User:Jalexander-WMF/Sandbox

Chaddy

Response by Chaddy 04:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Chaddy auf die Hauptfrage

Using bots for more than meta work (especially generating article stubs) is the wrong way. It will perspectively destroy the communities and reduce trust in our contents. Also you can not reconcile this with the basic idea of Wikipedia. Thus I strongly oppose approach six.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Chaddy

2

Geolina163

Response by Geolina163 11:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Geolina163 auf die Hauptfrage

2+3.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Geolina163

...hier schreiben...

AlexChirkin

Response by AlexChirkin 11:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

AlexChirkin — ответ на насущные вопросы

...пишите здесь…

AlexChirkin — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

1 and 3 approaches.

Gereon K.

Response by Gereon K. 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Gereon K.'s response to the critical question

Access to knowledge and spreading knowledge is essential and existential for Wikimedia projects. A proven successfull way to do this and mutually benefitial are partnership programs such as GLAM.

Gereon K.'s top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Most important in my humble opinion: Approach two.

Hans50

Response by Hans50 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Hans50 auf die Hauptfrage

...Ansatz 2...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Hans50

...Ansatz 3 und 5...

First Light

Response by First Light 12:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First Light's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approaches 2 and 4

Aldebaran

Response by Aldebaran 13:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Aldebaran's response to the critical question

Do not make the "technological jungle" sorrounding Wikipedia so dense that human contributers (apart from the most experienced script- and template-wizards) lose the ability to make corrections/improvements. Incomplete and excessive Wikidata-harvesting that are "showed down our throats" through infoboxes are an example of contributer-unfriendly solutions. We need every (human) contributors we can get, so adapt the technology to the contributors instead of trying to force contributors to adapt to the technology. I contribute beacause I want to write articles, so trying to "force" me to waste my time on filling in Wikidata-forms (to remove garbage from the articles) are very disencouraging and demotivating - to say the least. But then again - maybe it's just me?

I share Aldebaran's concern about the density of the technological jungle. The more dense, the smaller number of people can contribute. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Aldebaran's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach Two and Three. Absolutely NOT approach six, since this will ruin content quality and alienate (human) contributers. I assume human contributers are still wanted, even though we produce a lot more noise and friction than bots and automated "brave new" solutions?

Marcus Cyron

Response by Marcus Cyron 13:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Marcus Cyron auf die Hauptfrage

Der ganze Ansatz ist falsch. Hört auf nach den Leser zu schielen (zumal, liebe WMF, ihr ohnehin nur nach den Spendern schaut und für euch jeder Leser potentiell Geld für euch haben könnte), schaut auf die Beitragenden. Denn die machen die qualitative Arbeit, die das Projekt groß gemacht haben. Ihr könnt eh keinen Einfluß auf die Inhalte nehmen. Und laßt uns Beitragende in Ruhe unsere Sachen machen. Wie "Snippets" die Qualität (!!!) verbessern sollten erschließt sich mir nicht. Wikipedia ist nicht Google und das sollten wir auch nicht anstreben. Soll Google für die Schnellsucher sein, wir sind für die, die echte, umfassende Informationen wollen. Wir stehen in keinem Wettbewerb. Auch wenn die WMF das immer wieder vergißt: wir sind kein Unternehmen und wie Freiwilligen keine Angestellten. Das ist ein Freiwilligenprojekt. Wir könnten das weitestgehend ohne euch 200 bezahlte Leute in Frisco machen. Also hört auf zu denken, es geht um euch. Als Beitragender fühle ich mich von euch wirklich miserabel behandelt. Und nun soll ich für euch noch Probleme lösen, die für mich gar keine sind?!

The whole concept is wrong. Stop looking for readers (especially as you, dear WMF, rather look for donors, and every reader may have some money for you), look for the contributors. They are doing the quality work, that made this project big. You can't have any influence on the content anyway. And leave us contributors alone with doing our stuff. How Snippets could improve the quality (!!!) is beyond my comprehension. Wikipedia is not Google, and should not desire to be. Leave the quick-searcher for Google, we are for those, who look for real, comprehensive information. We are in no competition. Even if the WMF tenbds to forget time and again: wie are no company, and we volunteers are no employees. This is a volunteer project. We could manage essentially without you 200 paid people in Frisco. So stop thinking, this is about you. As a contributor I feel treated quite shabby by you. And now I'm supposed to solve your problems for you, that are none for me?!

