Wikidata talk:Strategy 2017/Cycle 1

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The big question that we seek to answer is the following:

What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

Potential ways to think about this question:

  • What will guide our work together over the next 15 years?
  • What impact or change do we want to have on the world over the next 15 years?
  • What is the single most important thing we can do together over the next 15 years?
  • What will unite and inspire us as a movement for the next 15 years?
  • What will accelerate our progress over the next 15 years?
  • What will we be known for in the next 15 years?

Examples of summary sentences:

  • “Wikimedia stands for a purity of knowledge and facts, untainted by commercial interests or political agendas, and promotes a knowledge culture of balanced information and cited sources.”
  • “We should explore new kinds of knowledge spaces, embracing innovation in order to survive and thrive in 2030.”

If you have specific ideas for improving the software, please consider submitting them in Phabricator or the product's specific talkpage. To discuss the overall strategy process, see m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017. Other discussions throughout the movement are listed at m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Participate.


For Wikidata strategy comments, reply here, and for all other Wikimedia projects, reply on those project pages. See Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2020 (Q28937817). You are of course also welcome to reply on Meta. Jane023 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata in 2030[edit]

@ Jane023: thanks for creating this - could you clarify how this discussion will be fed to WMF? On "where do you think Wikidata will be in 2030?" here are my thoughts for what they are worth:
  • wikidata in 2030 (4 times its current age!) will have become more central to the world of information than enwiki is today
  • it will have replaced dbpedia as a central linked-data source
  • it will have become the de facto standard source for open curated metadata in a variety of fields: history, art, taxonomy, biochemistry, nuclear physics, etc.
  • possibly with Commons or other open data repositories it will provide links to essentially all open scientific data and other datasets with facts about the world
  • it will have well over 100 million content items, with billions of statements, links, etc.
  • it will have over 100,00: and probably a lot more... Is that the kind of thing they are looking for? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

0 active editors, millions of registered users

Thanks for your enthusiastic response. I also believe Wikidata will be much more central to "our movement" in 2030. I think that as an editor I will only have to add information to Wikidata once and can use it on Commons or Wikipedia without complicated templating (birthplace, geo coords, name, etc). I also believe more of Wikipedia will be imported to Wikidata (templates, subheadings, tables - basically anything that doesn't currently work well in Visual editor as it is today). I think we will also have policy information on Wikidata, as well as copyright information, all of which can be used in articles, files, and talk pages with ease. I believe we will have an easy social interface that enables real-time conversation flow without compromising privacy. I believe that we will have more edits occuring from under-represented regions of earth, and on currently under-represented topics. I believe there will be a Wikidata ontology that can be navigated multiple ways without looking like a spagetti mess of subclasses. I believe everything I do today on desktop will be easier to do and be possible from mobile. Jane023 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith: That's exactly the kind of detail we're looking for, although we also hope everyone will discuss the broader movement. Please do elaborate (and change the heading here), or start a new section, and continue adding more thoughts. This is good. :) (Note: I'll follow up with further links/details about how it all gets fed back to the other communities, and vice-versa, later today). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many different projects will use data from Wikidata. Currently, Quora integrates with Wikidata and in 2030 many other projects will do the same. Those projects become important stake-holders in Wikidata providing quality data.
We will be importing many facts from the web and the scientific literature into Wikidata. In some cases bots will directly enter data in Wikidata in other cases the data goes through the primary sources tool. There will also be tools that make it easy for a human to say that statistics from a given web page should be integrated into Wikidata. If I would want to integrate data from the CIA Worldfactbook I wouldn't have to write my own bot to do the data parsing but have an user-friendly GUI tool that doesn't need programming abilities.
Wikidata will have a lot more content and as a result be used by many more people. I could imagine that in many scientific fields Wikidata will enter the default workflow to get an overview about topics that aren't popular enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. When a scientists wants to look up the information about a random species, Wikidata might be the first stop instead of Google Scholar. ChristianKl (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actionable items in Phabricator?[edit]

