn't run any focus groups whatsoever. Still a good start anyway, thanks brosef. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the charts. They were quite interesting.

Wikiprojects interested in assisting with Flow's first release

The Core features team is looking for a few WikiProjects to collaborate with on building and testing the first release of Flow. If you'd like to be part of the Flow pilot sometime in December, please let me know here.

Here a few quick links and answers:

Timeline: WP:Flow#Roadmap
Pilot release specifications: WP:Flow/MVP
Our collaboration plans: WP:Flow/Community engagement
Other FAQs (slightly outofdate): WP:Flow/FAQ

Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

I must say I was quite surprised to read this about ideological disagreement. I thought that 'framing Wikipedia processes in the engineering-centric "workflow" way' was exactly what the overarching Flow project was all about: am I wrong, or have you changed your mind about the risk that it will 'cement this trend toward automatization, and, in the process, kill the spark of humanity and community'? If I have misunderstood, then perhaps Wikipedia talk:Flow is the place to make it clearer to me and the other users, because that's the basis on which I've been making various suggestions. If there's no misunderstanding and it's just that you've changed your mind, then nothing much needs to be said. Spectral sequence (talk)