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής

Response by Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής 13:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's response to the critical question

Approach One, Approach two

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

I think a more friendly user platform, with more multimedia elements combining a variety of the wikimedia projects is in need.

Amage9

Response by Amage9 14:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Amage9 à la question critique

...répondez ici... Approche 6

Top 2-3 de Amage9 (ou partagez vos idées)

...répondez ici...Revoir la notion de notoriété il y a une trop grande différence d'appréciation entre le domaine sportif et les scientifiques.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Review the concept of reputation there is too great a difference of opinion between the sports sector and scientists.

Devopam

Response by Devopam 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Devopam's response to the critical question

It is time that we look at new (read yet unsupported/discouraged) forms of knowledge acquisition and sharing.

Devopam's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

1

Kertraon

Response by Kertraon 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Kertraon à la question critique

• Faire un résumé accessible, en vocabulaire simple, accessible à tous, dans un cartouche visible et attractif.
• L'environner de différents supports (divers média) de transmission de connaissance : vidéo, textes, présentations power point ou autres, pdf, divers formats, images variées.

Translation courtesy of DragonflySixtyseven

• Make a summary which is accessible, in simple language, and understandable by everyone, in an attractive-looking box on the screen.
• Surround it with different forms of knowledge transmission: video, text, powerpoint presentations, pdfs, other file formats and various images.

Top 2-3 de Kertraon (ou partagez vos idées)

• Approche 7: Vos idées. --> (vers l'approche 1) Résumés accessibles et attractifs. Que le premier paragraphe du résumé soit toujours en vocabulaire simple et accessible, éventuellement dans un cartouche attractif. Pluralité de contenu : encourager des média variés, vidéos, images, présentations, schémas animés... à plusieurs endroits.
• Approche 1: Proposer des outils faciles à utiliser et des incitations à contribuer au contenu multimédia et à de courts extraits de textes afin de bénéficier aux utilisateurs de mobiles et de recherches rapides.

Cordialement, Kertraon (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation courtesy of DragonflySixtyseven

• Approach #7: your ideas. (relative to approach #1) Accessible and attractive summaries. The first paragraph should always be in simple, easily-understood vocabulary, which can eventually be put in an attractive box. The majority of the content: encourage various forms of media, videos, images, presentations, animated diagrams, etc, in many places.
• Approach #1: propose easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute to the multimedia content, and to short textual extracts, in order to benefit mobile users and rapid searches.

Wereldburger758

Response by Wereldburger758 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wereldburger758's response to the critical question

...write here…

Wereldburger758's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

What is missing is the lack of tools to edit large amounts of data at once. An example: the media in this category: Category:Jetphotos.net_photos_(credit_bar) could be dealt with in a automatic fashion .... if there was a tool to do so. The files are that similar that changing the files in bulk is an option but there is not a tool out there to do so, in my knowledge. That means that one has to edit these files one at a time. Extremely labor costly. Wereldburger758 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge

Response by Ynanchu alp bilge 14:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ynanchu alp bilge — ответ на насущные вопросы

Поддерживаю второй и третьи подходы.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Keep the second and third approaches.

Ynanchu alp bilge — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

...пишите здесь…

JoeHebda

Response by JoeHebda 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeHebda's response to the critical question

Better communication and training for existing experienced editors, especially if there are plans to modify article structures & formats. For example: article lead sections would automatically converted to snippets for mobile and tablet user devices. Also: using BOTs to re-structure articles.

JoeHebda's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums).

Even though I am not qualified to answer this question, to me it makes sense to partner with other knowledge-based organizations.

Approach seven: your idea.

Following up on Approach two above: Add a Main page footer (Navbox) with links to all partnering organizations. For example: Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, External links This Navbox would be similar for all partering organizations main/home page.

Miniapolis

Response by Miniapolis 15:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis's response to the critical question

...write here…

Miniapolis's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approaches three, four and five.