I was thinking 2030 is so far away it wouldn't make sense to make phab items, but then I was thinking how long people have wanted structured Commons and then 2030 doesn't look like such a long time after all. Also, because I am active in the Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings I think I might make a subpage for Strategy 2017 there too. Probably everybody with their own specific focus should do that as well, if only to leave a traceable record of their future plans "this year". Thoughts? Jane023 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2030 is indeed so far away it doe not make sense to make any actionable items. We do not even know how people would edit in 2030. 13 years ago, i.e. in 2004, there was a choice between desktop (preferable) and laptop computers, and mobile devices were not even in the picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblante: as for our knowledge, see the links provided on that page. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red link, which indeed says a lot to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's not: meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics. Stryn (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: sorry, I just forgot about the prefix. Such trifles happen from time to time, no matter how experienced you are. It's actually strange, because I didn't forget about the colon (:/ ?) Btw, thx, Stryn. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But going down, meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics/The world in 2030 is empty, which again serves as a kind of indication that we do not know much about 2030,--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary 14th to 28th March[edit]

This is a short summary overview of the Source pages on Meta. Shortcuts used here rely on the established language and project code and languages are grouped alphabetically. For example, the Arabic language Wikipedia is Ar.WP. To provide a rough sense of activities on the projects and platforms the Source pages summarize, this 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.

Main points (preliminary):

  • Technological improvements should be a strong focus, including stronger investment in alternative knowledge formats (like audio and maps), mobile, voice search, augmented reality, AI, and Wikidata (Ar, Bn, De, En, Es, Fr, He, Hi, It, Meta, Pl, Vi, Zh).
  • Several communities emphasize the need for better multilingual software and translation support, potentially up to creating multilingual project wikis or integrating the existing wikis; and a focus on content quality, potentially including paid content creation (De, Es, He, Hi, It, Ja, Meta, Pl, Pt, Sv, Ru, Zh).
  • Several communities emphasized the need to create a more welcoming and friendly environment, including expanded anti-harassment and gender gap measures (Bn, De, Es, Fr, Meta, Pt, Ru, Vi).
  • Communities emphasize the need to cooperate more closely with educational institutions, potentially up to Wikimedia offices in those entities (Ar, Bn, Es, He, Hi, It, Vi).
  • Asian communities and English tend to emphasize offline development and rural area outreach to bring Wikimedia into every village (Bn, En, Hi, Vi).
  • Several communities reiterate well-established positions outlining the need for better technical collaboration by the WMF (De, Ru) and a concern that the movement is losing its educational focus through politicization and WMF-centralism. (De, Fr, He, Meta, Pl)