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick

Response by Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick à la question critique

Prendre un peu le dessus sur certains contributeurs qui ne voient pas plus loin que le bout de leurs nez et travailler à proposer des modèles communs à toutes les langues et internationalisables, ce qui va permettre d'utiliser massivement et réellement Wikidata, de fiabiliser notre contenu, de permettre aux contributeurs-rédacteurs de pouvoir travailler pleinement à leurs activités, ce qui va permettre de fournir beaucoup plus d'articles ayant dès leur création un bon niveau, ce qui va ramener un nombre plus grand de lecteurs. Nous devons encore être présent dans énormément de pays.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Take a little precedence over some contributors who do not see beyond the tip of their noses and work on proposing models common to all languages and internationalizable, which will allow the use of massive and really Wikidata, more reliable our content , to allow contributors-editors to fully work their activities, which will allow to provide many more items from their inception with a good level, which will bring a greater number of readers. We must still be present in a lot of countries.

Top 2-3 de Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (ou partagez vos idées)

• Approche 2 : Wikipédia (au sens large) doit se rapprocher du terrain et les contributeurs doivent délaisser leur ordinateur pour couvrir le maximum de sujet. GLAM permet d'être au plus prêt de l'information et de générer des articles complets, notamment grâce à des contributeurs pouvant travailler en tandem ou en équipe.
• Approche 7 : comme je l'explique dans mes précédentes interventions, le futur de Wikipédia c'est Wikidata. Nous avons déjà un certain recul dans le cyclisme, l'idée est que des contributeurs qui œuvraient auparavant sur les données travaillent presque exclusivement sur Wikidata pour en faire bénéficier toutes les autres versions linguistiques, et que les autres contributeurs au profil similaire en fasse de même, pour que les contributeurs/rédacteurs n'aient besoin que de s'occuper de rédiger le texte, sans passer les trois-quarts de leur temps à la mise en forme. Nous avons la main-d'œuvre nécessaire, il faut juste entreprendre un gros travail de réorganisation. Il faut donc éviter les erreurs du passé, et faire en sorte que des infoboxes soient communes à toutes les versions linguistiques par exemple. Bien entendu il y aura de fortes oppositions, pas forcément chez des actifs, mais la porte est toujours grande ouverte. On va devoir travailler sur des packages thématiques qui vont permettre de booster le développement de toutes les Wikipédias, donc nous fournir beaucoup plus de lecteurs, et donc statistiquement de donateurs. L'avenir de Wikipédia ne se fera pas sans travailler ensemble.

Machine translation; please help improve.

• Approach 2: Wikipedia (broadly defined) should be closer to the ground and contributors must leave their computer to cover the maximum issue. GLAM allows to be as ready information and generate full articles, thanks to contributors that can work in tandem or in teams.
• Approach 7: as I explain in my previous interventions, the future of Wikipedia is Wikidata. We already have a certain decline in cycling, the idea is that contributors who worked previously on the data on Wikidata work almost exclusively for the benefit of all the other language versions, and other contributors with a similar profile to do the same so that contributors / editors did need to take care of to write the text without the three-quarters of their time formatting. We have the necessary manpower, you just take a big reorganization of work. Therefore, avoid past mistakes and ensure that infoboxes are common to all language versions for example. Of course there will be strong opposition, not necessarily in active, but the door is still wide open. We'll have to work on thematic packages that will help boost the development of all the Wikipedias, so give us a lot more readers and thus statistically donors. The future of Wikipedia will not happen without working together.

TeriEmbrey

Response by TeriEmbrey 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

TeriEmbrey's response to the critical question

If the Foundation, could find ways to encourage the creation and expansion of stub articles that would be helpful in responding to changing knowledge needs.

TeriEmbrey's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

I would advocate for putting effort into "Approach two: Expand content faster through enabling community-led content partnership programs such as GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums)." GLAMs can be very helpful in filling in the documented knowledge gaps within Wikipedia. We can not expect GLAMs to be savvy of Wikipedia, its tools, and culture. The Foundation needs to expend staff and other resources to nurture these collaborations beyond their current state.

ONUnicorn

Response by ONUnicorn 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn's response to the critical question

Short snippets and diverse formats are both helpful, as is improved translation tools. Increasing access to difficult to access sources would be a huge benefit. Wikisource helps with that, as do various partnerships with libraries and subscription services. It would be great if the foundation could reach out to subscription sources to provide readers with the ability to verify content behind a paywall; perhaps limited snippets that verify what is linked on Wikipedia and ask them to pay for full access.ONUnicorn (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ONUnicorn's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach 1, 5, and 3.

FNDE

Response by FNDE 15:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von FNDE auf die Hauptfrage

1

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von FNDE

-> Wikidata.

Alarichall

Response by Alarichall 16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Alarichall's response to the critical question

...write here…

Alarichall's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

5 (top), 2 (second most important)

PalaciosBertolot

Response by PalaciosBertolot 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respuesta de PalaciosBertolot a la pregunta crítica

Para los aportantes o colaboradores, generar una herramienta de facil acceso que les permita ver otras aportaciones relacionadas al tema en el que quieren colaborar, así no duplicaran información y no se perdería objetividad. La calidad y el adecuado lenguaje que se usa siempre debe ser monitoreado por wikipedistas acreditados como expertos en el idioma usado y las posibles caracteristicas de cada idioma en la región de la que procede el colaborador. Para el caso de idiomas, facilitar un traductor en las herramientas del visitante

Machine translation; please help improve

For partners or contributors, generating a readily accessible tool that allows them to see other contributions related to the subject in which they want to collaborate, and not duplicate information and not lose objectivity. The quality and proper language used should always be monitored by Wikipedians accredited as experts in the language used and possible features of each language in the region from which the contributor. In the case of languages, provide a translator tool for visitors.

Las 2 o 3 mejores opciones de PalaciosBertolot (o comparte tu propia idea)

Las dos mejores opciones son: 02 y 03.

Machine translation; please help improve

The two best options are: 02 and 03.

Dmitry Dzhagarov

Response by Dmitry Dzhagarov 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Dzhagarov — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

Подход второй: быстрее создавать новые и обновлённые материалы за счёт управляемых сообществом партнёрских программ вокруг содержания, например (сотрудничество с редакциями научных журналов - чтобы они могли анонсировать, рекламировать в виде резюме (как в ScienceDaily, но короче и в уже имеющейся в Википедии статье - как развитие этой обзорной статьи) свои наиболее интересные публикации. Это привлечет научных работников.)

Machine translation; please help improve

the second approach: quickly create new and updated materials at the expense of the community managed affiliate programs around content, such as (cooperation with the editors of scientific journals - so that they can advertise, advertise in summary form (as in ScienceDaily, but shorter and existing Wikipedia article - as the development of this review article) his most interesting publications. This will attract scientists.)

MurielMary

Response by MurielMary 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary's response to the critical question

...write here…

MurielMary's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach 4 is definitely needed - people don't believe there is a gender gap unless there are hard facts and numbers to show it. Also there is the problem that people take the easy/lazy approach to responding to the problem by saying "but that's the gender gap in the real world, wiki just reflects the world as it is". This just isn't true - there are many notable women and women's organisations which aren't represented in world media or mainstream knowledge. wiki could be a place which seeks to redress the bias of knowledge in the world, rather than simply perpetuate the existing problems of skewed knowledge. If redressing the bias of knowledge became one of wiki's core goals, this would attract many editors in minority areas and really make a difference.

The gender gap is a symptom of a much more serious problem. Over time the rougher, ruder, territorial, aggressive editors have driven off a very large number of potentially good editors. When we get that under control we will have a more diverse population here. Zedshort (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad

Response by SageRad 19:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

SageRad's response to the critical question

Knowledge is very distorted in many articles by clear and present bias that has been gamed into the articles by editors with abilities to bully and harass and game the boards. So, we need integrity in all the processes and structures by which the policies and guidelines are supposed to be enforced. If we actually could employ the policies and guidelines, then we'd get better article with less POV pushing.

SageRad's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach four is good, but we also need to address systemic bias along axes other than gender. Gender is very important, but there are also systemic biases on other axes, such as the way in which certain forms of knowledge are highly favored and others are highly denigrated, not according to reliability but according to how "establishment" they are. There is a systemic bias that favors the general establishment, industry-aligned points of view, and "science" as a system of knowledge beyond what is warranted by its actual strengths and empirically proven abilities. We need true skepticism on Wikipedia, and better enforcement of the actual policies and guidelines -- not slanted interpretations of them.