  • Bengali onwiki discussions (35s) surfaced various views such as focusing on decentralizing the movement with an emphasis on rural areas, (§Bn1.2 , §Bn1.31 ) Wikidata development, (§Bn1.6 , §Bn1.25 ) and creating a welcoming environment (§Bn1.21 ). Partnering with related organizations (§Bn1.7 ), developing spell correction tools (§Bn1.5 ) and creating audiobooks on Wikisource (§Bn1.8 ) should be a focus. Article writing should be easier and emphasize both content quality and quantity. Frequent global contests would be helpful, including give rewards for contribution (such as mobile data), engage students and mentor newcomers (§Bn1.20 , §Bn1.33 ). Sister projects should be promoted (§Bn1.26 ) and all projects integrate Wikidata with all for automatic updating §Bn1.25 ). Community members at Bengali community meetups (6s) suggested promoting Wikimedia projects via Wikipedia Library buses (§Bn2.1 ) and calendars (§Bn2.5 , §Bn2.4 ). The gender and content gaps (§Bn2.5 , §Bn2.4 ) should be addressed.
  • The (mainly) Taiwanese Chinese Wikipedia Community on Facebook said that they would like to increase the quality of the existing articles on Wikipedia. The former chair of the defunct WMHK noted in a meeting that the lack of resources is always a problem in the community. The community wants the Foundation to support more, financially and technically, so that they can develop in a better way.
  • Wikipedians on English Wikipedia (13s) said that we should focus on offline accessibility (§En1 ), quality of information (§En11 ) and features like graphs and maps (§En4 ). We should work together with external partners and more internal collaboration like Community Tech Team (§En5 ). The problems of undisclosed paid editing (§En3 ) and Wikidata's limited usability (§En8 ) should also be addressed and the potentials of artificial intelligence to help us explored (§En13 ).
  • Contributors on French Wikipedia (66s) discussed that we should focus on smaller wikis, (§Fr1 ) build a global community, (§Fr2 ) promote local-language projects, (§Fr4 ) modernize Wikimedia platforms (§Fr5 ) (such as augmented reality and voice search (§Fr57 ) and creating more strict anti-harassment policy (§Fr7 ). We should focus on quality, (§Fr39 ) creating multilingual wikis for every project, (§Fr11 ) creating a welcoming environment for new users (§Fr6 ) and encouraging cross-cultural exchanges. (§Fr25 ) We should also think about neutrality of the project, (§Fr15 ) internationalization and providing knowledge in various formats (§Fr13 ). We should encourage the use of media/social media for promotion (§Fr41 ).
  • The German Wikipedia discussions (37s) discussed the idea of democratically electing expert boards among wikipedia users to improve quality (§De1.1 to 7) A welcoming social environment (§De1.8 ) and keeping all the articles up to date (§De1.15 ) has been deemed important; while Wikidata can be helpful (§De1.18 ) but someone has to update Wikidata as well. (§De1.19 ) We should focus on quality rather than quantity. (§De1.21 ) Wikipedia should be a democracy and all the supervisory positions should be appointed by community; possibly downsizing the WMF with a headquarter outside US and for fundraising by organizations. (§De1.13 ) We should have an internal quality management, restructure policy and guideline pages, (§De1.30 ) and rethink the value of primary sources (§De1.25 ). A meeting in Austria (31s) supported a welcoming environment, (§De2.1 ) finding new knowledge (visualization) formats, (§De2.26 ) involving more diverse voices and sources of knowledge, and keeping content up to date. (§De2.21 )