Don-kun

Response by Don-kun 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Don-kun auf die Hauptfrage

Die sich abzeichnenden Trends sollte beobachtet werden, aber immer auch daraufhin geprüft, ob sie zu den bisherigen Projekten passen. Nicht jedes neue Bedürfnis der Leser muss bedient werden, manchmal machen dies andere Dienste besser und für Community-Projekte kann jede große Änderung zu Konflikten oder sogar Schaden am Projekt (Vandalismus durch einfaches mobiles Editieren) führen. Das sollte stets mitgedacht werden.

The looming trends should be monitored, but always should be checked whether they fit with the existing projects. Not every new desire by the readers must be served, sometimes other service providers do it better, and with community projects every big change can lead to conflicts or even damage to the project (vandalism through easy mobile editing). This should always be considered as well.

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Don-kun

2, 3, 4

Wikimpan

Response by Wikimpan 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimpan's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach 1 and 2. For 2, see my comment on “communities” question.

Approach 3 could be a good idea too — especially for detecting vandalism.

Worlddreamer

Response by Worlddreamer 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Worlddreamer's response to the critical question

...write here… Top choice approach 2, then 1 and 5. About approach 4, it sounds like censorship to me. While current content primarily should be bias free, not everything should be. Bigotry cannot be understood if we pretty up the hateful words that are used. And history shouldn't be rewritten to suit our comfort, how can we learn from our past if we erase the truth of what happened?

Worlddreamer's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

ArthurPSmith

Response by ArthurPSmith 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith's response to the critical question

In general machine-action can help expand accessibility (automatically creating short snippets or first-draft translated pages) but machine-written text is guaranteed NOT to improve content quality at this point in time. Improved tools for authoring and editing content are probably most important.

ArthurPSmith's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach one and three I think are most important here - enhance the ability of human editors to do good work.

Nickispeaki

Response by Nickispeaki 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Відповідь Nickispeaki на критичне питання

Залучати більше науковців і спеціалістів - це підвищить якість. Але одночасно треба проводити для них тренінги, випускати методички.

Machine translation; please help improve

Engage more scientists and specialists - it will improve quality. But also, time should be spent training them, so create more Manuals.

2-3 найважливіші підходи, на думку Nickispeaki (або запропонуйте власну ідею)

Підхід п'ятий: Підвищити охоплення в ключових мовних версіях за рахунок інструментів перекладу, а також людської праці. Підхід шостий: Дослідити шляхи масштабування автоматично генерованого, автоматично підтвердженого та автоматично підтримуваного контенту.

[Approaches 5 and 6]

Zedshort

Response by Zedshort 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zedshort's response to the critical question

...write here…

Zedshort's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

I have two mathematician friends that have been driven off of WP by the highly tenacious, territorial and aggressive persons that for some odd reason believe they know more than those with PhDs in pure and applied mathematics. We need to recognize that some have better preparation to write highly technical articles and to encourage those people to edit, or at a minimum to not discourage their participation. One way of facilitating those is to discourage the territorial type of editor who squats upon articles as if they own it. A simple method of pointing a finger at a “guarded” article and such a potential problematic editor needs to be implemented. Some of the more technical articles desperately need a very competent person to boldly delete whole sections of such articles and to rewrite what remains. This can be accomplished if we move to one side the more territorial editors who refuse to cooperate with the volunteer effort of WP.

The under representation of some communities is probably a function of their community's attitude toward personal responsibility and initiative. Some communities believe that they should always defer to the “experts” others are more capable of “taking command” and doing the work themselves. In the USA there is still a considerable disregard for experts and a strong streak of individualism and as a result the English WP is much more developed. We need to encourage people to show initiative and to discourage those who act in a territorial manner.Zedshort (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanglahi86

Response by Sanglahi86 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanglahi86's response to the critical question

A more user-friendly Edit and Upload interface in Wikipedia and Commons will help. Especially for new users, it is quite intimidating to edit a page filled with Rules and markup text. Also, provide more user-friendly tools such as those found in external softwares like Notepad++ (column-sorting for Bulleted lists and Table columns, aligning of Table entries, quickly find existing wikilinks, auto-add piped wikilink, etc.)

Sanglahi86's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

• Approach one: Provide easy-to-use tools and incentives to contribute multimedia content and short-form text to benefit mobile and quick lookup users.
• Approach three: Increase content quality and timeliness by technologically enhancing our editors’ ability to create, monitor, and process content.
• Approach four: Measure and reduce systemic gender and other bias in our overall content by project.

Manojnmims

Response by Manojnmims 22:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Manojnmims's response to the critical question

...write here…

Manojnmims's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

i want to share here that so many people have useless book, but this book must be helpfull for others. so how to connect with them from people to people is most important.

Seagull123

Response by Seagull123 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seagull123's response to the critical question

This could possibly be achieved by more actively encouraging readers (and possibly editors) to discuss the pages and projects they're reading. They could be asked to leave a comment on what they think about the page they're looking at and also (for some projects, especially the smaller ones) the actual project they're using - what they think about it and what they think could be improved from their perspective. I really like the link to the Wiktionary:Feedback page on English Wiktionary (visible to me when I'm logged out as a link in the sidebar as something like "leave us a message, if you want") which allows readers to provide feedback on pages from their, neutral perspective.

Seagull123's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approaches 1, 4 and 5. Especially with approach 1, with things like Google's Knowledge Graph and links to search Wikipedia on iOS's Spotlight Search. This, I think, is what Wikimedia should be trying to do itself. Wikimedia, could possibly, produce a search app for smartphones where users could search for something and get results from all Wikimedia projects (and possibly other Creative Commons licensed websites). So if I searched for New York in this app, I would get the lead section from the Wikipedia article to give me the basic information on New York, but I would also get a few images from Wikimedia Commons. I would also get a travel guide from Wikivoyage, news articles about it from Wikinews and quotes about New York from Wikiquote. But this wouldn't just be links, but instead, snippets from the articles arranged in some, nice looking arrangement with quotes and stuff. (I'm not explaining this clearly, am I?) This would both improve traffic to other, less well-known projects and help provide the reader with better knowledge as they won't just get a Wikipedia article (as they would if they Googled New York).

Ryan Hodnett

Response by Ryan Hodnett 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Hodnett's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

• Approach six
• Approach five
• Approach one

G41rn8

Response by G41rn8 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

G41rn8's response to the critical question

...write here…

G41rn8's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

3

JoshuaKGarner

Response by JoshuaKGarner 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

JoshuaKGarner's response to the critical question

This question simply covers too much. It is effectively, "how do we make Wikimedia projects better?" There's lots of ways. Also, simply encourage editors to be concise. As Shakespeare said, "brevity is the soul of wit."

JoshuaKGarner's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Approach three seems to be the most obvious approach. Many Wikipedia articles, for example, have outdated information. This should be remedied somehow. Approach six is intriguing, though I am skeptical of the potential effectiveness.

Knxwrtr

Response by Knxwrtr

Knxwrtr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Make it easier to edit. A lot of people have very specific and excellent knowledge but can be confused by the editing process. Knowledge specialists don't have time to sit down and read all there is to know about editing.

Two might be okay. I'm not sure what three means. Technologically enhance? Does this mean human or machine generated articles? Five is a good idea. I'm often stuck when I try to translate an article that is only written in one language that I don't know very well. I will never be behind six because I will never be behind machine-generated content. If we use this, what is the point of having a community that generates human-written content?

Missimack

Response by Missimack 04:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Missimack's response to the critical question

The Wikimedia Foundation should strive for the provision of up-to-date, unbiased, in-depth content. No short snippets: that would be counterproductive. A new focus should be placed on translating the best quality articles from each language to other languages, to bring the best we can offer to as wide an audience as possible.

Crazy1880

Response by Crazy1880 06:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Crazy1880 auf die Hauptfrage

Moin Moin zusammen, grunsätzlich gilt mal eines festzuhalten: Es gibt genügend lokales, überregionales und internationales Wissen, welches nutzbar ist. Allerdings können wir es hier nicht einbringen, weil die Wenigsten ein Verständnis für die richtige Einbringung und Nutzung haben. Mein Vorschlag, wenn man ihn so nennen wollte wäre, eine bessere Vernetzung mit den Heimat- und Verkehrsvereinen zu schaffen und diese direkt abzuholen. In vielen dieser Vereine liegen Ressourcen, die ohne Nutzung in der Versenkung verschwinden. Gerne kann ich weiteres direkt erläutern. mfg --Crazy1880 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, basically the folowing is to be noted: ""There is enough local, supraregional and international knowledge, that's usable. We only can't put it here, as only a few have an understanding about how to introduce and use it. My proposal, if you would call it as such, would be a better integration of historical societies and tourist offices, to get this knowledge direct from it's source. I'd like to explain further, if you wish.