  • Hebrew Wikipedians (17s) discussed that we should focus on facts, being politically neutral (§He2 ) and reaching more audiences. (§He1 ) We should rethink Wikimedia's design, (§He12 ) adapt new technologies, (§He6 ) collaborate with Academia and engage students, (§He17 ) focus on quality (§He10 ) and integration of Wikimedia projects. (§He8 ) We should also think about the problem of paid editing. (§He13 )
  • The Hindi Wikimedians Whatsapp Group (25s) discussed that we should decentralize the movement's formal organizations (§Hi1.2 ) and focus on reaching every village. (§Hi1.6 ) Portable devices should be our priority (§Hi1.18 ) and Wikipedia should be pre-installed on all devices. (§Hi1.18 ) We should also engage students and teachers by collaborating with educational institutions. (§Hi1.7 ) We should focus on growing both quantitatively (§Hi1.20 ) and qualitatively, (§Hi1.14 ) potentially making relevant content in other languages visible on any given wiki. (§Hi1.24 ) We should create an open and welcoming environment. (§Hi1.25 ) The Hindi Wikimedians Google Hangout discussion (12s) also surfaced the views that Wikipedia should be more easily accessible from mobile devices. (§Hi2.3 ) We should collaborate with organizations (§Hi2.6 ) and local governments (§Hi2.6 ) to take Wikipedia to the villages. (§Hi2.5 ) We should promote Wikipedia on social media (§Hi2.7 ) and also work together with educational institutions with the help of more paid staff. (§Hi2.10 ) We should create tutorials, ebooks and other material in regional languages. (§Hi2.8 )
  • Italian Wikipedians (14s) discussed that there should be a uniformity in terms of templates, (§It1.11 ) guidelines and Manual of Style (§It1.8 ) as well as increased communication among various languages and projects. (§It1.1 ) We should focus on educating and bringing more contributors. (§It1.5 ) We should find various ways to engage children (§It1.14 ) and students such as collaborating with youth organizations. (§It1.13 ) Italian Wikiquote (5s) users said that Wikiquote guidelines should be improved to make it easier for newbies. (§It2.2 ) There should be a collaborative library to improve quotations. (§It2.4 ) Wikiquote should have a presence on social media. (§It2.5 ) Italian Wikisource (13s) contributors suggested that Wikimedia projects should be more interconnected (§It3.1 ) and Wikisource should be integrated with other projects. (§It3.6 ) We should improve the technical aspects of Wikisource so that one can easily contribute and view texts, even on mobile devices. (§It3.8 ) Some users stressed including other open-access works (§It3.3 ) while others said that we should focus on scanned works. (§It3.15 ) Italian Wikiversity (6s) suggested that the movement should focus more on sister projects of Wikipedia. (§It4.1 ) We should also focus on schools and children by collaborating with projects such as Vikidia. (§It4.5 )
  • A Japanese Wikidata interview (1 user, 6s) on Twitter indicates that the seasoned Wikidata user felt that the project’s mission is unclear and it is complicated to explain. (§Ja1.1 (to 6)) A group on Slack (3s) agreed that WP has poor quality content regarding certain disciplines such as Computer sciences. (§Ja2.2 ) Facebook Messenger Interview (9s) surfaced the views that we should focus on comprehensiveness and decentralization of the projects, (§Ja3.1 ) and clarification of licenses. (§Ja3.6 ) We should also focus on data structure, (§Ja3.4 ) data relationship, (§Ja3.3 ) data input, (§Ja3.8 ) data output on Wikidata. (§Ja3.9 ) Onwiki, freeing more content (§Ja4.2 ) and recruiting more quality contributors have been noted. (§Ja4.3 )