Ядерный Трамвай

Response by Ядерный Трамвай 07:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ядерный Трамвай — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

Третий подход (будем оригинальнее). Хотя всё про то же: немного снизить сложность редактирования материалов. И пятый подход. Имеющийся механизм Перевода для МедиаВики сложен, путанен, но всё же содержит в себе здравую суть. Он не подходит для Википедии, так как в ней наиболее сильна роль местных сообществ среди всех проектов Викимедиа, но вот Интервики — правильный механизм. О, ещё второй! Информатизация архивного дела в, например, России, движется с черепашьей скоростью. Можно подключиться к этому системно и организованно со стороны Викимедиа.

Machine translation; please help improve

The third approach (be original). Although all about, too: a little editing to reduce the complexity of the material. And the fifth approach. The existing transfer arrangements for MediaWiki is complex, confusing, but still contains a sensible point. It is not suitable for Wikipedia, as it is the strongest part of local communities of all Wikimedia projects, but Interwiki - the right gear. Oh, even a second! Information of the archive in case, for example, Russia is moving at a snail's pace. You can connect to the systematic and organized by the Wikimedia Foundation.

QuixoticLife

Response by QuixoticLife 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

QuixoticLife's response to the critical question

In short: Measure what you know is already breaking, and use that data to fix the tools you know are already broken.

QuixoticLife's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

In order from highest priority, 4, 3, 1.

Four: You can't fix what you don't measure. And this needs to be fixed.

Three: Editors have been craving better tools for years. Surely some money can be allocated to this, at long last. (And yes, I know it's improved...but it's gone from circa 2005 to circa 2010...there's more work to be done!)

One: As mobile is on the rise globally and particularly in low-income communities and the Global South, making it easy to contribute via mobile is going to be key to facilitating quality content from diverse people (and non-diverse content is not quality content).

Jobrjobr

Response by Jobrjobr 08:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jobrjobr's response to the critical question

Approach one and Approach three.

Jobrjobr's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

Rimfire47

Response by Rimfire47 10:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rimfire47's response to the critical question

...write here…

Rimfire47's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

approaches 1, 2 and 6

Wlg3616

Response by Wlg3616 11:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wlg3616's response to the critical question

...write here…Approach one and five

Wlg3616's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write here…

Tbranch1527

Response by Tbranch1527 11:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Tbranch1527's response to the critical question

Short, timely and easy surveys of Wikipedia "constant readers/users" as to "what would you like to see or change with regards to Wikipedia content?"

Tbranch1527's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

I think Approaches one(1), two(2) and six(6) "nail it!"

DJSupreme23

Response by DJSupreme23 11:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

DJSupreme23's response to the critical question

Adding quality content takes time. Maintaining it and protecting it from vandalism also takes time. Make these time investments count.

Local-langauge and local content will naturally aid WP penetration and local enlightenment efforts.

As for item four, the repeat insinuation gender-based harassment and systemic bias is an agenda-pushing and creates a problem where there hardly is one. If there is a bias, it will natually be challenged under the established tools of editing-bias, non-neutral POV, POV-pushing, and sanction against users that are a detriment to the community.

DJSupreme23's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

+1 , +5 , +6

Juandev

Response by Juandev 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Juandev's response to the critical question

...Increase awarness about WikiProjects and initiatives, who takes care of the quality of conntent. The majority of contributors are from the point of view of the psychological motivations contributors/hard workers/beaurocrats and the system of projects based on quality is not attractive to them. These projects are attractive to carrer or sociable group. Thus certificates and possitions to these people might help. For sociable people its again wikiproject focusing only socialisation. And not just motivation of people helps there. Quality articles are difficult to create for those, who havent graduated university - so every project, should have help pages for every aspect of a featured article.

Juandev's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...1, 2, 5

Liberal33310

Response by Liberal33310 12:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Liberal33310 à la question critique

...répondez ici... 1 2 5

Top 2-3 de Liberal33310 (ou partagez vos idées)

...répondez ici...

Sophie Graubert

Response by Sophie Graubert 12:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sophie Graubert à la question critique

1 2 3

Top 2-3 de Sophie Graubert (ou partagez vos idées)

Il faut insister auprès des contributeurs sur la probité intellectuelle exigée, attendue. Beaucoup de gens n'en sont pas capables, n'en ont aucune idée. Il y a donc une éducation à faire des contributeurs et des nouveaux contributeurs.

Machine translation; please help improve

We must insist that contributors understand that intellectual honesty is required, expected. Many people are not able to do so, have no real idea. Therefore we must educate contributors and new contributors.

Happy Attack Dog

Response by Happy Attack Dog 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog's response to the critical question

...We should make a separate community designed to explain concepts in a simple manner. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happy Attack Dog: You might want to check out simple:, the w:en:Simple English Wikipedia. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

...write her

Sargolin

Response by Sargolin 15:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Sargolin à la question critique

...répondez ici...2-3

Top 2-3 de Sargolin (ou partagez vos idées)

...répondez ici...

Luke081515

Response by Luke081515 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antwort von Luke081515 auf die Hauptfrage

Ich finde es wichtig, das die Autoren mit Recherchemöglichkeiten unterstützt werden. Maschinengenerierung halte ich überhaupt nicht für sinnvoll, dann ist Wikipedia nicht mehr das was es mal war.... es verliert das menschliche....

I think it's important, that authors are supported with possibilities for research. I think machine generation is not useful at all, with it wikipedia is no longer what it used to be.... it looses its humanity...

Top 2-3 (oder teile uns deine eigene Idee mit) von Luke081515

1. Ansatz zwei (2)
2. Ansatz drei (3)

Llywrch

Response by Llywrch 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch's response to the critical question

Approach two is where the most attention needs to be placed. People come to Wikipedia -- & other project pages -- for the content, not for the interface or fancy technical bells & whistles. GLAM & Wikipedia Library are two good examples of enabling volunteers to improve content, but more can be done.

Llywrch's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

Another area worth paying attention to would be approach three. At the risk of contradicting myself, many existing tools & bots are of immense help to volunteers in managing content. However many of the most useful ones were developed by the volunteers themselves, & the Foundation has ignored supporting them in favor of tools the Foundation developed itself; the Foundation often acts as a step-parent does, favoring its own creations & ignoring those of others, no matter which ones prove most useful.

One area that should not make the Foundation's list of strategic priorities is translation tools or machine-generated content (approaches 5 & 6). Translation tools provided by Bing & Google do a satisfactory job as it is for translation, & in my own experience using software tools to create articles end up requiring as much time to adapt to the needs of an article subject as they save. And based on the current track record, the tools volunteers have created are more useful & more reliable than many of those the Foundation has been responsible for creating. Best if the Foundation cease their efforts in this area for a while.

Louis-garden

Response by Louis-garden 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Réponse de Louis-garden à la question critique

1

Top 2-3 de Louis-garden (ou partagez vos idées)

...répondez ici...

Gorvzavodru

Response by Gorvzavodru 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Gorvzavodru — выбранные 2-3 предпочтительных подхода (или собственная идея)

Подход второй Быстрее создавать новые и обновлённые материалы за счёт управляемых сообществом партнёрских программ вокруг содержания, например, в сфере GLAM (сотрудничество с галереями, библиотеками, архивами и музеями).

Подход четвёртый Измерять и уменьшать системные гендерные и иные отклонения, по отношению к материалам проекта в целом.

Machine translation; please help improve.

Second approach to quickly create new and updated materials at the expense of the community managed affiliate programs around the content, for example, in GLAM (cooperation with galleries, libraries, archives and museums).

The approach of the fourth Measure and reduce the systemic gender and other deviations in relation to content of the whole project.

Ing. Garin

Response by Ing. Garin 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ing. Garin's response to the critical question

5

Ing. Garin's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

6-2

Rory O'Kane

Response by Rory O'Kane 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rory O'Kane's top 2-3 (or share your own idea)

3, 6