  • Meta (21s) discussions emphasized the quality of content and the need to contest fake news (§Meta4 ), fighting paid editing (§Meta18 ) and undisclosed advocacy. (§Meta7 ) While one user advocated promotion of free knowledge efforts of WMF, (§Meta3 ) another user said that we should look for alternatives for WMF developed softwares. (§Meta2 ) We should focus on improving collaborations between distributed communities, formal affiliates (§Meta20 ) and potential partner organizations. (§Meta21 ) Knowledge should be promoted globally by improving offline access and by making our content easily understandable. We should focus on improving technical aspects of Wikimedia (§Meta12 ) and also the ability to handle rich content such as maps and graphic tools. (§Meta19 ) We should focus on gender/content gap (§Meta6 ) and improve inter-connectivity in our projects around Wikidata. (§Meta14 ) We should advocate for freedom of panorama in the US (§Meta13 ) and respect each other despite our differences.(§Meta5 )
  • On the Polish Wikipedia (18s), users said that contributing to Wikipedia should be easier, (§Pl1.5 ) and the software should better support multilingual efforts. (§Pl1.1 ) Certain users suggested creation of a unified Wikipedia, such as Wikimedia Commons and Metawiki, with tools to translate same article into various languages. (§Pl1.8 ) Paid editors can also be hired to keep the content up to date by getting access to professional databases. (§Pl1.7 ) It was discussed that WMF/Movement should be politically neutral (§Pl1.2 ) and also that WMF Board of Trustees should represent the community better. (§Pl1.3 ) WMF should be only a support organization and not the organization leading the movement. (§Pl1.14 ) We should focus on sister projects of Wikipedia (§Pl1.15 ) and editorial autonomy of Wikipedia in various languages. (§Pl1.18 ) A tool to convert mp3/mpeg while uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. (§Pl1.17 ) The Pl.WP Facebook group (3s) highlights the need for technological improvement (§Pl2.1 ) and discussed political bias.(§Pl2.2 )
  • Portuguese Wikipedians (8s) discussed about having a welcoming environment with proper mechanisms for dealing with harassment, disputes and moderation of discussions. We should lay more stress on filling content gap with local content and translation should not be a priority.
  • An overview of the Russian language (7s) village pumps discuss the importance of multilingualism (§Ru1.3 ) and geographic user base diversity, (§Ru1.1 ) easier online participation, and the need for improved WMF engagement on technical changes. (§Ru1.5 ) The Ru.WP RfC (6s) emphasizes a focus on WP's the importance of the grassroots model of development, (§Ru2.3 ) problems of new users trying to join the community, (§Ru2.4 ) and the need for more multilingualism.(§Ru2.6 )
  • On the Spanish Wikipedia's (11s) strategy page, the idea of movement-wide notability criteria has been raised (§Es1.1 ) alongside the need for better translation and language support, (§Es1.6 ) accessibility of the content, (§Es1.4 ) preserving the movement's independence, (§Es1.6 ) and WP is a teaching tool. (§Es1.7 ) We should focus on newcomers, (§Es1.8 ) user retention, (§Es1.10 ) modernizing Wikipedia interface (§Es1.9 ) and analyzing its current structure (§Es1.11 ). The Spanish Telegram group (1s) supports validation of content by external experts. (§Es2.1 )
  • The Swedish Wikipedia's (6s) village pump discussion compared Sv.WP with the country's national encyclopedia (§Sv6 ) while noting the need for improved reliability (§Sv3 ) and interwiki cooperation.(§Sv5 )
  • During the Vietnamese Wikipedia's (24s) conversation, the focus has been content quality (§Vi2 ) and the technical challenges like anti-vandalism measures (§Vi5 ) and advertising,(§Vi6 ) and opportunities, like educational outreach,(§Vi9 ) that accompany working towards it. We should focus on training of newbies,(§Vi8 ) offline accessibility,(§Vi6 ) keeping information updated(§Vi9 ) and acknowledging contributors.(§Vi7 )

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's not a short summary, but quite a long summary. Thanks for providing all those links! I have been thinking about various aspects of my own work on Wikidata which combines a lot of work on Commons and I get so bogged down thinking about the daily hassles of contributing that it is harder to see the bigger picture, but I honestly believe that the core issue moving forward for Wikidata is the multi-lingual aspect and so I will go through these links to see if they help me form my own analysis of what I think is needed. Jane023 (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary 29th March to 7th April[edit]

  • Vandalism and competition from Wikipedia in Arabic dialects is seen as a problem by some editors of Ar.WP (§Ar4 ) (§Ar10 ). Users have supported creation of multilingual projects such as Wikipedia (§Ar5 ) and Wiktionary (§Ar6 ), hiring of paid staff to verify content (§Ar7 ) and to form an editorial board (§Ar13 ). We should focus on neutrality (§Ar14 ), integrating with social media (§Ar17 ), content gap (§Ar18 ) and audio content (§Ar19 ).
  • The English Wikipedia discussion recommended focus on documentation (§En20 ), educational collaborations (§En21 ), fighting harassment (§En19 ) and increasing patience of the editors (§En26 ). We should improve our software (§En22 ) and be able to handle rich content (§En16 ) as well.
  • French supported focus on anti-vandalism mechanisms (§Fr1.67 ), training of Wikipedia spokespersons (§Fr1.68 ), partnerships (§Fr1.69 ), intensive outreach (§Fr1.71 ), conflict resolution (§Fr1.74 ), translations (§Fr1.75 ) and neutrality. (§Fr1.76 ) While on the French Wiktionary (16s) discussions stress was laid on making the movement more transparent (§Fr2.2 ) and on making the contributors feel valuable. (§Fr2.1 ) We should focus on mobile editing (§Fr2.4 ), emerging communities (§Fr2.3 ), multilingualism (§Fr2.5 ), new forms of knowledge (oral and sign language) (§Fr2.6 ), decentralization of the projects (§Fr2.8 ), inter-connectivity within projects (§Fr2.9 ) and diversity of readers. (§Fr2.10 ) We should also focus on bringing more editors to fill content gap (§Fr2.13 ), fostering partnerships with organizations (§Fr2.14 ), creating contribution guides <tvar|tl19>(§Fr2.15 ) and ensuring security of wikimedia projects. (§Fr2.11 )
  • German explored integration of tools with Wikipedia (§De2.38 ), usability of Categories (§De2.42 ), abolishing talk pages (§De2.43 ) and a central page for questions about article. (§De2.47 )
  • While one person on Hebrew Wikipedia thinks we also think about the problem of paid editing, (§He13 ) another says that some work should be assigned to paid editors. (§He21 ) We should collaborate with other organizations (§He20 ), creating a healthy environment (§He22 ), improving mobile version (§He24 ) and becoming a social network (§He25 ). Our work should support differently able people as well. (§He26 ) We should also focus on text-to-speech (§He27 ), scanning technologies (§He28 ), printing Wikipedia by themes (§He31 ), bringing in youth (§He32 ) and fighting vandalism. (§He34 ) It was also discussed that we should lay more stress on neutrality (§He38 ), supervising edits of paid editors (§He40 ) and including more areas of knowledge (§He39 ).
  • Hindi urged the hiring of staff to empower local communities (§Hi1.27 ), educate about various grant programs (§Hi1.29 ) and give training to trainers. (§Hi1.30 ) During phone interviews (5s) participants discussed that we should focus on reaching villages and get people from diverse backgrounds to join the movement.(§Hi3.1 ) We should advocate the use of Wikipedia for education (§Hi3.2 ), creation of educational videos (§Hi3.3 ), tutorials and books (§Hi3.4 ), and usage of offline Wikipedia. (§Hi3.5 )
  • The Polish Wikipedia recommended a focus on newbies (§Pl1.20 ), outreach (§Pl1.21 ), content gap (§Pl1.22 ), emerging communities (§Pl1.23 ), other Wikimedia projects (§Pl1.25 ) and better communication between users and organizations. (§Pl1.27 ) We should focus on Wikipedia rather than Wikidata (§Pl1.28 ) and also we should improve the software to make it more user friendly. (§Pl1.29 ) WMF should remain financially independent (§Pl1.34 ), we should think about the problem of dead links (§Pl1.37 ) and also about the survival of Wikipedia. (§Pl1.49 ) We should encourage cooperation among projects (§Pl1.39 ), more openness in the community (§Pl1.40 ), user retention ( §Pl1.43 ), multilingualism (§Pl1.46 ) and neutrality. (§Pl1.46 )
  • Spanish Wikipedia discussed partnering with local governments and institutions (§Es1.12 ), laying more stress on emerging communities (§Es1.16 ), not becoming endogamic and participating in other international forums as well. (§Es1.17 ) We should offer different versions of articles according to audiences (§Es1.18 ) and also engage experts to fill content gaps. (§Es1.20 ) The telegram group (9s) discussed about validation of articles by experts (§Es2.1 ), lack of flexibility of users and policies (§Es2.2 ). Foundation should better support affiliates (§Es2.4 ) and rethink the "impact" of projects (§Es2.3 ). We should promote diversity and fix the disconnection between the affiliates and the community (§Es2.5 ). Focus on Wikidata (§Es2.6 ), gender gap (§Es2.7 ) and improving edit-a-thons (§Es2.8 ).
  • Vietnamese Wikipedia focussed on promotion of Wikimedia projects. (§Vi15 ) While one person suggested mingling with social networks (§Vi17 ) another opposed the idea. (§Vi18 )

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Strategy_2017/Cycle_1&oldid=535785687"